Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the Order Paper today, it shows with respect to Bill 49 that the French title is incorrect, and I wonder if I might have leave in order to correct that.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader have leave to correct the French title on Bill 49? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that the French title of Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act as it appears on the Order Paper, be altered to read: Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives.

Motion agreed to.

* * *

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair..

* (1510)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Supply--Capital Supply

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of Supply will come to order.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, which have been adopted at this session by all sections of the Committee of Supply sitting separately and by the full committee.

Motion presented.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I just want to indicate we have a number of questions to ministers, and we request the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) and the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) be here at least initially. I notice that a couple of those ministers are there, so we can go straight into questions.

Government Services and Labour and Urban Affairs are here.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): When we left off in the Estimates of Justice this morning, we advised the committee that we wanted to return to some questions under Court Services, but before that I wonder if the minister now can tell the committee the amount of monies, excluding the staffperson, that have been allocated for the Youth Secretariat.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do not have that with me at the moment. We said that yesterday I would endeavour to get that information. I do not have it at the moment, but I will look to provide it to the member.

Mr. Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable members that are trying to carry on their conversations to do so in the hall or in the loge. I am having difficulty here hearing the questions.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that under The Law Fees Act there is a provision for the payment of legal fees. I believe that they refer to filing fees when one is a pauper and that a certificate can be issued under that legislation which will eventually, I understand, lead to the covering of fees when one can be classified with pauper status.

I wonder if the minister is aware of the scheme, who is to provide the certificate and what inquiries and process follow to ensure that the provision is respected?

Mrs. Vodrey: Again, this is quite a detailed question, and it is one which is being asked at a time when it is quite obvious that staff are not here. So I will take the question as notice from the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: I appreciate if the minister could get back to me on that issue, given that the staff is not here. An issue that I think the minister will have some direct knowledge of is regarding access to the Great Library, the library at the Law Courts Building. I have had correspondence with the minister about some difficulties that one individual has had in being asked to not use those resources, I believe on evenings and weekends.

It is my understanding that this Great Library is funded mostly, if not by now entirely, by taxpayer monies. It has recently come to my attention that one other individual has been evicted from the Great Library and told not to use it on weekends and evenings. I ask the minister how she can support such a policy, given that surely individual citizens should have access to the law. Indeed, it is a decision of this minister to fund such organizations as CLEA to provide community legal education and how access to that facility cannot be made available to the general public and individuals who have a particular interest, either in their own case or in the general law of the land.

Mrs. Vodrey: Some of the information again I will have to take as notice since I do recall an issue regarding the funding but the details of which I hesitate to put on the record without the most up-to-date information. I am also aware that there has been a difficulty of one individual who is very well known to the member across the way, also well known to the Department of Justice. The issues are very well known about this individual.

Of course, there is access to the Great Library. There is access to that library during normal business hours, and there is an opportunity for people to use it. I am aware that for the individual that the member has spoken about, I understand, has the opportunity to do that as do other members of the public. However, in terms of the hours, I will have to take that as notice and get back to the member.

* (1520)

Mr. Mackintosh: I raise this question not with regard to the individual as an issue here. There is more than one individual that is being affected by this policy. I am just referencing a letter from the minister of October 5 of '94 which supported the exclusion of individual members of the public from the library on weekends and evenings, and I ask that she reverse that policy. I think that is not how public money should be spent. I do not think it is in the interests of individual citizens of Manitoba to be denied access to a law library no matter where its location.

Mrs. Vodrey: I just would like to clarify in the member's comments that individual citizens are not denied access. The access is within normal business hours. I just do not want it to remain on the record that citizens were denied access. They are not denied access to the library, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, it is my understanding that it is denied access because the library is open and yet denying access to the general public. It is open on certain hours, during which time the general public is being asked to vacate the library. So the minister is not correct, to my understanding.

Mrs. Vodrey: To my knowledge the library is open to the public for certain hours, so that does not deny public access. There are, of course, always issues of security which have to be considered when any of our buildings are open to the general public. So those issues along with all other relevant issues are considered in looking at the access. Obviously, access to the Great Library--the Great Library itself is a wonderful resource. It is a wonderful setting with a fund of information, and certainly there is opportunity to my knowledge for the public to access that but not perhaps in the unlimited hours which the member is requesting and which one individual in specific has made a point of.

Mr. Mackintosh: Earlier today I asked a detailed question about nonmolestation orders and the harassment of women that can occur when an individual keeps trying to get a nonmolestation order against a particular individual in circumstances that are clearly frivolous and vexatious.

I am wondering if the minister now can tell the committee whether there are any plans or if the government will consider any checks and balances to ensure that frivolous and vexatious nonmolestation order applications are prevented.

Mrs. Vodrey: These are very important orders; they are primarily used in the protection of women in particular. It is very important that they are available, that the access is fairly easy to get. Now, obviously, it is very difficult when some areas of the law or some procedures under the law appear to be vexatious, and that is always a difficulty and often a point for the court to consider in looking at any court cases and so on.

The member has raised a point which earlier in the Estimates when we were discussing prosecutions, Prosecutions Division was aware of it. We did not have time to discuss this issue when Courts Division was present, so I will take the question on notice. I will review with the department whether or not this has come to them as a concern and whether or not there are any procedures under the law which do not in fact then cause a prohibition for some people to be able to access these orders and in fact allow them to be freely accessed, and look at whether or not there is anything that can be done with vexatious orders. The difficulty is, how does one determine in the granting of the order whether or not that may be vexatious.

I will have to review this with Courts Division, and I will undertake to do that.

Mr. Mackintosh: I have some questions regarding the Sheriff's Office. I am wondering if the minister has with her a breakdown of the staff years for that operation.

Mrs. Vodrey: I do have some information available to me at this time about the sheriff's operation, so if the member would like to ask his questions, I will try and provide the information that I have available to me and undertake to take the others as notice.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that there are essentially three divisions at the Sheriff's Office: One is the court security or escort service section; one is the executions and bailiff section; and the other is the service section. I understand that there has been privatization effective April 1 of the execution or bailiff function.

Can the minister tell the committee how many staff years are to be or have been affected by privatization in that section?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, this privatization is taking place in the city of Winnipeg only for the reasons that I spoke about yesterday in Question Period, that being the time required to serve these writs. It was very time consuming and often resulted in the province assuming very significant liability and very significant risks. As I said yesterday, these seized goods have to be stored and possibly sold at auction. The kinds of goods are things such as cattle or tanks of oil. There have been really a wide variety of things which have been seized. As a result of this, the dollar amount has indicated that this has really resulted in a loss to the province. So we have looked in the city of Winnipeg, not throughout the rest of the province. The rest of the province will continue to be served by the rural sheriffs. However, in the city of Winnipeg we have determined to move to the privatization. From a staffing perspective, it is four regular staff years which have been eliminated. However, there is no effect on current staff as staff were involved in other duties, and for the one individual, a fourth staff member has been redeployed to duties from within Winnipeg courts.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee the amount of monies that will now be lost from the proceeds of sale of goods that have been seized for sale, because, until privatization at least, the sheriff would receive a percentage of the monies realized?

Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have that figure with me. I can tell the member, however, as I told him yesterday, in the past we have found on an analysis of the fiscal year end results it has indicated that the writ operation for Winnipeg courts alone has resulted in a loss. That loss has been in the range of $188,000, slightly more. We believe that this is a decision which will in the long run be one that I think reduces some of the risk and some of the liability to the province and also will free sheriffs for the other important duties which the member has spoken about.

* (1530)

Mr. Mackintosh: In addition to the loss of the revenues to the Sheriff's Office on the sale of goods seized, there will be a cost to government now, a cost to the Maintenance Enforcement Program, I understand, a cost to other Crown and government operations for executing writs. I would like the minister to say, well, let us get beyond what the loss was. I would like to know what the net difference will be now that the operation is privatized.

Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, I do not have that figure. What I have put on the record is a figure which deals with the loss to government if things remained as they were. We are aware that the members opposite do not believe and philosophically are just opposed to any kind of privatization. I understand that is the basis for the questioning from the member opposite. This, we believe, is something which the service should be able to carry out. As I said, this is only in the city of Winnipeg. Sheriff's officers will continue across the province to execute these writs in other areas, but this seems to be a philosophical matter between the members in the party opposite and our government.

Mr. Mackintosh: My line of questioning has been entirely cost-benefit and I am going to pursue that. I want the minister to tell this committee what the cost-benefit is of privatizing the writ section. How can it be beneficial when the sheriff is going to lose the percentage of monies received for goods seized, that there is going to be now a cost to the Maintenance Enforcement Program, and I do not know where that money is going to come from now to have private bailiffs go and do the writ work and at the same time, how can she use last year's figures when the sheriff's fees increased astronomically this year? Can she not give us the cost-benefit analysis?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member says he is going to pursue it. We can talk about this all afternoon--we do not have any problem--it does not change the facts that are before us.

Now the member asks why do I use '94-95? Well, because we are still in '96. That is why we do not have those figures. So that is one question which I think he should understand the basis for my answers. We are talking about writs of execution and eviction orders and other orders which require that goods be seized or be sold. This is just a specific range of writs that are being dealt with under this privatization. So I do not have further figures. He can continue to ask the question all afternoon. He is asking for updated figures from a year that is not yet complete.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, this is a government that professes some great understanding of business principles, and I am sure the minister--maybe I should not give her the benefit of the doubt--has done some projection as to what the difference in revenues over expenditures will be, given the increase in fees to the Sheriff's Office. Will she not admit that such a projection was done, or is she telling this committee that there was no projection done?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again, we had quite a number of hours to cover the Department of Justice, quite a number of hours. I believe the number of hours was 20, or perhaps a little more, and there was quite a lot of opportunity to ask this question when staff would be here, when figures were available. The member has chosen instead to not use the hours of Estimates in that way but to try and use them now.

I have told him, and it was clear when he said today that he wanted to discuss courts without the benefit of staff, certain information would not be available, that I simply do not have it all. Had he given me some indication of this question and this information that he wanted, then perhaps I could have had that available for him, but I do not have staff here and am not able to provide him with the answer. So he can carry on with the question and we can carry on with my answers as they are, or we can move along to do other questions in the interests of the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Mackintosh: I think it is in the interests of the people of Manitoba that this minister provide, rally her best argument as to why she is privatizing this function at the Sheriff's Office, and I would like to know. She does not have to have the exact figures. She can round them out. That will not be offensive to people on this side. Just tell us what projections there were for the revenues and expenditures this year at the Sheriff's Office with the new fees. What difference is going to be the loss now of revenues to the Sheriff's Office from sale? What is going to be the additional cost of Maintenance Enforcement? Perhaps just narrow it to one question, what will be the cost of Maintenance Enforcement this year of that office now having to contract with a private bailiff for execution purposes?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again we are talking about the writ of executive and eviction orders, which are required to seize property or to allow that property to be sold, and it is one part of the work of sheriffs. I do not have before me what cost projections there might be if in fact it should affect any other parts of the Department of Justice, nor do I have with me the information regarding the cost-benefit analysis because I had no indication that member wanted to deal with that today.

He says, rally your best argument. Well, the plain argument is the facts, and the facts are that in the execution of these orders where goods are seized and then sold in some cases, that the actual execution of the order was very, very time consuming. Again, the Province of Manitoba assumed significant risks and liability since those seized goods had to be seized and stored and then possibly sold at auction, and the government becomes responsible for the funds held in trust, for the proper distribution of these funds and also for the safe storage of goods, and again they vary. I have mentioned cattle; I have mentioned tanks of oil; I could add to that vehicles. So there are a number of issues which are, in fact, No. 1, extremely time consuming and add to the risks and liability of this province. I have also told him that on an analysis of our fiscal year end results, the writ operation for Winnipeg courts resulted in a loss of $188,000 and slightly more than that.

So the member continues to ask for a cost-benefit analysis and so on; well, I submit to him that the analysis of loss is a pretty significant one. But we have heard from members opposite, well, that really does not matter, that really should not matter, that we should not worry about that, that we should just sort of carry on and not only not worry about the loss but continue to spend more money in every area. So, Mr. Chair, the argument is the facts. The facts are the same. They are the ones I presented to the member opposite in my past few answers.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the minister does not get it. She talks about loss last year. We are concerned about loss this year because there are going to be additional costs borne by the government itself and by taxpayers by having now to contract with private bailiffs. I just want to know what those costs were going to be. I would like to know the difference. That is all I ask for. Does she not have some general figures? She is aware that we are going to deal with Court Services this afternoon.

Mrs. Vodrey: No, Mr. Chair.

* (1540)

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, getting back then to the staff years and leaving the bailiff or the writ division of the Sheriff's Office, can the minister tell us what the current staff year allocation is for the service section of the Sheriff's Office?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I do not have the information broken down in that order. I have the information that the projected use to the end of '95-96 is for 39 full-time and part-time staff years, 22 full time, 17 part time, but I do not have them broken down according to their division.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the minister could provide a breakdown, if not today, if she would undertake to do so as quickly as possible, of the staff years in the service section for, say over the last five years.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I will undertake to provide that information.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that in the escort or court security section of the Sheriff's Office there are significant morale problems and safety security concerns by the officers there. Some of this information came to light following two recent escapes from the custody of the sheriff's officers. I am wondering if the minister has directed her attention to these concerns and whether she has informed herself of the status of the security concerns and has she taken action to deal with them.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask those members who want to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge or out in the hall? It is getting a little bit noisier by the minute. [interjection] Not over the noise you cannot.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, first of all, I can say that in the last 12 months the sheriff's operation has hired a preventative security and staff training officer to co-ordinate the management of security intelligence information so that security can be delivered by the level of risk and need presented by the offenders escorted. The preventative security officer is responsible for liaison with police intelligence and correctional intelligence authority, ensuring that escorting officers are briefed with respect to the risk being presented by the offenders under escort, and that was a very significant development, to actually name an individual who would be responsible for that particular intelligence and be able to provide it then to sheriff's officers.

On the status of reports made, on September 1, '94 with respect to the events of 1994, there were nine recommendations in that report. I can tell the member that eight of those recommendations have been acted upon. The only issue related that has not been acted upon, or the outstanding issue, is the provision of visible clothing for federal inmates under escort to the courthouse. At the time, federal corrections officials saw no need to change their policy with respect to inmate clothing, but in the light of the most recent incident, again the recommendation has been resurfaced, it has been presented again to the deputy commissioner of the prairie region for the Correctional Service of Canada, and it is anticipated that this recommendation will be reviewed.

This is a very serious one, because we believe that is actually fairly simple to deal with and would in fact make a great deal of difference should an event such as an escape ever occur again. We understand that the Correctional Service of Canada holds a view that this is perhaps unfair to inmates that they should have anything that marks them as inmates when they leave the institution, but in our view the public safety is the most important issue, so we will be continuing to press this issue with the federal institution and with the deputy commissioner for the prairie region.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

For the 1996 recommendations there were 10 recommendations made. Of those, one has been fully implemented, one is partially implemented, and that is sharing of information on escorts for inmates from Stony Mountain, and there have been eight action plans developed for implementation of the other recommendations. I always hate to say too much on the record in terms of our security issues, so I think it is best to leave it at that but to say that it is anticipated that the majority of all recommendations--the note that I have is one developed actually towards the end of January, and the information that I have is that almost all of the recommendations are expected to be in place by the beginning of April. There are only two which may take somewhat longer than that, involving a video connection with Stony Mountain and one other, so we are well on the way in terms of all of those. We have taken them seriously and are working with the sheriffs, but obviously part of our work has to be with federal corrections, and some of it also has to be with the judiciary involving the video connection, so we will be working however to deal with all of those recommendations as quickly as possible.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just dealing briefly with maintenance enforcement, can the minister say whether any individuals have lost their licences under the new legislation for nonpayment of maintenance, and if so, what is the minister's view of the response, the significance of that to the defaulters?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, my information says that there have been 196 driver's licences suspension notices and of that it has resulted in 17 suspensions. The member would understand that the issuing of the notice would be one step, and that then when an individual comes forward to begin making maintenance payments to work out a payment schedule, there may not be a need to follow up with suspension. Of those 17 suspensions, again one of those suspensions was lifted because the payor paid and has made arrangements for future payments, and I understand also 285 refuse-to-renew notices have been issued, so I think in the time, which has been not quite a year since the maintenance enforcement legislation was passed, this is quite significant in that I know the maintenance enforcement officers were working very hard when the bill was proclaimed to be ready to immediately get started and deal with this particular provision which Manitoba put into its new legislation.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have information about how many individuals that were given notice then entered into payment arrangements?

Mrs. Vodrey: I have not been given that information at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: If I was to suggest to the minister that of--individuals who have had their licences revoked or suspended, they continue to drive a vehicle, does the minister have any concern about that and does she have any plans to deal with that challenge?

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly we would be very concerned about individuals who were driving while suspended and would certainly be looking at taking all action possible against individuals who are driving while suspended. The possession of a driver's licence is an important privilege that individuals have, and it is one which is within the authority of the Province of Manitoba to grant and within the authority of our province then to suspend. If the member has any information about individuals that he believes are driving suspended, then I would hope that he would pass it on, No. 1, for the benefit of all Manitobans and most certainly so that we could deal with that individual.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister considered whether any affirmative action is called for to follow-up on the licences suspended or to encourage others to come forward with any information if people are driving with suspended licences?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand that since proclamation, this number is within approximately five months, though I am not--and these numbers are as of May 31, '96, so we are looking at approximately the first five months.

* (1550)

We will be reviewing it. We will be wanting to look at its effectiveness. Obviously, as in all cases, we will be looking at attempting to be proactive if we find that this provision is in any way being flouted by Manitobans who then continue to drive while suspended, but I think that it is very important to know that this legislation was considered extremely tough on those people who failed to pay their maintenance payments. We maintain, as well--we are very pleased, actually, to see that other jurisdictions have in fact followed suit, particularly the federal government who is looking at withdrawing within their jurisdiction things such as passports. Manitoba was the first province in this country who gave authority to garnish pension benefit credits, and we see now that the federal government has included that in their legislation, so our government has been in fact very forward looking. We have put teeth into maintenance enforcement.

Obviously, we continue to want to improve our enforcement measures but, as I said, in terms of our maintenance enforcement legislation, part of it was on the enforcement side, part of it was on the resource side in terms of having more money to be able to attach and to have people no longer be able to avoid paying by transferring their funds into a joint account or using their money to feather their nests in terms of their own pension benefits.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee how many individuals have now been reported to the credit bureau?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, I do not have the credit bureau reporting on the list of information that I was given. I had provided information to the member earlier on the number of reports to the credit bureau, and I also believe I gave him at that time a forecast of what was expected to be the continuing number. I believe that it is significant, but I have not been provided with the information regarding reports to the credit bureau right now.

Mr. Mackintosh: And, of course, we heard directly from the credit bureau what the real story was on those numbers, and I hope the minister has adjusted the plans accordingly.

I wonder if the minister can tell the committee if there has been any change in staff years for the Maintenance Enforcement office for this fiscal year over last.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, all the questions I tried to anticipate, I was not able to anticipate all the ones that the member brings forward. I have some information that, as a comparison since 1988, since 1988 the program has grown from a number of staff which at that time was 18 to a staff number of 27, an increase of 50 percent. I do not have specifically the number of additional staff people that have joined Maintenance Enforcement for this year, but I am happy to find that out for the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: I thank the minister, if she could get back to me on the change year over year. Would the minister tell the committee what she sees as the benefit of the SOA for the Public Trustee's office?

Mrs. Vodrey: What we are looking for with the Public Trustee moving to a special operating agency is to enhance the service level. There has not been a requirement that the Public Trustee maximize revenues. The functional relationship of the Public Trustee to government does not change as a special operating agency, and the Public Trustee now has direct responsibility as a special operating agency for results and for management flexibility. The Public Trustee now has as a special operating agency greater ability to evaluate service delivery standards and to ensure that those standards are met.

They are able to utilize revenues to invest in information technologies to achieve efficiencies and effectiveness. They are able to hire term staff as appropriate. I can tell the member that we believe the Public Trustee will continue to provide services to Manitobans where no other alternative exists for the management and administration of personal and financial affairs of mentally incompetent people, the administration of deceased estates and the administration of trust funds for minors, so we believe that there will be a benefit to the people of Manitoba with an enhanced service level.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I just had one very short question to the Minister of Education. I have a constituent who has a special needs II child who lives out in Meadows West. They were wanting their child to be able to go to Meadows West School, which is in their catchment area. The simple question that I was going to ask is, what obligation do Winnipeg schools or Winnipeg divisions or any school division have to ensure that there is public education being provided to special needs students? Are special needs students entitled to go to their catchment area school?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): School boards are obligated to provide an education for all children within their school division, and they are obliged with a special needs child, such as the one you are describing, to have education available for that child within the division boundaries. That opportunity for education may not necessarily be in the neighbourhood catchment school, but it would be somewhere in the school division. Their obligation then is to ensure that programming exists and that if the programming is not in the neighbourhood school that it be within the division in some other area of the division.

Boards will sometimes centre special needs students in clusters so that they can make better use of specialists or special education teachers and feel that they can improve the quality in a centralized way, but I should indicate that that of course could be changing with our schools of choice which is before the House right now. That legislation was introduced a few weeks ago and will come into effect after passage for September 1997, which would indicate that parents can select any public school that they wish their child to attend and that child would then be able to go to that school with three caveats.

The three caveats would be: (1) that there be room in the receiving school, that the school division would not have to find additional space to accommodate additional students, (2) that the school not have to change any program requirements to accommodate a school of choice student; and, (3) that if the transportation is over and above or beyond what the student might normally qualify for, that the parents pick up the extra-distance cost themselves.

I do not know if the latter situation would apply to the member's constituents' particular situation but I do know that they should, if they are having concerns, consult with their board members to see if there is accommodation for their special needs child in the neighbourhood school, and, if not, what transportation, et cetera, might be available to take them to the designated school which there should be available for them within the boundaries of their local school division.

* (1600)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I have a few questions to ask the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Vodrey). Given the nature of the Expected Results in the Manitoba Advisory Council, I would expect that the department does a fair amount of research, and I am wondering if the minister could tell the committee how much money the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council spends on research.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): I do not have that information with me. We did not get to questioning on the Status of Women today. We got to opening statements, so I do not have that information here. I can undertake to try and provide it to the member.

Ms. McGifford: My other questions are also related to research, so perhaps the minister will not be in a position to answer them today; but, if she cannot, I would appreciate her getting back to me on them.

I am wondering if the research undertaken by the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council, if the research is policy-oriented in the sense that, does it lead to the formation of policies?

Mrs. Vodrey: I know that the advisory council has worked in co-operation with the University of Manitoba in a number of other areas in an attempt to highlight certain issues in relation to women.

This morning, in my opening statements, as the member can see according to Hansard, the breadth of all of the work of the advisory council was covered. We try very hard to keep a very good liaison with the advisory council and also undertake to look at whatever they can bring forward as important information to us. In terms of whether I am able to say it is related to a specific policy decision, I am not able to say that at the moment.

Ms. McGifford: Given the changing needs of women in our quickly changing society, I am wondering if the council reviews its research strategy from year to year in order that the research strategy will reflect the pressing and changing needs of women, and, well, that is my question. I wonder if the minister could comment, please?

Mrs. Vodrey: It would be my impression that they do, because each year they set goals, and each year the members of the committee determine what the areas of priority will be and the areas that will be looked at. Certainly, again, in my opening statements, I addressed a number of the very, very current issues that relate to women that I dealt with in terms of the advisory council. It virtually was a report by the advisory council as they looked at some of the very important and pressing issues relating to women in the areas of health and issues that they had really been participating in, relating to midwifery; the effect of smoking on women, particularly young women, issues relating to breast cancer that we looked at, the educational issues relating to women and in particular how to look at any gender influence which might be in any of the education or how we treat young women.

Also, they have been very interested, I know, in making sure that they have kept in touch with the educational issues relating to women, and then we also looked at the--I also spoke about their involvement in the areas of violence against women and some of the particular work that they have done. I have to say, I am really genuinely impressed with the work of the advisory council, and as I recounted this morning, the number of meetings, the number of community contacts.

This is our advisory council who has contact with the community, who is able to bring information forward. I have found that they have been an incredibly hardworking council and so I would believe that every year they are very current in the issues that they deal with. I have certainly felt that they were very up to date on looking at how the social policy reform affects women particularly.

I just would like to raise this in our discussion of the great concern that was developing and came directly to the ministers of the Status of Women table and that is the effect of the CPP reforms. I know the advisory council had been interested in the whole impact, including the CPP reforms, and also the directorate had been, ministers for the Status of Women recognize that there now has been some further information brought forward on what may be a disproportionate effect, and so we want to make sure that that is able to be at least considered.

I want to thank our own Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) for his support and co-operation, as I have been providing him with information as it comes to me so that he is able to go to meetings with his colleagues with information that reflects the position of the women of Manitoba on this particular issue.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I am very glad to hear that the council reviews its strategy and changes with the changing times. If there is any written material available on their changes in strategy and reasons for doing so, I would be very interested in seeing those.

I am also interested in whether or not the council does its own research or if there is any contracting out, but maybe the minister could get back to me with that when she provides the other information. I understand that on International Women's Day a study was announced regarding benefits and trends for girls taking phys ed. I wonder if the minister is aware of that study and if she would like to comment on it.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again from memory, some of the information that was released was collected from a number of different sources, from Statistics Canada, from a number of sports groups who collect statistics, but some of the impacts that we found that were released on that day found that young women who are involved in physical activity are less likely to take up smoking and that, at the moment, there seems to be an increase of smoking more in the area of young teenage women than many other Canadian people and also that there is a lessening of involvement with drugs and alcohol and also a lessening in the area of teenage pregnancy. I have those statistics.

The statistics were released on International Women's Day. I released them again at the meeting of ministers responsible for the Status of Women because I felt that when we are looking at the educational issues for women, this is one area which was really important. So what we released on that day was our participation with phys ed instructors across this province for a workshop to make sure that there was at least some training in trying to involve young women in physical activitiy. There has been a concerted effort. That concerted effort, I gather, was recognized at a national level because our project, Do It ForYou, has received some national recognition. This is the first of projects that are the Do It For You projects, and this first one dealt with the health of young women and being involved with physical activity.

* (1610)

So the statistics are certainly available that were used in the development of this program, and if the member does not have them I will be glad to provide them.

Ms. McGifford: I would be very glad to receive them. I am glad to hear the minister speak so eloquently on the benefits of girls taking phys ed and perhaps she could made that information available to the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) being, as I understand, physical education programs in schools are being cut.

The last question I wanted to ask about the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council was, does the council evaluate its work, and part of that question in does it evaluate it, I want to know is there any specific way in which the council is accountable to the wider community?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to again clarify with the Minister of Education that phys ed and health are still a priority within our educational system, and it was teachers within the phys ed system who came and participated in this one-day seminar to get young women involved in physical activity, so I think that it is very important to note that our commitment is not only through the Status of Women, but also through general policies of this government.

In terms of the accountability of the advisory council, the advisory council is obviously, as the member knows, at arm's length to government. It does have its own ability to determine how it will go about its work; it makes contact with the community, it participates in community events; and its members are involved in the whole life of issues relating to women. It is one way in which they are accountable to the community.

This morning in my opening statement I gave quite a few examples of number of meetings, committees served on, support given by the advisory council to the community. Some of that support is in-kind support, some of the support is making available meeting space, providing library services. So part of it is work which is done within the advisory council's office, and part of it is work that the advisory council members do within the community. I believe they have had a very high profile in the community and participated very fully in issues of importance to women in Manitoba.

Ms. McGifford: Actually, I do have one last question about the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council. I am wondering if the meetings of the council are open to the public.

Mrs. Vodrey: Not to my knowledge. Their meetings, I understand, are held with the committee in which they set an agenda, but I understand that they do hold some meetings with the public and have held those meetings in various places across the province where they have travelled and they have tried to make sure that people know they are there. Where people have not come forward, they have reached out and invited presentations in the communities that they have visited. Certainly in Winnipeg, in terms of informing themselves on issues, they have made sure they have had people in to inform them, that they can ask questions freely.

So though they participate publicly, members participate publicly in a wide number of committees--I understand too that they have been holding public information sessions approximately once a month. I believe that began around the time of International Women's Day. These are open to the public and they try and choose a topical area or an issue which then can be dealt with. I understand the attendance has been very good.

I am sorry, it did not begin on International Women's Day. It began in celebration of the recognition of Nellie McClung. That was very, very well attended. I understand these meetings by the public are well attended. I understand that they developed because the advisory council found that there was an interest within the community. Now these have been held basically within Winnipeg, the once-a-month meetings, but there have been meetings held by the advisory council in other places outside of the city of Winnipeg to which the public has been invited to make presentations.

Ms. McGifford: I have one question on the Manitoba Women's Directorate. I understand that one of the chief activities of the directorate is to analyze legislation, policies, programs and make recommendations to government in order to ensure that women's concerns are needed. I am wondering what advice or what recommendations were forwarded to government on cuts to Family Dispute, cuts to social assistance, changes in Pharmacare, the lack of women reps on regional health boards and the privatization of home care.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the directorate does hold the function of trying to be very current about policy direction of departments across government and making sure that we do have information. I think they actually work very hard in this area. However, the member holds an opinion about some of the very difficult fiscal decisions that this government has had to make, and we are not the only government that has had to make them. I look at my colleagues, ministers for the Status of Women across this country who represent every single political party, and I look at the same issues that they are facing, the same difficult decisions and the same way that we are all trying to deal with the fiscal problems. It is absolutely clear that if we do not deal with these fiscal problems the position of women and children will be far worse.

A government that fails to deal with these issues, that fails to deal with the debt, that fails to bring spending under control, will put the women and children of the province in a much more difficult position and will pass along that debt to their children. It is not the intention of this government to act in that way. We have heard from members across the way that they virtually have objected to everything. Their decision and their solution is simply to spend more, to make no difficult decisions. But the problem then is the debt continues to rise and then if that money is available, more and more of it continues to be spent on interest on the debt; less and less of it is available for health for women and children, for education for women and children and for the important needs of all the citizens of Manitoba.

So this government has made difficult decisions. Other governments across the country have also had to make these difficult decisions. The member thinks that we are the only ones. She only needs to talk to her counterparts across the country. We believe that our decisions on this budget are decisions which will be in the long run in the best interests of the people of Manitoba, the women of Manitoba and the children of Manitoba, who will eventually be coming up and hoping to find jobs, hoping there will be a health care system available to them and hoping there will be an education system. We believe our government is protecting all of those things.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I have a number of questions for the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) who is also the minister--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We are even getting a little loud in the loge now, are we? Could I ask those members who want to carry on in the loud state that they are to do so out in the hall so we do not disrupt the House. The honourable member for Radisson has the floor.

Ms. Cerilli: I am going to begin some questions directed to the Minister of Family Services also having the responsibility for the Youth Secretariat, and I am going to begin by referencing a document that is the sort-of guidelines for the Children and Youth Secretariat. It is called Children First--Restructuring Service Systems. I am sure the minister is familiar with this document.

The area that I want to begin asking questions about is the area of the financing of the Youth Secretariat. Now I understand that again in this budget there is $144,000 that is earmarked for the operating of the secretariat. I would first of all ask that the minister would outline how that $144,000 has been spent because, as I understand it, it is not for salaries, it is simply for the administrative requirements of the secretariat.

* (1620)

The other thing I am wanting to ask with respect to the financing is in the last year's Estimates the minister had said that the departments under the umbrella of the Youth Secretariat were going to be compiling the number of dollars being spent on servicing children and children's needs and youth needs in the provincial budget, and I am wondering if that has occurred at this time and if the minister can tell us the results of that work that was being done last year in the secretariat.

The third item related to the funding that I am wanting the minister to clarify is how far along the different departments are in identifying the 2 percent of existing approved resources. In the document I was referring to earlier, Children First, it indicated that by January 1996 the departments with responsibilities under the Youth Secretariat were to have identified this 2 percent and describe the sources and the amount. I am wondering if that has occurred, and if not, what the delay is. If that has occurred, I would like the minister to account now here in concurrent section of Estimates the amount of money identified in each of the departments--Health, Education, Family Services, Justice and Culture, Heritage and Citizenship--that is going to be redistributed or accessed through the Youth Secretariat?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): There were several questions that were asked. I would have preferred if I could have responded one by one to the questions. So I will try to recap briefly the questions that were asked and try to provide responses. It is unfortunate that during the Estimates of Family Services and the Children and Youth Secretariat when staff would have been available to give the detail around absolute operating dollars and where those dollars were allocated, I could have had that detail available. Unfortunately, I do not have that, but I will undertake to get that information and provide it to my honourable friend. That kind of detail I do not have at my fingertips. I do know that, in fact, the staff that are seconded to the secretariat are paid for by the respective departments that the staff are seconded from in order to do the work in the secretariat. I would imagine, but I could not say for certain, that the operating expenditures would be for the committee work that is being done through the secretariat for office and overhead. I will clarify that with Reg Toews from the secretariat and get that information back to my honourable friend.

The other question that I can recall being asked was the question around identification of financial resources that are being spent in all of the departments throughout government on children. I know that it is a significant amount. I, again, do not have that information at my fingertips, and I will endeavour to get the information for my honourable friend and get it back to her.

Regarding the identification of 2 percent of the budgets for each of the departments, I want my honourable friend to know that there has been a lot of work done by the secretariat. I am sure there are members of different organizations, community organizations and agencies, that members of the opposition from time to time have had the opportunity to talk to who are involved in the work of the five committees that the Children and Youth Secretariat has set up. I think I had the opportunity to provide that information to the critic for Family Services for both opposition parties during the Estimates process, so that list should be available.

A lot of very credible community people, along with members of different government departments, have been involved in that activity. I understand at the committee level, for the five committees, that they are coming very close to completion of their work. We will be looking at ways that departments can work horizontally, not vertically. I think in the past, my honourable friend will recall--and it has not just been under this government's administration but it has been for many, many years when the New Democratic Party was in government also, departments tended to work in a vertical way and not look to what other departments were doing and try to co-ordinate the services.

I have said many times before that we are not dealing with bits and pieces of children and families, but we are taking a more holistic approach to the issues that need to be addressed when we are looking at families with children who have some difficulties and need to access and need some entry point into government service and support at some level. Very often, more than one department is providing service or programming to the same family and to the same children within those families, whether it be through child care or through the school system, through the Department of Health, though our Child and Family Services agencies and very often through Justice and those who tend to get in trouble with the law.

Young offenders can be dealt with through--if they are over 12, but there are others and we all know that we are hearing instances where children under the age of 12 are becoming involved with the justice system. I think it is critical that we look at what is happening and look at methods and ways that we can try to prevent the problems that exist in families because of early intervention and new programming that will look at new ways of delivering service.

I want to say to my honourable friend, the work of the committees is not completed as yet. I am expecting that it will be completed in the near future, and then once we have identified the kind of direction we need to take horizontally, we will be able to determine where the dollars, the resources can be freed up in order to implement new programs and new initiatives within government.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, I am going to table three sheets from the Children First document that I was referencing so the Minister of Family Services can be working from the same material that I am right now. I want to let her know that I am very concerned about the answer that she gave to my question about where in those five departments the 2 percent is going to come from, because in the time line for the work of the secretariat, it clearly says that by January 1996 those departments were to have identified that 2 percent. I have been through this exercise in the departmental Estimates for Health, for Family Services--not for Family Services, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) did that one--but for Education, as well as for recreation, and none of those ministers were willing to say where in their departments that 2 percent had been identified, and I think this is a really crucial issue.

I want the minister to confirm if the total of that 2 percent identification from all of those departments could be as much a $10 million, and if that is the kind of amount, as I have heard from people who are involved with the Youth Secretariat's work that we could be looking at here, it is of crucial importance that the minister would be accountable to this House and to the members of the public of where that money is going to come from. There has been concern expressed to me that the exercise of this Youth Secretariat is more cost cutting than service provision. When I read this document, Children First, the focus on budget, rather than the focus of providing a more co-operative interjurisdictional youth service being on providing better service to children, it is better for children and youth when their service providers talk to each other and there is information shared and there is not interjurisdictional conflicts, that is why we should be doing this, because it provides better service.

I am concerned that this is merely a cost-cutting exercise, and when the minister is not being forthcoming with the amount of dollars and where those dollars are going to be coming from, from the different departments, it only feeds into that notion that this is a cost-cutting exercise. So I would hope that the minister will respond to that more directly and let us know where that 2 percent has been identified in all those departments, especially since it was to have been completed by January 1996.

The other thing I want to raise concern about is the secretariat's main role, as I understand it right now, is to be implementing and co-ordinating the implementation of the Postl report on the health of Manitoba's children. I am concerned that while we are supposed to be having this report implemented, the government is going in the exact opposite direction as compared to a number of the recommendations in the report, and I will give a few examples.

* (1630)

The report recommends nurses in the schools, and the government's initiatives have eliminated nurses in the schools. The report recommends improving the nutritional resources and allowance under social allowance, particularly for families with small children and single-parent families, and this government has reduced social allowance in those areas, particularly in the provision of the food allowance for families. This report recommends attention and increased services in speech and hearing, and this government's policies and actions and budgeting have resulted in a decrease in the services of audiologists and speech therapists. The report recommends mandatory health education. This government has gone in the opposite direction and has eliminated health education as a required course kindergarten to Grade 8, and it also has clawed back on physical education, contrary to the recommendations in this report. That is just a few of the incongruencies between the government's actions and this excellent report that the Youth Secretariat is supposed to be recommending.

I want to ask the minister, in view of this, what is the Youth Secretariat going to be doing? Are they going to be able to recommend a reversal of all of these policies in compliance with this report that they are instructed to implement, or is the Youth Secretariat going to not be implementing this report? How has the Youth Secretariat responded?

All the numerous committees--I understand there 177 community people who are giving of their time, and there are 86 government staff that are being, if not necessarily seconded, then their staff time is contributing to an analysis on those five working areas that the minister has talked about. I am hoping that the minister will explain the incongruence of the government actions in light of the Postl report and how it is that the Youth Secretariat is going to reverse that trend.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I again have had a few different questions asked all at once from my honourable friend, and it will take me some time to try to respond to those questions that she has put.

I want to start by saying, yes, there are a lot of community people who are giving their time and effort and energy towards the committee process through the Children and Youth Secretariat, and there are many staff resources from government that are involved in that process too. I think it speaks to the co-operation of the community and government finally trying to work together and put our heads together around what the issues are and indeed how we can find appropriate responses to the real needs that are out there in the community.

The five priority areas that have been identified for the Child and Youth Secretariat to place some focus on are early childhood, adolescents and pregnancy, care and protection of children, high-risk children and youth, and critical health incidents. Those are the five committees, and the one committee that is dealing with the Postl report is the critical health incidents committee. That is dealing with the Postl report, and I have indicated to my honourable friend that the committee work is not yet completed.

These are not going to be committees that go on forever, Mr. Chairperson, these are committees that were put in place to do the research, to dialogue around implementation, new directions, better ways to spend the resources that we have available to us for children and youth throughout government. As those committees finish their work, and I indicated that my understanding is that will be in the very near future, that work will be wrapped up, and then we should have a better understanding of where the new direction should take place and what kinds of new programming should and needs to be put in place to better serve children and families that need our support throughout our Manitoba communities.

I want to indicate to my honourable friend that as we move through this process, there may indeed be more than 2 percent of any budget that will be moved or reallocated. I want to indicate to my honourable friend, just like I would indicate to her that all of my colleagues that are involved in the Children and Youth Secretariat process--you know, I have no need to be protective of all the programming that is done in the Department of Family Services. If it makes sense that some of the money is transferred from Family Services to Health in order to have a more co-ordinated approach and a better service-delivery model for children that we serve, I have no need to keep those services under me or within my responsibility. I think it only makes common sense, and the taxpayers in the province of Manitoba would want us, in fact, to reallocate resources.

I have said many times before, too, not every program that we have within government is working today. Many of the programs that we have in all of our departments were put in place 20 years ago. The needs of Manitoba's families and children were very different 20 years ago. I have said many times before too, the heavy spending years of the '70s and the '80s, when every department within government got more money to spend, and departments were busy trying to develop new programs to spend that money, there was never an evaluation of the old programs to see what the outcomes were and what in fact they were doing to serve the needs of the people that needed that kind of service from government. No longer can governments afford to do that. We have to look very carefully at the resources we are spending. We have to measure the outcomes of those programs, and we have to have the courage as a government to say: this program is no longer working; it is no longer meeting the needs of children and families today; that program will have to be cancelled, and the money that is in that program will have to be redirected in another manner so that in fact we can see some positive results for the efforts and the dollars and the energy and the time that is put into trying to deliver services to children and families.

So, Mr. Chairperson, I make no excuses at all for the process and the time that it has taken because I believe that in the end we will have a product and many programs. Whether they be delivered by a different vehicle, by a different department, I think it is critical that a department take the lead in certain areas and that the program be co-ordinated and that we be thinking that we all have a piece of the problem to solve, and we all want to do it in a better way.

Ms. Cerilli: I have two very short questions, and I hope the minister will answer them in a very short response so that my colleague from Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) can ask some questions. First of all, given that there are 86 government staff working on these committees and 177 community representatives, how many of them are representative of the North and aboriginal people? That is my first question. Secondly, will the minister make all the reports of the working groups and the subcommittees for the Youth Secretariat public?

* (1640)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, as to the first question that was asked, I did provide a list of the members on the committee, and I do not know if there was any indication of what part of the province they came from. I do know on--and I cannot remember, I do not have it in front of me. One committee, I know there is the executive director of Awasis child and family agency which would be representative. He is the co-chair, I believe; Gerry Bellefeuille from Awasis Agency is a co-chair on one of the committees. It may be, if I can recall, the critical health incidents committee, but I would not want, without having staff in front of me, to confirm that, but I think he may be the co-chair of that committee, along with Dr. Postl. As far as others, I can certainly attempt to get that information and provide it for my honourable friend, but, as the recommendations come forward to government, we will act upon those recommendations as we can and when we believe they will be in the best interests of co-ordination of services, better services for children and families, based on outcomes.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Chairperson, we did not have an opportunity to discuss Aboriginal Justice Initiatives, so I just have a few questions. Perhaps the minister will respond to me by letter, and I will be satisfied with that. First of all, I would like to ask the minister, how many of the some 300 recommendations of the AJI have been implemented? I know that she provided a list this morning, and we do have a portion of that list that she provided this morning earlier in the Estimates process and, for example, the Hollow Water holistic healing program, but perhaps if the minister wishes to just briefly respond to that, or if she would provide that information by letter that would be satisfactory as well.

Mrs. Vodrey: I will be happy to outline a number of the initiatives that this government has undertaken which, I believe, are directly in line with recommendations from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. I think that, as always, one of the important points is that this government has seen its action on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in a very comprehensive way, and as we have taken action, you may be able to point to this action flowing from two or three or four or more of the recommendations within the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. So sometimes it is very hard to quantify exactly how many recommendations, and I think one of the best ways to respond is in a fairly comprehensive information which actually I provided a great deal of last year in Estimates and am happy to talk further about.

I know the member knows that in terms of Justice, we have been working in all areas of justice from the policing with our First Nations policing agreements, in areas of prosecutions, areas dealing with Legal Aid, the aboriginal law centre, how we are dealing with community magistrates right through courts and the court process with some of the alternatives, some of the programs which are in place within Justice, how we are dealing with the court process, what is available to us within our system, within our jurisdiction to deal with, and then, of course, in the area of Corrections, both in terms of our work with correctional officers and also our work with inmates. When I have discussed the response in Corrections to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry I have been quite careful to indicate and make sure that the member knows that we are dealing with both parts.

I will undertake to provide him with further updates. I know I provided quite a comprehensive list last year, but I would remind him that in the list provided it does not apply generally simply to one recommendation. The recommendations have been looked at for their meaning, for the comprehensive response, and that is the way our government has replied and continues to reply.

Mr. Robinson: I will certainly look forward to any information relating to any Aboriginal Justice Initiatives that the minister will provide.

I would like to also ask, she briefly mentioned the initiatives relating to the First Nations Policing Policy which is a 52-48 formula with the federal government. I know there has been some work done by this province particularly with the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council, however, there are other initiatives that have been proposed by other First Nations governments in this province including the Island Lake Tribal Council, the Southeast Resource Development Council and other tribal councils in this province. I am wondering, at what stage are these negotiations at with the other First Nations groups and the tribal councils that I identified?

Mrs. Vodrey: The information I have is that consultations have occurred with Justice officials and representatives of all First Nations. Regarding the First Nations policing policy, 26 First Nation communities are currently in the process of conducting the required consultation with residents of their respective communities. That consultation is required in order to enter into the tripartite agreement. The consultation is required for the community to determine what type of policing service the community would like to have; whether they would like to move to stand-alone police service, whether they would like to have some support of the RCMP with their own police service or whether or not they wish to retain the RCMP.

I can tell the member that 28 First Nations communities have completed the consultation process and have entered into the negotiation phase with the provincial and federal governments, and eight First Nations communities have signed the agreements under the First Nations Policing Policy.

Mr. Robinson: I wonder if by letter the minister would consent to provide the names of those First Nations and those tribal councils that are currently having discussions with the two levels of government.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am prepared to provide that. I could read the names into the record of those who are in the consultation phase, those who are in the negotiation phase, where implementation has occurred, but it may be faster for reasons of time to provide that by letter.

Mr. Robinson: I would like to ask the minister what discussions has she had with individual chiefs and councils from Manitoba First Nations, also tribal councils and representative organizations like the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak organization and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

Mrs. Vodrey: My communication has, by and large, been by letter where I have received requests for consideration of programs or funding for certain agreements or consideration of other issues. I have replied to those communities. I know that my staff acting in the area of First Nations Policing Policy has had wide consultation and also Justice officials in developing our strategy to deal with particularly projects relating to northern communities and one southern community which is actually quite a comprehensive program.

Under the title in Aboriginal Justice strategy there has been very significant consultation at the staff level which developed then the ideas and the concepts which were brought forward for consideration by government. We have been supportive of these, and information will be going back to these communities in terms of starting up some projects, and we have been very aware and very interested in working with these communities in terms of, No. 1, community participation. That has applied to all Manitobans.

* (1650)

We have been looking at specific strategies. There have been some strategies which have been advanced by a number of aboriginal communities to increase community participation in a number of different areas, particularly in the areas of community justice committees. So those have all been taken into consideration in the development of the strategy, and I expect to be able to communicate the details of this quite shortly.

In short, the communication between myself has by and large been in letter through submissions which have come to me. But I can say that my staff has met regularly and that certainly where I am asked to meet or where there is an opportunity for us to meet together around issues, I am more than willing to do so, and did meet with some members of communities when the boot camp initiative began, whether or not we would be moving from an initiative within our own institutions to other operators. At that time I made it clear we would start within our own institutions until we had a strong evaluation. But certainly I look forward to the opportunity to work with all Manitobans, and am certainly working actively on behalf of the development of policy and programs to continue our government's response to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and the strategies that our government is developing through that. I believe we are working with the communities, and I believe there are some very important initiatives that will be interesting to all Manitobans, which will be able to be announced in detail shortly.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, I want to thank the minister for her answers to the questions that I had this afternoon, and I look forward to the correspondence that she will be providing me.

One of the ideas that we came up with together, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and I, is that perhaps a co-ordinated approach among the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) and myself is to, as a starting point in improving relations with First Nations, have a formalized meeting with the MKO. I am just wondering if the minister would entertain that sort of idea.

Mrs. Vodrey: Though that has not been formally presented, certainly, yes, I would, and some of the aboriginal justice strategy, which I will be speaking about in more detail shortly, certainly has involved the MKO, so there has been, I think, a significant exchange of ideas on Justice initiatives in particular. We will look forward to further development of those Justice initiatives; and, if a meeting, a joint meeting, would be helpful, then I would certainly be willing to participate in that kind of a meeting.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister. The Premier took as notice who had been hired to conduct the campaign for the Manitoba Telephone System and what involvement Barb Biggar had in that contract from the private advertising firm.

Can the Premier, who has taken this question as notice, please indicate whether Foster Marks has the contract, and whether in fact Barb Biggar is involved in the campaign, and how much telephone money is in the campaign?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I am informed that the Manitoba Telephone System, having considered a process, I believe, of proposal for their advertising--and they are, of course, I believe, probably the largest advertiser of all of our Crown corporations on an ongoing basis. They do a tremendous amount of advertising, and their work has been done by Palmer Jarvis and Foster Marks over the past three or four years.

In this particular case, the campaign that was referenced by the Leader of the Opposition was awarded to Foster Marks. I am told that, although we have no control over it, Foster Marks did subcontract some of the work to Biggar Ideas, and I am told that the amount of the costs of creative and production is approximately $200,000.

Mr. Doer: The Premier mentioned that the creative component is approximately $200,000. Can the Premier indicate the size and scope of the buy and how much that will cost the ratepayers of the telephone system?

Mr. Filmon: I do not have any numbers on that, Mr. Chairman. That is something that would be approved by the management and board of the Manitoba Telephone System. At this point, I know that they have contracted for the production and that they will be going through a process of buy over the space of the next four months or so.

Mr. Doer: We have been told that the range of buy is going to be between $1 million and $2 million, which is a huge amount of money, and that is why we are asking the Premier. We were told it was Foster Marks; the Premier has confirmed that. We were told Barb Biggar was very involved in it; the Premier has confirmed that. We were told that there are a number of ads to market the political decision of the government to sell the corporation, privatize the corporation, and we were told the buy is extensive. I just heard again a second ad today on the radio that advances the arguments that have been made by the government.

Can the Premier indicate the range of the buy? If it is going take place for the next four months and it has already started four weeks ago, it is a five-month campaign. Can the Premier indicate whether the buy is between a million and $2 million?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, this is very much like the New Democrat's assertion that the Autopac rates are going to go up by over 23 percent, which was a total fabrication, total baloney, and I would say to him that his advice and his information is way off base. I am told that all that has been approved at this point for a buy is $200,000. He can try and float his baloney wherever he wants, but it is based on the same lack of veracity as most of the stuff that he brings to this House.

Mr. Doer: If the Premier had the facts at his fingertips when I asked him two weeks ago, he could have corrected the record. We made no statement about how big it was, we asked about Foster Marks, the Premier did not answer the question. Now he has answered the question. We asked about Barb Biggar, the Premier did not know that his good friend Barb Biggar had been hired or denied he knew it, feigned ignorance. The Premier: Oh, I do not know, and I do not have any contact.

All we are asking--I do not know the number. I do not know the number, and I am asking the Premier for the number.

Can the Premier tell us what the budget is for the next four months for the buy for the telephone system, the ratepayers of Manitoba, to pay for a broken promise of this Premier?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to please control himself. I do not want him to hurt himself, that is my primary concern. My secondary concern is that these desks have remained here for about a hundred years of this Legislature, perhaps 75, and I would not want his legacy to this House to be ruining furniture that is historic and is meant to be utilized for hundreds of years in future.

Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition is now acknowledging that he is willing to put on the record false information, he and his colleagues at any given time, to just simply stimulate a response from the government, then we can understand how low they have sunk on that side of the House. I told him what the number is that I have been informed has been approved but, as he may well know, campaigns can be extended. At this point, $200,000 is what has been approved, I am told.

* (1700)

Mr. Doer: Thank you for the concern of the Premier for members opposite. I appreciate that.

So the Premier is telling us today that the cost of the creative productions from Foster Marks, the cost of the creative component, the production of the ads, the buy on the radios, the buy on television for the last four weeks and for the next four months that the Premier put on the record, is totally $200,000. That is the decision that has been made by the government.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition wants to deliberately try and misrepresent what I said or if he is just simply ignorant. The fact is that I told him that $200,000 has been approved for creative and production, $200,000 has been approved for the buy at the present time, and the campaign may continue in future. That will be a decision that management of the telephone system will make.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, so it is $200,000 for the production and creative side of this ad campaign, and an additional--the word “additional” was not in the Premier's statement; I am just trying to clarify--$200,000 for the buy has been approved at this time. Is that correct? It is for a total of $400,000? That is my question.

Mr. Filmon: That is what I said, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, will the telephone system be able to proceed with additional campaign advertising for this campaign, for advertising for this campaign? They are not advertising for market share and long distance or other things; they are advertising to sell a decision of the provincial government, the Filmon government. Can the telephone system proceed with any additional buying cost to the ratepayers without approval of the government?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I have seen the campaign ads, because the Leader of the Opposition raised them, and so I sat down to watch them. They say nothing about selling shares. In fact, it would be illegal for the telephone system to engage in a campaign to sell shares at the present time until it has a prospectus that has been approved, and it would have to abide by all the regulations and requirements of the Manitoba Securities Commission in order to do so. So there is no such thing as a campaign to sell the telephone system.

The campaign is part of a continuum of advertising that has been done by the Crown corporation that does the most advertising of any Crown entity in Manitoba, historically, which is to keep their image in front of their customers and to keep good, positive relations with their customers. They do image advertising. They have done for years. They did it under the New Democrats when he was the minister responsible. They are continuing to do it, and, as I see the campaign, it is to create a warm, friendly feeling by Manitoba Telephone System with its customers and to have its customers look favourably upon it.

I might add that their work--I do not criticize their continued efforts to have that positive relationship between the telephone system and its customers because they have been the most successful of all the telcos in Canada at preventing erosion of their market share by the competitive bidders. The long-distance companies that have moved in and competed, whether it be Unitel, whether it be Sprint and the others that are competing for market, have had a lower penetration in this province than in any other province in Canada because Manitoba Telephone System has established, developed and maintained that good relationship with its customers, and that is what it continues to do.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, the Premier may know that there is an ad on the radio now that I heard that said that the reason for the changes to the telephone system is to “free the telephone system” from the--and I do not know the exact words--kind of bureaucracy or inflexibility of a government-owned telephone system, which clearly is not dealing with market share. It is clearly dealing with the Premier's broken promise and it is an--[interjection] Well, he campaigned not to sell the telephone system. That is clearly on the record. The Premier has acknowledged that.

Mr. Filmon: No, I said I had no plans for it, and I did not.

Mr. Doer: Well, your candidates were all--well, your word is not worth anything to us, so you can argue how much you want now. It does not mean anything to those people in Dauphin the other night either.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The decorum is sliding. May I ask all honourable members to give the courtesy to the members who are asking the questions, as well as courtesy to those who are answering the questions? It makes it a little difficult to keep the decorum at a level pace in here.

The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to finish his question.

Mr. Doer: I would like to ask the Premier whether the ad campaign, that he has just admitted will cost $400,000 minimum, will include marketing for the decision of the government to sell the telephone system.

Mr. Filmon: Clearly that would be a decision of the telephone company, and they would want to be in a position of ensuring that they did everything possible to put their story in front of the public in opposition to all of the nonsense that is being put forward by the opposition party in this Legislature. If false allegations and false information are being spread by members opposite, then--[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have asked for a little bit of courtesy when the honourable member is asking the questions as well as when the questions are being put. If we could maintain that decorum, I would appreciate it.

The honourable First Minister, to conclude his statement.

Mr. Filmon: The Manitoba Telephone System no doubt would want to ensure that it maintained accurate information in the public with respect to its decision to seek private investment.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We will maintain decorum.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, the Premier made the decision to sell the telephone system. I would like to ask the Premier whether the board of the telephone system and senior management, were they involved and did they recommend by board motion that the Conservative government break its election promise and sell the telephone system, or were they not involved?

Mr. Filmon: Certainly in the lead-up to the decision, in the meetings that I attended with the consortium of three brokerage firms, senior management and representation from the board of the Manitoba Telephone System was involved, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, is there a board motion to recommend the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System, yes or no?

Mr. Filmon: I do not believe that one was asked for, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Who made the decision to hire the brokerage firms, the telephone system or the Premier?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I believe that decision was made on the recommendation of the chairman of the board of the telephone system and representation from Treasury Board.

* (1710)

Mr. Doer: Well, we know that Jules Benson is involved in this issue from Treasury Board; we are certainly aware of that. I would like to ask the Premier then, was this a board motion to hire the three brokerage firms or was it a decision of the Premier?

Mr. Filmon: I will repeat that the decision was made on the recommendation of the chairman of the board and I believe it was the secretary of Treasury Board.

Mr. Doer: The board of Manitoba Telephone System, did they pass a motion, or does the chair of the Manitoba Telephone System, Mr. Stefanson, have dictatorial powers in the Manitoba Telephone System?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to in any way deny that this is a policy decision of the government of the Province of Manitoba. It is not a decision of the board as to how it wants to constitute itself. They are the appointees of the provincial government. Therefore, the provincial government makes these decisions.

A policy decision as major as the sale of a Crown corporation would not be made by the board of the corporation. It would be made by the government of the Province of Manitoba, and indeed it was, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: So the board of the Manitoba Telephone System was not involved in the hiring of the brokerage firms that we revealed in the House and, of course, was denied by the Premier, I think, on December 16. [interjection] I can find out from his brother, I assume. The board was not involved in the decision of the hiring of the brokerage firms. Is that correct?

Mr. Filmon: I would have to seek clarification from the minister, but certainly approval was given by the government. I will take responsibility.

Mr. Doer: The Premier indicated that the Chair of the Board, Mr. Stefanson, and the Treasury Board, Mr. Benson, were involved in the hiring of the brokerage firms. Was the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, did he recommend the brokerage firms or was it a decision of the Premier?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): The two individuals the member makes note of received eight proposals, and they selected three proposals, the three companies that the member knows about, Wood Gundy, CIBC and Richardson and RBC Dominion Securities. Those three were selected out of the list of eight that brought proposals forward.

Mr. Doer: So the two individuals, Mr. Benson and Mr. Stefanson and the Premier, were the ones that selected those three firms out of the eight that were available to the government? Is that correct?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, they recommended them, yes.

Mr. Doer: Who paid for them, the telephone system or the government?

Mr. Findlay: I think if the member looks at the bill he will notice that all the costs associated with this public offering will be paid out of the proceeds of the offering.

Mr. Doer: So the telephone system did not make the decision but paid the bills based on the Premier's decision.

A further question. The advertising campaign for the campaign to sell the telephone system, did that go to the board of directors or was that decision made somewhere else as well?

Mr. Findlay: The telephone system has an ongoing contract with one particular firm and another contract, I think it is Palmer Jarvis, I believe is the firm that MTS has a contract with, and they also have a contract with Jake Marks, who does special projects. So they have contracts for ongoing advertising with two different firms.

Mr. Doer: That was not my question. I wanted to know, was the campaign on the changing status of the telephone system, which is now on the airwaves, which I heard this morning, I am sure the minister is well aware of this, was that decision, that campaign, approved by the Board of Directors of the Manitoba Telephone System or was it approved by Benson and Stefanson and the Premier?

Mr. Findlay: The campaign of advertising to tell Manitobans about MTS and the good job they are doing is done by the Manitoba Telephone System.

Mr. Doer: The campaign to persuade Manitobans that the way in which the Crown corporation operates now, Manitobans would be better served by changing it from a publicly owned Crown corporation to something that was not so tied to government inflexibility. That campaign which I heard this morning, who approved that campaign?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, those campaigns are operated through the Manitoba Telephone System.

Mr. Doer: I know there is no coincidence to the fact that the primary advertiser for the Conservative government in the last election and one of the major campaign people are also involved in this campaign to break an election promise.

I want to ask another question to the Premier. I asked the Premier a question on--the Premier visited the Faneuil corporation in Boston in September of 1995. We have FOIed the trip, and apparently the trip only cost $101. I would like to ask the Premier--of course, at that time he did not know anything about Mike Bessey's $400,000 tuition--whom did he meet with in Boston?

Mr. Filmon: I was not on a business trip to Boston. I was on a trip in which I was on a vacation with my wife, and that is why there are no bills for the trip other than for one lunch in which I did meet with some people who have a business interest in Manitoba, including people with an interest in the Faneuil corporation.

Mr. Doer: Could the Premier indicate whether he met with Mr. O'Brien during that visit?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, I did.

Mr. Doer: Did the Premier meet with Mr. Brown on that occasion?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, it was at the same gathering. That was the first time that I had met--now, let us see, which is Mr. Brown now?

Mr. Doer: He is a friend of Mike Bessey, Mike Bessey's friend.

Mr. Filmon: That was the first and only time that I met him, yes.

Mr. Doer: Was there any hospitality provided to the Premier during that visit to Boston from the Faneuil corporation?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, the Faneuil corporation hosted a luncheon gathering at which they invited all of their staff to attend so that they could meet me.

Mr. Doer: The Minister of Telephones indicated that there were two additional deals signed by the government with Faneuil subsequent to the April 25 memo that we made public. Can the Premier indicated whether he discussed those deals with the principals of Faneuil during his visit in September of 1995, and why have those deals never been made public?

Mr. Filmon: I am not sure what specific agreements the member is talking about. I can tell you that obviously I am very interested in obtaining as much information as possible about a corporation like Faneuil and their operations. They employ, I believe, about 350 people in Winnipeg right now. They are a major employer. They are a major investor, and they are going to be creating 1,000 jobs in the course of their relationship-building with Manitoba. So obviously I was interested in talking about their future interests and investment, their future interest in job creation, and I would do that with any corporation that has an interest in Manitoba.

Last Monday I phoned Toronto to talk with an organization that is intent on investing somewhere in Canada and creating up to 1,000 jobs, and I was putting in my very strong pitch for them to be here in Manitoba because I know other Premiers had also called. I can tell you that the Faneuil has had calls and visits from other Premiers in Canada who are interested in having their investment and their job creation in their provinces, so there is no way that I am going to allow an opportunity for 1,000 jobs to go somewhere else.

* (1720)

Mr. Doer: Well, we always wish the Premier well on the jobs, and all we ask from him is full disclosure about the agreements on those job activities, which brings us back to the Faneuil agreement. I think you will find comments from us when the original announcement was made were very positive about the announcement of the government. Regrettably, we feel that all the information that should have been available to the public was not made available by Mr. Disclosure, the Premier of this province.

I would like to ask the Premier, has the original agreement that was announced by the government in August of 1994 been altered in any way with the announcement of the other two agreements that the Minister of Telephones indicated has been agreed to with Faneuil subsequent to the April 25 memo?

Mr. Filmon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: So the original agreement that we have been arguing about in this House--we saying that there is a $3-million hidden subsidy, confirmed by the Acting Provincial Auditor and the former Provincial Auditor, and the government saying no, it is not a subsidy, the Auditor is wrong, the NDP is wrong--that agreement has not been altered since the press conference of August of 1994 in which all the alleged details of the agreement were announced to the public of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairperson: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: The question before the House is it has been moved by the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, which have been adopted at this session by all sections of the Committee of Supply sitting separately and by the full committee. Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. The motion is carried.

Formal Vote

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I would ask for a standing vote, please.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 29, Nays 26.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly carried.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I wonder if there might be leave of the House to not see the clock until 7 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House not to see the clock until 7 p.m.? [agreed]

Committee Report

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a resolution regarding concurrence in Supply resolutions passed, directs to me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that this House concur in the report of the Committee of Supply respecting concurrence in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that this House concur in the report of the Committee of Supply respecting concurrence in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of the expenditure for fiscal year ending March 31, 1997. Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No?

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Nays

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 30, Nays 26.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

* * *

* (1730)

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS

Supply--Capital Supply

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of Ways and Means will come to order, please. We have before us for our consideration the resolution respecting the Capital Supply bill. The resolution for Capital Supply reads as follows:

RESOLVED that towards making good certain sums of money for Capital purposes, the sum of $142,050,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. Shall the resolution pass?

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Could the honourable minister give us a brief explanation of that?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, the intention is to provide borrowing and expenditure authority as well as guarantee authority, in some cases, which is required for nonbudgetary capital programs for the fiscal year which began on April 1 of 1996.

These expenditure requirements are included in the Capital Estimates for nonbudgetary capital programs which were tabled earlier in the session. The Loan Act for 1996 is similar to The Loan Act for 1995 and provides the Legislature with a comprehensive review of the total amount of both borrowing and expenditure authority required for the delivery of nonbudgetary capital programs. It includes both the incremental and existing expenditure authority requirements for each of the nonbudgetary capital expenditure programs, including amounts required to cover existing commitments for expenditures to be made in subsequent fiscal years.

Loan acts provide for the elapsing of previously voted expenditure authority for nonbudgetary capital programs which is surplus to current requirements or is no longer required for the purpose for which it was voted.

The 1996 Loan Act provides for such a lapsing in the amount of $23,523,300, Mr. Chair. The amount of borrowing authority being requested is the additional amount required to fund the estimated expenditures on nonbudgetary capital programs during the fiscal year plus an amount to provide sufficient authority to take advantage of favourable market conditions to prefund future expenditure requirements. This borrowing authority will be supplemented in each annual Loan Act to reflect the incremental authority required to cover the actual capital expenditures made and the estimate of expenditures to be made in the new fiscal year. As we work through this afternoon, I would be pleased to answer any other questions.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Maybe I missed it, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that in times past ministers of Finance had lists of capital spending that they distributed around this time for members to peruse. I know reference is made often in the budget document, but I believe there was also a practice of statements being issued showing members of the House basically where the Capital Supply was being allocated.

But, specifically, we were concerned about the Health Capital Estimates. I presume they are in this appropriation as well. As we all know, capital spending on health facilities, regrettably, has been frozen for the time being, contrary to a promise made during the election, contrary to the expectations of many Manitobans throughout this province, Winnipeg, Brandon, elsewhere, Shoal Lake. I know the constituents of this member in the Shoal Lake area are very, very upset. They are concerned about Winkler and Morden. I know in Brandon we were promised over two years ago by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) that there would be a modernization of the Brandon General Hospital, and a front page story, and everyone was anticipating that something would happen, and then suddenly we have the freeze. Of course, we now learn that we are, people of Manitoba, facing a very serious situation, those who unfortunately may have to end up in major hospitals such as the Health Sciences Centre where facilities are totally inadequate. They remind me of the description of the inadequacy of the Brandon General Hospital where you have windows that are not functioning properly, elevators not functioning properly, where the operating room is antiquated and so on.

We have all read about the horror stories at the Health Sciences Centre, and it is regrettable that capital is not being provided, is not forthcoming to maintain the quality of health care in this province. I think we are putting the quality of health care in jeopardy by not proceeding with the capital reconstruction, the modernization, that has been identified by various experts in the field, and these conclusions have been made known to the government, to the Minister of Health and to the cabinet, and I think the people of Manitoba are very apprehensive about the fact that this government is not proceeding with this type of capital expenditure at this time.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the member for Brandon East to understand that our 1996 budget includes capital spending of some $310 million of which a significant amount of that is allocated to health care facilities. Because of the nature of financing health care facilities, obviously they are undertaken at one point in time, and that financing is put in place as the facility is being developed and built. Then that capital has to be serviced over many years. That certainly has been the traditional approach of financing health care facilities, so our capital budget today includes significant expenditures relating to health care facilities throughout our province whether it be Riverview Hospital or other facilities.

In terms of moving forward with health care facilities, as the member for Brandon East knows, there is a pause at this particular point in time where all capital projects are being assessed. That is the process. We are doing a thorough review of all of the projects in terms of ensuring that they are the most appropriate, that they meet the needs of all of the communities, and that they are properly prioritized. That review is ongoing, and once it is completed the Minister of Health will be coming forward with the decisions and the capital program for Health.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the resolution pass? The resolution is accordingly passed.

We also have before us for our consideration the resolution respecting the Main Supply bill.

RESOLVED that towards making good certain sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997, the sum of $4,778,028,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund.

Shall the resolution pass? The resolution is accordingly passed.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Committee Report

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has adopted a resolution regarding Capital Supply and a resolution regarding Main Supply, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

* (1740)

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 65--The Appropriation Act, 1996

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that leave be given to introduce Bill 65, The Appropriation Act, 1996 (Loi de 1996 portant affectation de crédits), and that the same be now received, read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.

Motion agreed to.

SECOND READINGS

Bill 65--The Appropriation Act, 1996

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 65, The Appropriation Act, 1996 (Loi de 1996 portant affectation de crédits), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to take this opportunity to put a few words on the record regarding the overall fiscal and economic policies of the government.

I want to point out that this government, although it likes to brag about balanced budget legislation, likes to brag about its fiscal record, has indeed had a very sorry record of deficits over many years. All we have to do is look at the 1996 Manitoba budget and read of deficits year after year after year, so much so that in 1992-93 the government showed a deficit of about $480.8 million, but then they had to use a couple hundred million from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. When you got down to the budgetary surplus, it should have been more like a $766-million budgetary deficit, and I think the people of Manitoba recognize this was the highest level of deficit achieved by any, experienced by any government in the history of Manitoba, the highest level, three-quarters of a billion by this government, in this particular year.

Madam Speaker, year after year we find that there have been deficits. I know that this minister has been arguing that he has had a surplus this year, but we know from the Provincial Auditor, we know from the Dominion Bond Rating Service that in reality we do not have a surplus this year; again we have another deficit. We have a deficit because the government tried to show a surplus because of some fancy bookkeeping, some fancy cooking, you know, some fancy recipes here to use funds that should have been shown over a period of years to dump them in one year to make the books look good, and people of Manitoba become very cynical with their governments when they see this kind of exercise going on. As a result, in reality, using accepted accounting policies, again we have a deficit this year.

When we look at what has happened to the debt over the years, honourable members are always complaining about debt in the past, but I want to remind them again that when they took office in '87-88, the total net debt per capita was $9,372, and this year, 1996-97 budget has increased by a third to $12,102 per Manitoban, in other words, eight years of this government, eight years basically of increasing debt. The debt in Manitoba has gone up substantially. The general purpose debt has gone up. The Hydro debt has gone up. The other debt has gone up. The total debt has gone up from $10.3 billion in '87-88, the year before this government took office, to $13.8 billion this year according to the budget documents, so let us not get any preaching from the other side about debts in the past.

This government has built up debts but unfortunately has not built up the assets as the previous NDP government did. We built up major assets in fields of housing, major assets in schools, major assets in health care. We put people to work; people produced goods and services. There was training and there were a lot of benefits that were achieved from that, but the point being that I want to make this observation, that we have had deficits over the last few years not because the people on the opposite side, the government, have not tried to cut back; indeed we know they have cut back. They have cut back in health, education, social services. Many programs have been eliminated or downgraded, and nevertheless we still have deficits.

The reason we have been having the deficits, therefore, Madam Speaker, is because we have not had a sufficient level of economic growth. It is because of this lack of economic growth which has caused this government not to be able to receive the revenues that it needed to show surpluses and to pay off the debt.

I was looking at the Conference Board figures on economic growth. The honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) likes the Conference Board of Canada; he says it is a good organization. It is a well-respected national organization that has provided a consistent series of estimates of growth more than any other agency. Even Stats Canada does not have provincial figures beyond three or four years, so if you want to look at historical information as to what happened to the economic development of this province, you have to go to the material, you have to go to the estimates from the Conference Board.

* (1750)

Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my question this morning, or earlier this afternoon, this government between 1988 and 1995 again--and I have got the figures, I can show the figures to the honourable minister if he wishes to see them, but they are authentic figures from the Conference Board that shows that the level of output under this government has indeed grown. It has grown by 4.5 percent. That is from the year 1988 to the end of the year 1995. We have not got '96 yet. so we cannot use it. But, from 1988 to 1995, the total real growth, that is, when you take out the inflation and you measure the increase of the gross domestic product, the gross output of the province here, indeed, has been an increase of 4.5 percent. So we go from the level of 1988 to the level of 1995, and we see an increase of 4.5 percent. That is in a period of approximately seven years, '88 to '95.

Then I looked at the figures back from 1981 to 1988, same source, the Conference Board of Canada, looked at the numbers, and there they are. I invite the honourable minister to use his department to analyze these figures to verify what I am telling you right now, and that is, they show that the increase in the output in the province of Manitoba, the real domestic product increase, the real growth was 16.8 percent.

Madam Speaker, 16.8 percent out of the previous NDP government compared to 4.5 percent under this government for the past seven years. In other words--

An Honourable Member: Four times.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Almost four times the rate of growth under the previous NDP government.

Madam Speaker, the question to the minister is, why has Manitoba's economy floundered in the last fews years? I know he likes to talk about a few figures, the last few months here, the last few months there, but the fact is, over the years, you look at the record, the Conference Board of Canada, 16.8 percent growth under the NDP from '81 to '88, only 4.5 percent growth from '88 to '95 under this government. So we have not had the economic performance under this government.

Not only that, you might say, well, the reason we had better growth under the NDP is because the whole nation was doing better, and that is the reason why. Then, what you have to do to check that out is to compare what has happened in Manitoba versus the Canadian scene. During the NDP years, it was close to--we achieved nearly 90 percent of the economic growth of Canada, whereas, under this government, it is lucky to have half the growth of the Canadian average. The point being, I know the members of the government do not like to hear this information; it is factual information; it is information that has been given to us from the Conference Board of Canada.

Madam Speaker, let there be no mistake about it. The economy of Manitoba grew significantly faster, significantly more under the previous NDP government than under this government. That is the reason why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is having difficulty in balancing his books. That is the reason why we have had deficits the last few years. Some years we have had no growth. How can you expect to get additional revenue if you do not have growth? You have to have more retail sales, you have to have more income to get more taxation. Let that be understood by all members of the House, that we have not had the growth that we had previously under the NDP government.

Madam Speaker, I know honourable members like to talk about jobs, and there have been increases in the last few months and so on, but, again, if you look at the Statistics Canada historical records, and this includes all the revisions, it is very disconcerting to see that in April of 1990 compared to April of 1996--and I am using April because that is the latest month that we have data available for. We will get May shortly, I am sure, but the latest month we have data for so far shows that in April of 1996, we have 7,000 fewer people working, 7,000 fewer jobs than we had in April of 1990. So where is all the growth that honourable members across talk about?

Madam Speaker, 7,000 fewer people working in April of 1996 than April of 1990. Let us get real here. Let us not blind ourselves to the reality that this economy has not grown the way it should. It has not delivered the jobs to the people of Manitoba that are expected. In spite of all the forecasts, I get concerned about what is going to happen in 1996.

I get concerned about what is going to happen in 1996 to the economy because one of the determinants of growth is investment, and, yes, investment did pretty good last year. I will admit that, but the figures for this year show a serious decline in private investment in this province. I thought private investors were supposed to line up because of balanced budget legislation. Because of surplus, they were going to line up and come and invest in Manitoba, yet there is a major drop--and the minister knows this--forecast in investment spending this year.

In fact, the only province that is going to do worse than Manitoba is Newfoundland. We are going to have an 8.9 percent decline in total investment. We are going to have a major decline in private investment, and, regrettably, we are going to have a major decline in manufacturing investment. In all these categories, Manitoba ranks nine out of 10. The only province that is going to do worse than Manitoba is Newfoundland. I am sad to say, Madam Speaker, that this economy of ours under this government is becoming the Newfoundland of western Canada. We want it to develop, we want it to prosper, we want to have jobs, we want to increase our incomes, but that is not happening.

Madam Speaker, I think the fact that investment spending is declining this year does not bode well for the growth. The figures on employment growth in the first few months of the year are not that encouraging. They are way below the national average, so all in all the major economic indicators that we have would show to us that the economy of Manitoba continues to go along very gently, continues to stagnate, continues to underperform. What we need is a government that is prepared to dedicate itself more to economic growth, is prepared to use the Department of Industry in a more aggressive way, that is prepared to have some economic plans and economic objectives that it is going to reach, some plans and objectives saying we are going to try to reach these goals--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Brandon East.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What we need are some economic objectives and economic goals and get all Manitobans together working, labour, business, farm community, community leaders, together working, developing plans and developing ways and means of improving our economic performance. The fact is we still have insufficient jobs, we still have people who are leaving this province in droves.

I ran into a small contractor the other day, and he said the only mistake I made a couple of years ago when I had a chance was not to leave Manitoba to go to B.C. He was damn serious. He was very annoyed at what was happening to his business under this government. He said my business is going nowhere.

I do not know what this gentleman's politics are. I had only met him once, on one occasion, but he is a hard-working contractor, and he was totally dismayed. He says the business is not there. He says I do not know what I am doing here, I should have left Manitoba at least two years ago.

An Honourable Member: Who said that?

Mr. Leonard Evans: That was said to me by a private businessperson who is a contractor. I have never met the gentleman before, but he was very serious when he said that. I could give you his phone number if you want and you can talk to him yourself. I think I can find it in the book.

Madam Speaker, there is that phenomenon that if you do not have opportunities people will leave. We all have relatives, friends who are leaving Manitoba to go mainly to B.C. and Alberta, some maybe to Ontario but mainly B.C. and Alberta to find employment, to find not only employment but find better jobs.

* (1800)

What is happening in this province is that many of the jobs we are getting are very, very low wage, unskilled type of activity. I know we talk about jobs in high tech industries, in telemarketing. It may be the telemarketing industry may use high tech equipment, but the function of the person is certainly not high tech. I mean, let us face it, this telemarketing is a boiler room type of activity. I read one study of telemarketing in the United States which said if you were a three-week employee of a telemarketing company you were considered long term. The fact is that there was such a fantastic turnover in telemarketing because of the pressure involved and because of the nature of the activity. It is certainly not a lifetime career. Nobody, I would suggest, in this room would want to go into telemarketing as a lifetime career on the telephone trying to sell whatever you sell over the telephone. This is what I am concerned about. These are the kinds of jobs we seem to be pushing.

The garment industry is a traditional third-world industry, and it is attracting low-wage people. That is a low-wage industry, and it can only survive in this province if we have people who are ready to work for very low wages. That is a fact and that is one of the reasons why the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey) or whoever is anxious to bring in more people from abroad to work in the industry, because people in Manitoba, people in Canada, are not attracted to it because of the wage levels. Talk to the workers, talk to some of the people who have been involved and they will tell you that they are not in a high-wage industry.

Madam Speaker, if we had more economic growth, if we had real strong economic development, the government of Manitoba would receive additional revenue and would be able to more easily balance the books, as they say, or indeed show surpluses. Nobody wants to see debt. Nobody wants to see debt increase, obviously. [interjection] Well, the honourable member from his seat, the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), I wish I had even half of the volume he has to get a--very, very good.

He remarks about debt accumulated in the 1980s. I want him to do a little bit of research and examine what was happening from coast to coast, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, from sea to sea to sea and in Ottawa, what was happening to debt in this country. It was accumulating. Two major reasons why debt accumulated at that time was the recession, and the other reason was inflation. We had a major recession in the 1980s, and when you are in recession governments tend to spend more than they take in for various reasons. You automatically go into deficits, and many, many provinces went into deficits at that time because of a major recession, 1982-83. That was one reason. Another reason is the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada and the federal government at the time. We had double-digit inflation, and I dare say the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) today would be a very unhappy Minister of Finance if he had to look at 12, 14, 16, 18 percent on debt. We have half of that today, if not more than half, that we have to face.

On that, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion to the honourable Minister of Finance and to the government and to members in a positive way to help the province. He may not agree with me, but I want to suggest to him that he should go to the next Finance ministers' meeting or whenever he has an opportunity to meet with the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Paul Martin, and remind the minister that they have ways and means to help the provinces, if they wanted to, at their disposal.

One way--it has been done before and it is constitutional--is to use the Bank of Canada to finance a portion of provincial debt. Now the Bank of Canada can do that as a preferred rate. It did it before and it can do it under the Bank of Canada Act. Read the act. It can do it. The Government of Canada has to have the will to do that, of course. The Government of Canada--[interjection] Well, those who say let us go, I would ask you to be patient. We have an agreement as to when we are going to end, and when that time arrives, that time will arrive. So I will just ask the honourable member to relax and stop reading because that is against the rules. You are not supposed to read newspapers in the House. It is against the rules, but maybe he is not reading a newspaper.

The major problem facing the federal government is the debt and the interest on the debt. The banks of this country, the major financial institutions are getting rich because we are paying all this interest out. The Government of Canada could, if it so chose, finance a portion, not all of it, a portion of that debt through the Bank of Canada. It is not inflationary. It is not any more inflationary than if it was financed through the commercial banks.

So what I am saying is that if we did that, if the federal government increased the amount of borrowing from the Bank of Canada, it could reduce the interest burden on the Treasury of Canada, and instead of cutting back--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Brandon East has the floor.

Mr. Leonard Evans: So instead of the Chretien government cutting transfers for Health and for Education to the provinces, it could take a great deal of pressure off of itself if it decided to monetize part of the debt with the Bank of Canada, even if we went up to the level of the Americans. I stand to be corrected, but I was advised once that the U.S. central Federal Reserve system, the U.S. equivalent of the Bank of Canada, their central bank, held nearly 30 percent.

Now, I stand to be corrected, but it was considerably more than Canada. We are holding around 5 or 6. If we went up to the American level--this is a serious suggestion, Madam Speaker. If Canada went up even just to the American level, the Chretien government, the federal government, would save hundreds of millions of dollars of interest a year--hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

An Honourable Member: Then why is it not done?

Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, the reason they do not do it is because there are vested financial interests that stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if they did this, but this was done during World War II. How did we finance World War II? It was not all done with taxation. A great deal of it, Madam Speaker, was financed through borrowing. Of that borrowing, a great deal of that borrowing is done from the Bank of Canada. That is how we fought the war.

You know, in 1939 there was no money before the war. Once the war started, there was money, and the money was there because the federal government was ready to use the Bank of Canada. We did not say to Adolf Hitler in 1943, sorry, Adolf, we have to call all the troops back because our national debt is too high. The debt was a lot higher then than it is today. We did not do that, of course. We had a very high national debt at that time.

As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, we used the Bank of Canada for several years after the war, as well. There are many economists in this country who are seriously trying to get across this point to leaders, community leaders, to federal politicians, federal cabinet ministers. They have met with some of the ministers. They are trying to make the point that we can do the people of Canada a favour, that instead of making the banks in this country filthy rich, we could take the pressure off the federal debt by using the Bank of Canada for a portion--I am not saying all of it--for at least a portion.

Let us just go up to where the Americans are and in doing so save considerable interest payments so that we would allow the federal government to have more flexibility so that it would not have to cut social programs, would not have to cut back on transfers to the province.

This is not my idea. I did not originate it. I have read several documents on this, and there is more and more thinking in this country of a nonpartisan nature. This is not some sort of big, left-wing plot. I mean, it was done in the past. It has been done in the past. It is in the Bank of Canada Act. [interjection]

Well, you know, members can joke about it, but this is a serious matter. Your Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and you are in a bind because we do not have enough money. One of the reasons you do not have enough money is because the federal government is cutting back in its transfers, and one of the reasons that the federal government is cutting back in its transfers is that its debt is very high.

What it can do to reduce the burden of the debt is to at least monetize part of it, shift it from the commercial banks to the Bank of Canada. It has to be done. They have to have reserve requirements. We are only one of three countries in the world that have eliminated reserve requirements for commercial banks. Every other country has reserve requirements. Canada eliminated them.

You have to have reserve requirements. You have to ensure that you do not have an excessive increase in the money supply. You do not want inflation, and that does not have to happen, but I say that is a serious suggestion I make to the Minister of Finance who, I think, I would hope, could do some reading on it, get his staff to comment on it and go and persuade the Minister of Finance in Ottawa and whoever else that this is something that should seriously be looked at as one method of easing the debt burden on Canadians.

Instead of cutting back on our health programs, let our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) go ahead and do what he wants to do in improving health care. Let our Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) do what she wants to do to improve and not be faced with these transfer cuts. This is one way to do it. Mr. Martin throws up his hands, we have no options. Well, he does have options and this is one serious option, so I really hope that the Minister of Finance, who, I know, is an intelligent person, is open-minded and will look into this and, hopefully, try to persuade the federal government.

* (1810)

Madam Speaker, I know members, we have an obligation to get through this so that we can finalize the approval of spending. This is the reason we are in this House. Historically assemblies are convened to approve taxation and spending of government. This is why Kings and Queens of years gone by convened Parliament, to get this authority, and this is the basic reason why we are here.

Old Douglas Campbell, former Premier of Manitoba, used to say, get your money and run. And once you get your money, you are okay. At any rate, in conclusion, I just want to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Industry can talk about glowing forecasts, which we hope will materialize. We want the jobs. We want the growth. But I am afraid, given the data we have, we may not get that growth, and if we look at the historical pattern, we surely have not had the growth. We have not kept up with the national average. In fact, we did three to four times better under the previous NDP government.

I know members do not like to hear this. I invite them to do serious research and confirm what I am saying. You do not have to believe what I am telling you. I am reading the figures and you can read them too and come to the same conclusions.

So on that note we are prepared to have the bill pass. Not that we are in favour of it, but the bill should be called.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I just want to make a few comments on this bill.

I cannot let some of the comments from the member for Brandon East go without giving some reply. First of all, I should say, I think members opposite have virtually no credibility when it comes to discussing the topics we are talking about right now, debt, deficits and so on. Based on their track record, particularly from 1981 to 1988, and that is why, when the member for Brandon East says, nobody wants to see debt, that certainly was not how they governed for six and a half, seven years here in Manitoba from '81-88. They took the tax-supported debt in Manitoba from approximately $1 billion, and when they left office it was almost $5 billion, increased over four times.

Their budgets and their accumulation of debt was so bad one of their own members had to stand up and vote against their 1988 budget. When you look at the percentage of the budget to service debt, back in 1981, it was just over 3 percent of the budget went to service debt. By the time that government left office in '88, it was up to over 10 percent just to service the debt. That is the track record of that government. In fact, they took the debt-servicing costs, where we paid interest only on our debt back in '81, approximately $100 million, by the time they left office in 1988, it was close to $500 million in interest payments only.

That is the legacy that was left by the previous NDP government. Compare that to the track record over the last nine budgets. I guess what members opposite are lacking is, they do not take the time to talk to the investment community. That is the problem they have. The Investment Dealers Association of Canada just released a report, and I think the member for Brandon East has it. They just released a report last week. They call Manitoba one of the most fiscally responsible governments in all of Canada in this decade. That is what the investment community says. Go and talk to the investment dealers, I encourage him. Talk to all of the investment dealers and they will find what the investment community says about Manitoba's fiscal performance.

But at the end of the day the true test of the confidence in Manitoba is what you pay when it comes time to borrow money. For 1995, Manitoba had the third best--

An Honourable Member: He has been up for three minutes.

Mr. Stefanson: I have been up for three minutes and he is going for 20 minutes.

The true test is what people will pay when it comes time, and I hope the member for Brandon East listens to this. In 1995, we had the third best borrowing rate in all of Canada. Only British Columbia and Alberta borrowed money at better interest rates than Manitoba. Even a province like Ontario, that has a better, higher credit rating, paid more to borrow money in 1995 than Manitoba did. Why? Because investors have confidence in what is taking place here in Manitoba, and that is the true test. That is the true test, the confidence that individual investors have when it comes to placing their own money, when they are placing their own money or they are placing on behalf of organizations. They have confidence in Manitoba's fiscal performance.

So I encourage the member for Brandon East and all members opposite to read the investment dealers, to read the comments of all the investment communities, whether it is Nesbitt Burns, Wood Gundy, the list goes on and on. Read them. Talk to them and find out all of the complimentary and favourable things they are saying about Manitoba.

I want to take one more minute, Madam Speaker, to talk about the economy. The member for Brandon East comes here occasionally with statistics and so on and does some research. I guess listening to him, I gather he did not read our 1996 budget. He did not read the section on Manitoba's economy in 1995. I encourage him and all members opposite to do that. I encourage him to do that. I will just touch on, just in case he does not have the time, a few of the highlights of 1995's economy.

The value of exports to the Unites States rose 21 percent and has more than doubled in the last four years. The increase in total investment was the largest in Canada, rising 12.5 percent versus a decline of 1.7 percent nationally. Manufacturing investments surged 58 percent to a new record level. The real increase in manufacturing shipments was the largest in over 20 years. The value of mineral production rose 23 percent. Farm cash receipts from crops increased at a double digit rate for the third consecutive year. The drop in the unemployment rate was the largest in 30 years in Manitoba. Business bankruptcies reached the lowest level in 15 years in Manitoba and retail sales increased at more than twice the national rate. That is the performance of Manitoba's economy in 1995.

The member tries to do these comparisons. He brought a graph here on jobs and a comparison of jobs. This will be the last point I will touch on, because it is an important one, Madam Speaker. He came with a comparison of jobs from the period '81 to '88, and then the period '88 to '96, but what he failed to point out in his comparison, what he failed to point out is, during that period of double-digit inflation and growth and so on and government spending and the kinds of deficits and job creation programs that the NDP had, the Jobs Fund, which his own leader criticized at the time, this province exceeded the national average in two out of six years during that period when they were spending with reckless abandon.

Out of the last six years, we have exceeded the national average three out of the six years. That is the true test, when you see how Manitoba compares to every other region of Canada. The last six years our performance on jobs has exceeded the national average three of six. Their period, when they were spending with reckless abandon, increasing the deficit, increasing our debt, increasing our debt servicing costs, they managed to exceed the national average twice, a pretty dismal performance from a very dismal government in '81 to '88.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all members of the House to support this budget, the fiscally responsible budget of our government, something acknowledged and supported by Manitobans and investors and the investment community far and wide.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Capital Supply, Bill 65, The Appropriation Act. Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 64--The Loan Act, 1996

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 64, The Loan Act, 1996 (Loi d'emprunt de 1996), and that the same be now received, read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.

Motion agreed to.

SECOND READINGS

Bill 64--The Loan Act, 1996

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996 (Loi d'emprunt de 1996), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice, that Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996 (Loi d'emprunt de 1996), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion agreed to.

* (1820)

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report on Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996 (Loi d'emprunt de 1996), and The Appropriation Act, Bill 65, 1996 (Loi de 1996 portant affectation de crédits).

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report on Capital Supply bill, Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996; Loi d'emprunt de 1996, and Main Supply bill, Bill 65, The Appropriation Act; Loi de 1996 portant affectation de crédits, for third reading with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. The Committee of the Whole will come to order to consider Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996 (Loi d'emprunt de 1996); and Bill 65, The Appropriation Act, 1996 (Loi de 1996 portant affectation de crédits).

Bill 64--The Loan Act, 1996

Mr. Chairperson: We shall proceed to consider Bill 64 clause by clause. Clause 1--pass; Clause 2--pass; Clauses 3(1) to 4(3)--pass; Clauses 5 through 7(2)--pass; 7(3) through Clause 11(1)--pass; Clauses 11(2) through 13--pass; Preamble--pass; Title--pass.

Is it the will of the committee that I report the bill?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 65--The Appropriation Act, 1996

Mr. Chairperson: We shall now proceed to consider Bill 65--page by page or groups of clauses?

An Honourable Member: Groups of clauses.

Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 1 through 3(1)--pass; Clauses 3(2) through Clause 6--pass; Clauses 7 through 9(2)--pass; Clauses 10 through 12--pass; Clauses 13 through 15--pass; Preamble--pass; Title--pass. Bill be reported.

At this time I would like to thank the honourable members for their co-operation during this past spring session. We have had a very enjoyable and reasonable time.

I would also like to thank the table staff for their assistance during this session, and the Hansard. I would like to thank our Pages who were here during this session for all the help they have given us. I understand it is their last day.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Committee Report

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996, and Bill 65, The Appropriation Act, 1996, and has directed me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that the report of the Committee of the Whole be received.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, by leave, I would ask that you call Report Stage on Bills 7, 35, 64, 65, 69 and 74.

REPORT STAGE

Bill 7--The Medical Amendment Act

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 7, The Medical Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi médicale), as reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 35--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On behalf of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 35, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 64--The Loan Act, 1996

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), by leave, that Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996 (Loi d'emprunt de 1996), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Finance have leave? [agreed]

Motion agreed to.

* (1830)

Bill 69--The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 69, The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers en immeubles), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

Motion agreed to.

Bill 65--The Appropriation Act, 1996

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment, by leave, that Bill 65, The Appropriation Act, 1996 (Loi de 1996 portant affectation de crédits), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

Motion agreed to.

Bill 74--The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 74, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): By leave, Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would call for third reading Bills 7, 35, 69, 74, 64 and 65.

THIRD READINGS

Bill 7--The Medical Amendment Act

Mr. Ernst: I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 7, The Medical Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi médicale), be now read a third time and passed.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

Motion presented.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, Bill 7, The Medical Amendment Act, proposes substantial amendments to the complaints and discipline provisions of The Medical Act to make them consistent with similar provisions recently enacted by The Dental Association Act and The Pharmaceutical Act. It ensures that all committees of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba have at least one-third representation from the public.

This is important. Too often Manitobans feel isolated from the medical establishment, but good health care means a patient must trust his doctor and also trust the medical authority that licenses the doctor.

In the past, this has been a closed-door society with little or no input from the public. There was the perception that this society protected doctors, not the patients. I hope that none of the disciplinary measures in this bill are ever used, but we must have these measures, and participation by the public in this process is important.

For the 1 percent of doctors who find their conduct is somewhat lacking, it is important that the public have access to these decisions. The bill will also give the College of Physicians and Surgeons increased flexibility in determining the sanctions that are necessary to protect the public.

Madam Speaker, with these brief comments, I would like to state that, in essence, the party supports the legislation.

Madam Speaker: Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 35--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 35, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille), be now read a third time and passed.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader have leave? [agreed]

Motion presented.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to put a few brief comments on the record regarding this important bill which we support. We think it is appropriate that people who are involved in prostitution, whether it is as johns or pimps or pedophiles, be added to the Child Abuse Registry.

However, there are some problems with this bill. There is actually a major loophole in terms of some individuals who will not end up on the Child Abuse Registry, and that is because every Child and Family Services agency in Manitoba is required to have a child abuse committee. However, there is at least one agency that the minister told us at the committee stage of this bill that does not have a child abuse committee, and I am aware of another one that I will be writing to the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) about.

If there is no child abuse committee, then no names are being forwarded to the provincial Child Abuse Registry, and the minister has promised to ensure that those committees will be set up, and we will be holding the minister to her word because this is a major omission, a major loophole in this bill working the way it is supposed to be and the Child Abuse Registry working the way it is supposed to be.

Secondly, although we support this bill, we believe that this government is contributing to the problem of child prostitution in Manitoba. We believe that prostitution is not merely a lifestyle choice of individuals, but many of these individuals were abused physically or sexually as children, and many of them are forced into prostitution due to their economic circumstances.

This is the same government that has reduced welfare rates for families and reduced welfare allowances for children, particularly children in the city of Winnipeg--7,000 children on city welfare in Winnipeg whose allowances were reduced because of the standardization policy of this government in 1993. The City of Winnipeg reduced their allowances on May 1 this year because they could no longer cost-share with the federal government, so really the blame is to be shared with the federal government for eliminating the Canada Assistance Plan and the provincial government for their policy of standardization.

We know that children under one year had their allowances for food and clothing and other expenses reduced by 26.3 percent. They lost $65.25 on their allowance, and that is a monthly amount. All of the reductions were between 2 percent and 26 percent. Every single category of allowances for children, 7,000 children in the city of Winnipeg, were reduced by this government.

Then members opposite wonder, what is the connection? Well, the connection is that some individuals feel forced into this kind of activity. Certainly there are many people, particularly in the inner city, who are involved in this business who have no hope, have total despair, have no hope of furthering their education or getting a job or being self-sufficient, who are turning to crime and prostitution and other ways of earning a livelihood. It is very, very sad. I do not think that anyone would condone this kind of behaviour, but it is happening and it is because of the pressure that these individuals and these families are under because of the policies of this government, particularly their cuts to social assistance and their lack of job creation.

* (1840)

This minister yesterday or a couple of days ago, in answer to my question, was talking about how they are creating jobs. Well, the number of jobs compared to the number of social assistance recipients is pitiful. We have 16,000 cases on city welfare, we have 26,000 cases, in May 1996, on provincial, and this government is creating something like 400 jobs in just one of their job creation programs, and they have eliminated a number of job creation programs over the years of their government.

In conclusion, although we support this bill, we condemn this government for their policies, which are forcing adolescents into prostitution. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 69--The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 69, The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers en immeubles), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I rise to put a few comments on the record on behalf of this side of the House. We want to say that we will support this bill as it has required support of this side of the House in order to be passed at this time

I also want to say that we want to commend the Winnipeg Real Estate Board for the initiative that they have shown and the interest they have shown in the whole area of affordable housing. We hope that this will continue and that the group of people that have formed to develop this legislation will stay involved so that we can see them participate in the development of a comprehensive housing strategy for all income levels.

I know that there is quite a good cross-section of people involved in the board for this housing initiative, and it would be great if all of them would keep up the interest and we can see a total comprehensive program for housing, because the program that will be available for home renovation with this bill and with the fund from The Real Estate Brokers Act will be a fairly small program. It will allow for the renovation, I think, of approximately 15 homes over a number of years and, unfortunately, there are a lot more people in Manitoba that require housing assistance and would require assistance in renovating their homes.

This bill will allow the trust fund from the Real Estate Board Brokers account to be used for the renovation of homes, and I want to remind all honourable members that this money is actually money from customers and home buyers, so it makes sense that it would be going to the use of the benefit of the community and members of the public to have available for renovations.

I also want to just caution the government that we do not see that this kind of program could replace their responsibility for social housing and replace the federal government's responsibility for social housing. We have seen this week a very bad example of where this government's commitment lies with their willingness to arrange for the demolition of 20 units of social housing, so it is kind of incongruent that they would be bringing forward a bill such as this at a time when they are paving the way for us to lose 20 units of perfectly good social housing here in the city of Winnipeg and St. Vital.

I am concerned also that the government in bringing forward this bill has not renewed the program for the home renovations that was in the last provincial government budget. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) just this past week put out a news release talking about the benefits of this program. It was a government home renovation program that generated $74 million in construction activity, so on the one hand while the Real Estate Board is recognizing that, under this government, housing starts have been at an all-time low, and I think in the creation of this program they are looking for new ways to try and create some activity on home purchases and home renovation, we have a government that has abandoned that responsibility and has not reinvested money into what was a fairly successful home renovation program.

This government is bringing in this bill which is enabling some beneficial activity on the one hand, but on the other they are taking away a lot of low income housing and a lot of programs that would have gone to renovating and providing for improvements in low income housing.

With those few cautionary comments, I would move that we would pass the bill.

Madam Speaker: Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 74--The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 74, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 64--The Loan Act, 1996

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 64, The Loan Act, 1996 (Loi d'emprunt de 1996), be read a third time and passed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 65--The Appropriation Act, 1996

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 65, The Appropriation Act, 1996 (Loi de 1996 portant affectation de crédits), be now read a third time and passed, by leave.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Finance. Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

It has been moved by the honourable government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 65, The Appropriation Act, 1996, be now read a third time and passed. Agreed?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No?

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.

An Honourable Member: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

An Honourable Member: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

An Honourable Member: On division.

Madam Speaker: On division.

* * *

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Madam Speaker upon the request of the government.

Motion agreed to.