Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, all members of this Legislature have supported policies that will not tolerate domestic violence in our society. We have supported the issue of zero tolerance throughout a number of governments in this House. Today it was reported that a victim was allegedly assaulted on three separate occasions, allegedly a victim had her arm broken.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Has there been any investigation of the handling of this case? Can the Premier advise us whether the zero tolerance policies that have been announced and reannounced in the 1995 election by the Premier--were the actions in this case consistent with that zero tolerance policy?

* (1340)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, without getting into any specific discussion of any particular case, I wish to indicate that the Attorney General's policy regarding domestic violence is unchanged, and it is straightforward. There is zero tolerance; that is, this means the discretion conferred on those responsible for enforcing the criminal law ought at each stage of the proceedings to be exercised in favour of sanctions where a lawful basis to proceed exists. In practical terms, this requires that where there is evidence to support charges, they will be laid. That is the policy direction of my department that continues to be the direction of this government.

Mr. Doer: I think we are all aware of the policy and the announcements on the policy.

On June 25 of 1996, Dorothy Pedlar, who wrote a report that was submitted to the provincial government, reported at the Lavoie inquiry that the former Justice minister and the previous Justice minister had made no serious attempts to implement the policy recommendations, including zero tolerance, that she had put forward to the government.

I would like to ask the Premier: Will he ensure that his third Minister of Justice is implementing the stated policies that he has made in the election campaign and that we will have a serious attempt to implement the policies, and we will be sure that we have implemented the policies on behalf of victims of violent and unacceptable abuse in our society?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, this is a government that has consistently made this issue one of its highest priorities. I know that, when I served under the Minister of Justice, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), it was his policy, it was his direction, it was the insight and leadership that that Attorney General brought to the area of domestic violence to set up a Domestic Violence Court, and I, as a Crown attorney at that time, was proud to serve a minister who would bring that kind of forward-looking policy to this province. I know that same policy has been continued by the prior Minister of Justice, and I will, as well, continue in that direction.

We have made it very clear where we stand in respect of this issue. It is a serious issue, and we will do everything within the law to ensure that people understand what our policy is. My understanding from the police who investigate these crimes is that they accept the direction of the Attorney General on these matters and that they are complying with that policy.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I would refer the Minister of Justice to the testimony provided by Dorothy Pedlar on June 25 to the Lavoie inquiry. These were her words, not ours, and the Minister of Justice should heed the independent advice that the Lavoie inquiry received not from a person of this Legislature but from an independent person who is skilled and experienced in this area. I asked the Minister of Justice in my first question whether the zero tolerance policy was followed in this reported public case.

I would like to again ask the Premier: Has he investigated his commitment of 1995, and can he tell us whether the policy, as articulated by the Minister of Justice, was followed in this case where three separate incidents took place, or was it not?

Mr. Toews: This issue is one that the government takes very seriously, that I as a minister take very seriously. I wish to point out that, under the direction of some of the prior Attorneys General from this government, we have brought in the most progressive policies designed to ensure that women in our communities are safe. I can recall that in the early 1980s, after 1981, there were incidents where Crown attorneys were requesting that women who complained and then would not testify were thrown in jail. Madam Speaker, those are not the types of policies I wish to be involved with or associated with. I think our government, on the contrary, instead of throwing women in jail who refuse to co-operate for whatever reason, we in fact have been taking an enlightened, progressive approach to ensure that justice is done in these situations, and we do more than talk.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice: I refer to the document published by this government entitled Stop the Violence, where it says: No margin will be afforded to abusers. The police and prosecutors have been so instructed and conduct themselves accordingly.

My question follows on allegations that yet the public is now presented with allegations that a police officer was not charged until last week in respect of allegations at an incident five months ago and earlier, one incident where a house appeared ransacked, there was an ongoing fracas recorded on tape, there was a witness who was not the victim, the victim apparently suffered a broken arm and, finally, there was an earlier incident where police were called. My question to the minister is: What action is he taking right now to ensure that the government's zero tolerance protocol is indeed being enforced, that are not just words, that it is being consistently and fairly applied?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I can understand when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) raises questions that touch upon a criminal investigation. The member for Concordia is not a lawyer, and perhaps he does not understand the dangerous ground that he is treading on. The member for St. Johns is a lawyer. He understands the impropriety of commenting on a specific case.

What I can assure the House is that this government remains committed to the policy of zero tolerance. We have approached this matter in a very sensitive way to ensure that all members of the justice community understand that this is the direction of the government, will continue to be the direction of the government. In reviewing any conduct in the future, we will ensure that our policy is in fact respected, and if in fact there is a problem in that respect, we will consult. We do not just automatically make decisions without knowing what the facts are.

* (1345)

Mr. Mackintosh: To the minister, who should be aware that the reputation of justice is affected by such allegations and it is his responsibility to respond, I ask him: Will he not take some action to discover how the Crown could have given an opinion that there should be no charge when there must have been evidence to support the charge because it now has been laid?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, our system of justice has evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years, and for this member to stand up and state that he would interfere with an independent investigation and prosecution is improper. I am prepared to let the prosecutors determine whether in any particular case, what action should be taken, but what he has to remember is that, in fact, the police are the investigative body. They ultimately determine whether there is a charge. If there has been any wrongdoing in any particular case, that will be reviewed by my department either through the regular prosecutorial process or otherwise. We remain committed to this, and I will not prejudge any particular case.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister not do simply as we ask, not to interfere with the particular case but rather to ensure to ask questions, to meet with the chief of police, to meet with his departmental officials to ensure that the government's own designed protocol on zero tolerance, which includes the police protocol, is being adhered to consistently and fairly for all Manitobans?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker--

An Honourable Member: Rosemary did it; that is what I did.

Mr. Toews: The comments from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) notwithstanding, this is a government that is in fact prepared to continue to enforce and give direction in respect of that policy. If that is the assurance the member for St. Johns wants, I can give him that assurance, that in fact that is a policy that we are continuing to apply in this province. For all intents and purposes, and certainly from any comments that I have read, the police respect that policy and indeed are continuing to abide by that.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): As reported in the review of Winnipeg casinos, which was given to the public and laterally to us last week, all nine stakeholder groups in the business and tourism communities, which included the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba Restaurant and Foodservices Association, Tourism Winnipeg, the Winnipeg Convention Centre, The Forks North Portage, the Manitoba Hotel Association, Downtown Winnipeg Business Improvement Zone, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and Winnipeg 2000, unanimously recommended that the Crystal Casino be relocated in downtown Winnipeg. Despite this overwhelming recommendation, the government has decided to further emasculate the downtown area.

Why does the Minister of Finance continue to ignore the needs and potential of downtown Winnipeg?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, we do not continue to ignore the needs and potential of downtown Winnipeg. As the member for Wellington knows, an independent study was done by Price Waterhouse. They made a recommendation to our government based on a combination of tourism potential, economics and other factors that the Crystal Casino be consolidated with the two existing complexes here in Winnipeg.

Those groups the member refers to were consulted during the whole review process by Price Waterhouse. Unfortunately, even though on the surface they may have suggested that there was some merit to retaining a downtown casino, there was no hard evidence provided whatsoever. We need look no further than the fact that the Crystal Casino is today in the Hotel Fort Garry. It has dropped by about 24 percent in attendance over the last two years and the Hotel Fort Garry, themselves, have asked that that casino be removed by 1999. Obviously if it had a significant impact on rooms, on food, on other aspects, they would be fighting to keep it downtown.

* (1350)

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, if, as the government continues to say, downtown Winnipeg is an important tourist draw, why do they not follow the recommendations, the unanimous recommendations of Tourism Winnipeg, the Convention Centre, the Hotel Association, the restaurant association, the Chamber of Commerce and the rest of the stakeholders and keep the casino downtown where the hotels, the restaurants and the entertainment centre of the city continues to be? Why not keep it there?

Mr. Stefanson: Quite simply, Madam Speaker, because there is no hard evidence that shows that there is a significant economic spin-off to other businesses. Read the report. I tell the member to read the report from Price Waterhouse. There is no evidence and no evidence has been submitted--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable Minister of Finance, to complete his response.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, quite simply, there is no evidence to suggest that there is any significant economic benefit to other businesses located downtown. Secondly, and I know the members are interested in this, it would require an additional investment of some $70 million that generates very little economic return to the taxpayers of Manitoba and to the province of Manitoba, money that today is used and held in education and a whole range of other services, money that can be used for projects downtown like housing projects that help to bring people downtown on a permanent basis, those kinds of initiatives.

I tell members opposite to look no further than their friends in Regina and look at the lack of success with a downtown location of a casino with significant investment in that facility and so on. I also encourage the members to follow some of the coverage through the media. A consultant that was in town meeting with North Portage, one of the groups the member refers to, said very specifically that a way to revitalize Portage Avenue and downtown--told business that casinos provide very little in spin-offs, a similar report today in The Globe and Mail. Those are the facts. I encourage members opposite to do some research and find that out.

Ms. Barrett: I would like to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) if he connived with the Minister of Finance in this latest decision which furthers the abandonment of the heart of the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, obviously this is a very serious issue, and it is an issue that was addressed by Price Waterhouse in their report, obviously an issue that we collectively as a government took very seriously. If you look at all of the facts--and I encourage members opposite to do that for a change, to read the report, to do some research on this issue and look at the economics and look at the other factors that come into play when you have to make these decisions. We have to make decisions in the best interests of all Manitobans, as opposed to the kind of knee-jerk reaction we are seeing from across the way.

I encourage you to read even today's Report on Business in The Globe and Mail. It talks about casinos. What does it talk about? Some of the white elephants that are being created in other jurisdictions right across North America.

If you look at the analysis done by Price Waterhouse, it clearly indicates that the best option is to consolidate the Crystal Casino with the two existing operations already in Winnipeg. There are many other initiatives that we can pursue, and we are prepared to, with other levels of government for the good of downtown. We will be a part of those projects, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I had a visit this morning with members of the Filcasa Housing Co-Op where they discussed their concerns about the federal Liberal government's and the Filmon provincial government's withdrawal from social housing, as evidenced by the end of the co-op program, the increase in the rent geared to income, the elimination of the loan share grant program and other cuts. The implications of these are increased poverty and urban decay, which will mean further deterioration of the downtown area of Winnipeg.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing: Does the minister agree that social housing is one of the keys to urban renewal and that in order to have viable businesses and a safe downtown, people have to live downtown; that social housing, the renovations and construction are a very important part of ensuring that people can live downtown; and that the private sector simply cannot pick up the pieces and provide for these low-income Manitobans and ensure they can remain living in the downtown area?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Yes, social housing is very important in the downtown area, to answer the member's question.

* (1355)

Ms. Cerilli: Then I would like to ask the minister to explain why, when the federal government cut its $270 million over the last three years for social housing, the Manitoba government has also cut its share, and why they have withdrawn from the budget that amount of money in Manitoba rather than reinvesting it into social housing in our province.

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, the number that the member is referring to when she said that the federal government has withdrawn $270 million, that was not $270 million from the Manitoba budget. That was $270 million from across Canada.

Our commitment to social housing has always been strong and will remain very strong, Madam Speaker, in that we have always been there for the needs within the social housing component. The funding decrease that the member refers to consistently is the funding that has decreased because of the demand in applications. If the demand goes down through applications, then naturally the budget has gone down.

The figure of $270 million is not a figure that has been cut from the Housing portfolio of Manitoba.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I do not think the minister understood the question. Based on one of the concerns expressed by the seniors this morning that the 667 housing developments, the co-ops and the nonprofits that are being transferred over from the federal government potentially to the province, that they could open up the existing operating agreements which could see a reduction in the subsidies and funds for the social housing, I want to ask the minister: Will he guarantee to us today that there will be no reduction in the subsidies or other funding to the existing housing developments in Manitoba in any agreement that he negotiates with the federal government?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, the member brings forth a very big concern regarding the federal government and the provincial government in the continual offloading by the federal government of its social housing commitments to the residents of Manitoba. We will continue to fight for all the satisfaction that we can out of working with the federal government in trying to ensure that we do get our fair share of the money that has been allocated. The federal government consistently has cut back. They have cut back, as the member before mentioned, $240 million. They have cut back on their new building program. They are continually cutting back on their programs. We have consistently had to reinforce and to backfill a lot of the shortfalls that the federal government has initiated. We will continue to do that.

It will be interesting to see, after the election of next week, how much more the federal government is going to look at social housing and their commitment, but we will be continually looking at the requirement of trying to satisfy the social housing needs here in Manitoba.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Lotteries Commission. We have a government that has had a half-baked idea in terms of what it should be doing with gambling in the province of Manitoba for years. Now we have the minister saying that we are going to have our casinos expand in our residential areas at our two bingo palaces. The question to the minister has been posed from the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). On what basis has this government made the decision that a casino has no role to play in the inner city? Did this government look into any other possibilities like the Union Station, for example, the Eaton centre, as a possible alternative?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, I know the member for Inkster has a keen interest in this area as he has been promoting the significant expansion of gaming and casinos right across Manitoba. I would encourage him, if he has not had the opportunity yet--a report was released on Thursday of last week, the independent report done by Price Waterhouse consulting group. It goes into a great deal of detail and information on this issue of why to consolidate the Crystal Casino with the two existing entertainment facilities. Obviously, that is a major part of this decision. It is an important issue, we acknowledge that, but based on the combination of economics, on tourism potential and the fact that there is no evidence pointing to any additional spinoff benefits to the businesses, this is in the best interests of Manitobans. If he has not had a chance, I certainly encourage him to read that report in some detail.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the question to the minister is: Why does this government insist that the only role for gambling in this province is for a cash grab? That is what your policy has been all about ever since you brought it in in 1988. Why do you not base your policy on tourism and what is in the best interests of the province of Manitoba, such as allowing if you are going to have a casino, to remain in the inner city, as opposed to squandering it into the residential areas?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, we want the right balance in the sense that we do want a significant element of tourism for our facilities, and that is in fact occurring. There are some 300 bus tours taking place at our facilities today. There is an opportunity for a much greater expansion in that area. The people who come as part of those bus tours will stay in hotels. They will stay in downtown hotels; they will spend their money elsewhere in Winnipeg.

To point out that the two entertainment facilities are in a residential district, again I encourage the member to drive down McPhillips and to drive down Regent and see where these two facilities are. Clearly, to leave the impression that they are plunked in the middle of residential communities is absolutely wrong. They are on business strips in Winnipeg and, therefore, any kind of expansion or adjustments to these facilities is certainly in keeping with the nature of those communities.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the McPhillips Street Station is in the riding which I represent, and it is right beside Shaughnessy Park, so the minister is wrong when he says it is not by residential areas.

Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Lotteries is: When are we going to see a gaming policy that is driven by tourist dollars as opposed to a cash grab from this government? When are we going to start to see that sort of action as opposed to the type of garbage we are seeing currently?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, you are seeing that kind of a policy right now, but I do want to point out to the member for Inkster that gaming does generate approximately $220 million of revenue here in Manitoba. It is about 4 percent of our budget, but probably what is more important is when you think of the reduction in funding from the federal Liberal government of $220 million over the last couple of years, I find it hypocritical for this member to stand before us and not suggest that there is some significance to the fact that there is $200 million of gaming revenue that we can use to support health and education, unlike what the federal Liberal government is doing these days by significantly reducing funding in those very important areas.

So, again, we have the Liberals on the one hand arguing we do away with that revenue, that revenue is not important, and on the other hand he stands before us and he supports those kinds of policies from the federal Liberal government that are causing problems for provinces right across this country.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Lotteries. Last week, last Thursday we finally got the report from Price Waterhouse recommending the closure of the Crystal Casino and the expansion of the McPhillips Street Station and Club Regent casinos to the tune of $50 million.

My question to the minister: Is this not a breach of his and his government's promise, an election promise of a gambling moratorium which was conveniently announced during the last election which now they are choosing to break? Another broken promise by this government.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Absolutely not, Madam Speaker. We appointed the Lottery Policy Review Committee chaired by Mr. Larry Desjardins. That committee made several recommendations. They made some recommendations regarding VLT operations in Manitoba. We have acted on those recommendations; in fact, we went further than the recommendations by reducing VLTs by some 15 percent. They recommended an independent gaming commission be established in Manitoba. We have gone ahead and we have enacted that legislation to put that in place. They also recommended that we conduct an independent feasibility study in terms of the Crystal Casino and the two entertainment facilities. We have done just that, and we are accepting the recommendations of that study.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister can inform us what he is putting into these new elaborate casinos or additions. Will the minister inform the House how many VLTs there will be, slot machines, bingo stations, gaming tables like blackjack, roulette, pai gow poker, baccarat, et cetera? How many gaming facilities or stations will there be after the $50-million expansion?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, this is an interesting question coming from the member for St. James because, if I heard her correctly on Thursday, she was arguing to keep all three facilities open and to expand the location downtown, clearly indicating her preference for significant expansion of gaming in Manitoba. What we have indicated, and we indicated on Thursday to the public, is that the detailed plans on the renovations and adjustments to these two facilities will be coming forward very shortly. It will outline the kinds of games that will be in place, any adjustments to any of the gaming machines, but I want to remind the member, as well, that VLT machines are not provided in any of the two gaming facilities or the casino.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, during the last election, it was the Conservatives and Liberals playing with gaming policy during the election, not us.

The question to the minister: Since the moratorium is basically lifted in Winnipeg, will the minister confirm that the moratorium is now lifted across the whole province of Manitoba, or is it only here for the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I think the member for St. James has to take some time to go back and do some research, and I remind her again of the Desjardins committee. The Desjardins committee made a series of recommendations. It made recommendations in the area of VLTs. We have reduced VLTs by 15 percent, and we have set a firm cap on the number of VLTs in Manitoba other than on reserve.

We have also announced that we are establishing a working group to work with the aboriginal community in terms of gaming on reserve. That committee will be up and functioning very shortly. We are also following through on the recommendation of the Desjardins committee to do an independent assessment of our three facilities, and the recommendation is to consolidate the Crystal Casino with the two entertainment facilities. So we have been acting on all of the recommendations from that report in a very comprehensive and forward-looking manner.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier.

Under this minister's leadership, taxpayers have lost large amounts of money on his pet projects. Iris Systems Inc., ManGlobe and TeleSend Gateway Inc. were all projects of this minister that met with difficulties. In the case of TeleSend Gateway Inc., the minister claims he gave the money to Shalesa Charron, but she is not the owner of that company.

Can the minister clear up the confusion and tell this House who really got the $200,000?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I do not accept any of the preamble from the member as it relates to the projects which we are involved in. Two of the projects that he has been asking questions about are still operational, operated by entrepreneurs in the province.

An Honourable Member: Entrepreneurs?

* (1410)

Mr. Downey: That is correct, Madam Speaker, entrepreneurs.

The negotiations took place with TeleSend, as I had answered in committee the other day.

An Honourable Member: It is on the Internet.

Mr. Downey: Well, the Leader of the Opposition says it is on the Internet. The information, which may not mean anything to them, but it was provided to the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism by the federal government. If they put it on the Internet, that is their business, but we did not break the confidence. They may have. We will not.

As well, Madam Speaker, I can tell you that it is a draft copy, which I understand is not binding on the province. There are still discussions taking place between the department and the federal government. I have not received an official recommendation as to a provincial position from the department at this particular time.

There is an additional question as to whether or not we could confirm the western governors' concerns. There could well be concerns from other jurisdictions. Our No.1 concern, as we have done in the past, is to make sure that Manitoba's concerns are looked after, and that is what this Premier (Mr. Filmon) has done, and that is what this government will continue to do.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My supplementary to the same minister is this. I would like to get the minister to concentrate on TeleSend Gateway Inc. for a moment. Could the minister explain the circumstances surrounding the application for the grant and the approval of the grant, and why the final $90,000 was withheld from TeleSend Gateway Inc.?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): If I understand the question correctly, it is why was it withheld. Madam Speaker, it was until the department was satisfied that all the terms and conditions of the agreement had been met.

Mr. Maloway: My final supplementary is this: In Estimates and in this House the minister stated that he checked the credit histories and the backgrounds of the principals and the shareholders of the TeleSend Gateway Inc. Can he tell this House what he discovered?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, as I had indicated previously, the terms and conditions of the agreement, which had to be met before the funds were flowed, were met, and the department recommended the flowing of those funds. The company, by the way, is in operation and has just acquired a new business opportunity in Ontario and is expanding.

I, for the life of me, have a hard time understanding why the New Democrats are against women being in business and creation of jobs in this province with new technology. I have a hard time understanding it, but maybe by the end of this session, I may catch on. I am not sure.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the board of Keewatin Community College has an enormous responsibility for the post-secondary education of all northern Manitoba, both community colleges and universities. The Minister of Education appoints that board and, under The Colleges Act, which she chose to retain, she remains responsible for that board.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education to explain why her board was unaware of the long-term issues of finance, of strategic planning, of budget processes and of the gulf between the president and senior management, which appears fundamental to the crisis in northern education at KCC.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I think the member makes an assumption that the board was unaware of things going on at the college. I think the board of governors was very much in touch with what was going on at the college there and working to resolve the situation, so she makes an assumption and bases a question on an assumption which may be erroneous and therefore speculative, and there is no answer that has been given to an assumption.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain why her board, if we accept the minister's explanation that they may well have been aware of this, could she explain why they chose to refuse the request of May 20 of senior management to meet with the board, and could she tell us what alternatives to a punishment by reprimand were considered by her board?

Mrs. McIntosh: The board of governors was approached by letter by five administrators who put forward allegations about the president. The board of governors has taken those allegations under consideration and is investigating them. The five administrators indicated that the board should fire the president immediately or those five administrators would resign. The board of governors said that they would like to do the investigation into the allegations to find out whether or not they were true before they dismissed anybody, and they accepted the five administrators' resignations and they have been replaced, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Can the minister tell us what guarantees she can give this House that the crisis in the management of northern education at KCC is not going to affect the introduction of the Northern Nursing Program, the introduction of a Bachelor of Nursing program which was to begin this fall? Can the minister assure us that will continue?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The alleged crisis the member refers to, we have received assurances, and press releases to that effect have gone out from the board of governors, that the students and their programs will continue to be served as they have in the past and that the allegations made by the five people who have now resigned will be thoroughly investigated to ascertain if there is any truth to them or not. Their intentions are to carry on servicing the students capably as they have in the past and as they will do in the future.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In response to my question on the decline of real personal disposable income since this government was first elected in 1988, the Minister of Finance referred to a 4.4 percent increase in 1996 in total personal disposable income in current dollars, which incidentally is less than one-half of the 9.8 percent increase experienced in Saskatchewan in 1996.

Will the minister acknowledge that when we take the inflation out of this 1996 estimate, we find that indeed average Manitobans have suffered a decline of nearly 4 percent in their after-tax income since this government first took office in 1988? In other words, today Manitobans have less money in their pockets than in 1988 when this government first took office.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, if you want to look at any of the current information, the information I encourage the member to look at that was just released, I believe on May 12, by Statistics Canada, the most current for 1995 after-tax disposable income, that shows that Manitoba grew by some 1.8 percent. Canada grew by .3 percent. Again, significantly higher than Canada and the second best in all of Canada, but I think what is one of the most important statistics--I know the member for Brandon East is always interested in statistics--is that Manitoba has the fourth highest after-tax family income in all of Canada. Only Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have higher after-tax incomes in Manitoba. I would say, in a relative sense, that is a good standing for the province of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.