LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, May 18, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Committee of Supply

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon 19 seniors who are out touring today from Treherne, Manitoba. They are under the direction of Mrs. Isabelle Adams, and they are from the constituency of the Speaker.

Also with us today, we have from Gainsborough, Saskatchewan, ten Grade 8 students under the direction of Mr. Gerald Kelly.

On behalf of all honourable members, we would like to welcome you here this afternoon also.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Western Premiers' Conference

Agenda‑‑Quebec Election

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

The original press release from the Premier had no reference to the whole issue of national unity and the possibility of the election changes in the province of Quebec. Subsequent to the release and news media coverage, the Premier indicated yesterday that the issue of a western Canadian position could be on the agenda of the western Premiers subsequent to the comments made by Premier Harcourt.

I would like to ask the Premier whether, in fact, the agenda has been changed, and will this issue be dealt with at the western Premiers' meeting in Gimli?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member has incorrectly put on the record something that I did not say. I did not say that it would be on the agenda. It will not be on the agenda.

What I did say was that given the comments of both Premier Harcourt and Premier Romanow, undoubtedly, when we have breakfast or lunch together on a private basis, as national leaders, we would, I am sure, be talking about and speculating about the outcome of the upcoming provincial election in Quebec and what that might mean for the future of our country and the decisions that Quebec might have to take.

But it is not on the agenda, and it will not be on the formal agenda, Mr. Speaker.

Quebec Separation

Manitoba Position

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know then from the Premier, the Premier of British Columbia and the Premier of Saskatchewan have clearly stated that the question before the people of Quebec should be very clear, that if they want to co‑operate and stay in Canada, there will be very positive relations with the rest of the country; but if they choose to go on a different path, that the path will be a tough one and that the province of Quebec can take nothing for granted.

* (1335)

I would like to know whether this scenario will be discussed informally at the Premiers' meeting, given the fact that many people feel that the people of Quebec should be fully aware of the feelings of western Canadians in terms of the decisions that the people in Quebec will be making in terms of a separatist government or a federalist government in the next provincial election.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just caution the member opposite that this is not a matter in which any of us ought to be looking for short‑term political gain, getting into a situation that frankly lies within the jurisdiction of the people of Quebec. I have said time and time and time again, we have gone through two constitutional rounds in which I have been a participant, and I know that the people of Manitoba do not want us to engage in another round of constitutional debate and discussion, negotiation. The people are fed up to here with constitutional discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where having discussed the constitution in a formal sense for too long, too long taken away from the economy, jobs and the real issues of Canadians and Manitobans, we do not want to go into that any longer. We are in a situation in which we can say very openly that Manitobans would prefer Quebec to make its decision. They would prefer Quebec to remain a part of Canada. I believe that very strongly. I know that is my belief, but they do not want us to get into a situation in which we have to give in to further constitutional concessions and other things in order to convince Quebec to stay.

We believe that Quebec ought to stay because Canada is the best place for Quebec, and Canada is better having Quebec a part of it, but we do not want to get into that kind of constitutional negotiation now on an ad hoc basis, and further, I do not think that we want to be seen as putting things on the record that can be used to inflame the separatist movement in Quebec.

So we do not want to get into situations in which we threaten Quebec or are perceived to be inflating the consequences or upping the ante to Quebec. I believe we are in a better position to just simply let Quebec make its decision and then deal with Quebec on the basis of whatever decision that it makes, having told them first and foremost that we would prefer them to be a part of Canada.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we of course agree with the Premier in terms of the decisions that Quebec people will have to make, and we agree with the Premier in terms of keeping a strong and united country with all provinces in it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a considerable amount of feeling in western Canada, and perhaps in other regions of Canada, that the early referendums in the 1980 period were almost an artificial referendum, where the words "sovereignty association" were used, and that the separatist movement in Quebec is pedaling a very, very irresponsible alternative in terms of what will happen if indeed they choose to go on a different path.

I would ask the Premier, at what point will we be dealing with the issue of allowing the people of Quebec to make an intelligent decision in their best interests but, at the same time, recognizing the strong concerns that other Canadians have about those options and what the ramifications of those options will be?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think at this point we need to add our voice to those that have already been made, that have suggested very strongly, and I have happened to have had this discussion with the Prime Minister not too long ago. One of the best things that has happened over the last while with the election‑‑a considerable number of Bloc Quebecois people to Parliament‑‑is that they have been smoked out, and they have now started to use the term "separation."

That term has also been used in Quebec by Mr. Parizeau. I do not think that anybody is going to be dealing with a soft and mushy question when the Government of Canada and all the other governments across the country are saying very clearly that the choice is either to be a part of Canada or not to be a part of Canada. It is not some kind of mushy definition of sovereignty association or whatever you may want to characterize it as.

I think that is perhaps one of the better things that has come out in the last six months, that both Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard have said clearly that their goal is separation. Under those circumstances, I believe that the people of Quebec will know what the choice is and what the consequences are.

* (1340)

Firearms Control

Amnesty Program

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice. We understand the minister is considering an amnesty program for the owners of illegal guns so we can get these guns off the streets and out of our communities.

My question to the minister is: In order to make this program effective, is she considering forging a partnership with police so people do not have to just go into the police offices and be intimidated, but that the police can go out to homes to get the guns, and, as well, is she considering any incentive program to go along with the amnesty?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): As I said earlier in an interview, the government was considering several points to deal with illegal guns, one of which was an amnesty. I will confirm now that this government will be looking at an amnesty for illegal guns.

The details of that amnesty will be released when the program is released. As the member knows, it does require the co‑operation of police services across the province, and I will be working with those police services to work out the details of an amnesty.

Manitoba Position

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Just for clarification, the minister talked about an amnesty being one part of the government's plan, and we recognize it as only one part and perhaps a very small part.

What is the provincial government's position, and what position has the provincial government advanced to the federal government, first, about increasing the offences for the crime of using a gun in the commission of an offence? Second of all, what is this government's position, and what have they told the federal government about what has to be taking place on the issue of handgun control?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): This government and I as minister have said to the federal government that we certainly support the responsible use of guns and also the safe and responsible storage. Those were two areas in which we reinforced our commitment.

We have asked the federal government, however, to consider some changes within the current legislation that might deal with sentencing where crimes have been committed with a gun as a weapon, also in the area of parole to be considered.

Government Strategy

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): First, I just wonder if the minister would table any written correspondence she has had with the federal government, so this House knows what this provincial government's position is.

My question is, what is the province itself going to do about guns in Manitoba? Does it have any position? Does it have any plans, particularly regarding pellet guns and replica guns, otherwise complementing the federal legislation, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member asks the questions but appears not to have listened to any of the answers. This government has made a decision to move ahead in co‑operation with police services to move towards an amnesty to deal with the illegal guns, which are the guns of concern, the illegal guns which may in fact be the ones that people may use in the commission of a crime. Perhaps he did not listen to the answer.

Manitoba Medical Services Council

Nursing Representation

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Health released the membership of the new Medical Services Council which originally was the product of the agreement between the government and the Manitoba Medical Association.

My question is quite simple for the Minister of Health. Given all of his talk about an inclusive system, about the need to consult broadly and widely, not restrict the level of his outreach to the various stakeholders in the health care system, why out of 14 members on that committee is there only one nurse?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Medical Services Council is there to advise the government on various areas, areas respecting the medical services appropriations of the government. It is true that one of the members representing the public interest is a nurse, and I think that is appropriate. I think it is also noteworthy that of all of the 14 members, four represent the medical profession, and the others represent regulatory agencies, the Faculty of Medicine, the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, and the general public.

So we think the mix is an appropriate mix. When you consider also the Physician Resource Committee and the opportunities that will be there for the public to have a say and the membership that has already been announced for that, two of those people are nurses, so we feel that the nursing profession will have its input this way and also directly with the government.

* (1345)

Mr. Edwards: It is my understanding that there are six medical doctors. In addition, there is the executive director of the Manitoba Medical Association, Mr. Laplume.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. There are two nurses on the Physician Resource Committee. As the physicians decide what they want to investigate, they can certainly speak to nurses. Nurses are not brought into the decision‑making process on what the minister calls medical services appropriation.

Why is there only one out of the 14 that is a nurse, given that there are 10,000 nurses in this province, Mr. Speaker, and only approximately 2,000 doctors?

Mr. McCrae: If the honourable member looks at the large number of committees, implementation teams, task forces and so on that provide advice to the Department of Health, he will see nurses on many, many of those committees.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this, by the minister's own announcement, is in fact the most critical committee in the review of health reform and how it is going to be implemented.

My final question for the minister: There is one out of 14 on the council, there are two as part of the Resource Committee at the direction of the physicians, but why, when the minister set up the advisory subcommittees, and he set up a number of these, is there not even a committee there dedicated to representing the nursing profession and the 10,000 nurses who are, in fact, delivering the vast majority of health care services to Manitobans every day on every shift on every ward?

Mr. McCrae: What the honourable member misses, which is the main point here, Mr. Speaker, is that this Medical Services Council has been set up to help us administer an agreement between the government and the physicians.

Now, maybe the honourable member is upset that finally at long last we have been able to bring peace to the relationship between the medical profession and the government, and he is now taking the position that he does not support the agreement between the government and the Manitoba Medical Association. [interjection] Well, he just said from his seat that we sold out. If he wants to support what he calls a selling out or wants to repudiate that, that is fine. He is saying that he does not support that agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we have had problems in Manitoba that have gone on for years and years. Members of the previous government‑‑and previously we have not been able to resolve those differences. Through the agreement we have with the Manitoba Medical Association, we have a fighting chance of providing a quality health system for Manitobans for generations perhaps to come. We are pleased to have the input of the nursing profession on the Medical Services Council and on the Physician Resource Committee as well.

Manitoba Medical Services Council

Selection Criteria

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister will know from questions in the Estimates that of 89 working committees that this government has, only 6 percent of the representation on those committees are nurses, and the minister will know that we asked the minister and he undertook to try to increase the percentage of nurses on all committees. He gave that undertaking in Estimates.

My question to the minister is: We see familiar faces, like Jules Benson and Frank Maynard, on this committee. I am wondering if the minister can outline for us how it was determined which individuals would represent the public interest on this committee, because there are three representatives, and can the minister indicate how it was that the three individuals who represent the public interest were chosen?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think the record needs to be set straight, too. It was not too long ago that I asked the various members of the nursing profession to sit at the same table. There are some nursing professional and educational issues that need to be resolved, have not been resolved for 28 years in this province.

I tried to bring all of the nursing organizations together. We had representation from the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, the Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, the Manitoba Association of Registered Psychiatric Nurses, representatives of nursing assistants, and the day before the meeting that we were to have a day‑long meeting‑‑and there will be others as well‑‑I was told by the Manitoba Nurses' Union that they would not be attending the meeting. I went to the further step of calling Vera Chernecki to ask her if she herself could not attend this extremely important gathering of nurses to try to resolve long‑standing issues, and her answer was no, she would not be attending.

* (1350)

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that there is a little bit of a lack of trust perhaps in the community given that response?

Will the minister answer the question: How was it that this government determined who the public interest representatives would be on this committee?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the consideration of the government in the striking of these committees was driven by the agreement itself, which calls for representation from the department. We have to have government people involved in a committee that is going to be making very important recommendations. There is representation from the Manitoba Medical Association; representation on the Physician Resource Committee; from the Urban Health Advisory Council; as well as the Northern/Rural Health Advisory Council. The Faculty of Medicine‑‑I think it is appropriate that that organization, which does not represent the same interests as the Manitoba Medical Association or indeed of the government be represented. The Professional Association of Residents and Internes of Manitoba‑‑it is appropriate that, when the future of physicians in Manitoba is being discussed, that organization be represented; and the Manitoba Health Organizations and on and on.

Agenda/Minutes Release

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, since this committee will deal with a billion dollars of expenditures over five years, it will have a significant factor on our health care system. Will the minister, in what he says will be a new era of communication, undertake to make public both the agendas and the minutes of all meetings of this committee because it deals with such significant issues?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would take the honourable member's question as a representation and consider the matter, but I think it is also important that he understand that decisions are based on population health needs. That is why it is important to have representation from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, that we have representation of people who have an interest in the community and an interest in the health needs of the population from a purely public point of view. That is why we have people like Edith Parker, Lynn Raskin‑Levine and Barb Gfellner on that committee representing the public interest. I do not know what it is the honourable member has against these people, but I think they have a lot to offer.

Adoptions

Aboriginal Family Reunification

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, between 1964 and 1981, over 2,500 aboriginal children were removed from their home communities. In the early 1980s, aboriginal children represented over 60 percent of children in care, and in 1982, 45 percent of aboriginal children placed for adoption were placed outside of the province of Manitoba, half of them in the United States.

In his excellent report in 1985, Judge Kimelman called this process cultural genocide. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what her government is doing to assist aboriginal persons who were adopted to find their birth parents, a crucial process for these individuals that is reuniting families and helping individuals re‑establish their identity.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable member for that question. The history in our province has left some questions unanswered, much before my time as the Minister of Family Services or this government, in fact, and I suppose members of governments of all political parties have had a part to play or a role to play.

Mr. Speaker, we have within the Department of Family Services a postadoption registry that does try to unite birth parents and children. We will continue to use that process to ensure that where there is a will, there is a way to unite both sides.

Postadoption Registry

Fee for Service

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask this minister, why has she and why has her government begun to institute a fee for service in April of this year of $300 at the postadoption registry, since Judge Kimelman recommended that staff resources continue to be available to co‑ordinate and expedite the repatriation of native children who were placed out of province in the past? Why this new fee to many people who cannot afford it?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Indeed, services that are available in many instances‑‑I mean, it would be wonderful if government could do all things for all people, and we could just tax more and generate more revenues so that we could spend unconditionally.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. In very difficult economic times, we have to look at, in instances, recovering the costs for services that are provided by government. This is one of those instances where, indeed, there will be an increase in fees.

* (1355)

Mr. Martindale: Unfortunately, this minister does not understand that this issue is really about righting a historical wrong. That is‑‑

Mr. Speaker: And the question, sir, is?

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister, since these changes have major implications for aboriginal peoples and First Nations in the province of Manitoba, could she table any correspondence that she has had, before this fee‑for‑service policy was implemented with aboriginal Child and Family Services organizations, with any aboriginal organizations and with the federal government? What consultation was there before this fee for service was implemented?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have an opportunity, and I believe it might be just as early as tomorrow, to get into the Estimates process for the Department of Family Services.

Indeed, we will have the opportunity to dialogue around all of these issues in great detail. Members of the opposition can put on the record their policies and what they might do differently from this government, and I look forward to that opportunity for that dialogue and discussion.

Manitoba Sports Federation

Funding Reductions

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, recently the members of this House passed a resolution praising the achievements of several Manitoba athletes. Their hard work and training brought them to the highest levels of competition, but their achievements would not be possible without the strong foundation created by the presence of the numerous provincial athletic associations.

However, the Manitoba Sports Federation's latest budget contains several severe blows for athletes in Manitoba, as funding for several sports were substantially cut, particularly the high school and university sports programs.

Can the Minister responsible for Sport tell this House how he will ensure that Manitoba will maintain its strong record of achievement in athletics in the light of the cuts made by the Sports Federation, forced on them by this government?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport): Mr. Speaker, I would caution my honourable friend from Interlake, he should not always believe everything he reads in the paper.

Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend would read the Estimates book tabled with the budget a month or so ago, he will see that our funding to the Manitoba Sports Federation is exactly the same as it was last year. No change. As a matter of fact, the president of the Manitoba Sports Federation has publicly, on a number of occasions, complimented the government for in fact maintaining the funding that they have obtained for this year.

What is going on, as the member perhaps knows or should know, is that the Manitoba Sports Federation is made up of 96 different organizations. They are the membership of the Manitoba Sports Federation. They are the Manitoba Sports Federation. What you have read in the paper today is in fact a dispute among the members as to how much of the pot they are going to get. It is an internal dispute, nothing to do with us. It has to do with only the membership of the Manitoba Sports Federation.

Mr. Clif Evans: Will the minister not acknowledge that a cut of 30 or 50 percent for university athletes and the cutback in sport activities in high schools and public schools will reduce future opportunities for our young people to participate and achieve athletic goals as well as their education? Will he not accept that?

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my honourable friend from Interlake. I do not find it very palatable that the sport profile arrangement that the Sports Federation has for distributing money amongst its members is very fair in terms of this agreement. I agree with the member for Interlake.

* (1400)

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, will the minister then agree with this member to consider alternate provincial funding, including money from lottery ads or block grants which are unfair for the organizations which are unfairly penalized by this new policy?

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, we once again see the true spots of the members in the opposite benches. When all else fails, throw more money at it. When all else fails, put more money in. It does not necessarily mean that the money already there, the same as it was last year, is being appropriately spent. That is the argument. They ought to appropriately spend the money that they receive.

Child Guidance Clinic

Service Reductions

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Last night Winnipeg School Division No. 1 finalized their budget for '94‑95. In this budget, the effects of this government's cuts to the education system became, once again, evident. In order to preserve the classroom setting, the school division cut a number of services, among these staff of the Child Guidance Clinic. The Child Guidance Clinic deals with thousands of cases every year and already has a lengthy waiting list.

My question for the minister: What alternatives are there for children with development and behavioral problems in need of treatment when the mental health system is overburdened and the services provided through the Child Guidance Clinic are being cut?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Well, Mr. Speaker, the member asks a question not totally within our responsibility. The Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is constituted under law to make decisions with respect to its own budgetary matters. The board was put in place and indeed has been duly elected.

I, too, have been watching carefully what decisions that board was going to render with respect to its programming areas, and although it would be unkind for me to reflect on some of the decisions made, I can say that if the member is wanting, again, more money directed to the questions, I am indicating to him that I would be more than willing to engage in discussions on this. It is coming up very quickly in our Estimates review, and I would expect that we will have an opportunity to dialogue around that issue at that time.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be that the government does not have an alternative, which is most unfortunate given the children that need these services.

Education System

Physiotherapy Services

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Can the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) tell this House if the department is now ready to provide physiotherapy to needy children in the schools, something they have refused to do in the past, in that Winnipeg No. 1 is now refusing to pay for this service which is a health and not an education service?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, again the member is asking the provincial government to step in and assume the responsibility for the fallout of decisions that are made elsewhere. Yesterday in Estimates review, of course, the members opposite wanted us to assume all the responsibility of the ACCESS programming, given the federal government has stepped out of that. Now what the member is saying is that the provincial government should have contingency plans or other plans in place when a school board which has been supporting a particular area of programming decides no longer to support it.

The members try and make believe that somehow it is our responsibility. The Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is accountable to the people who elect it. They have within their purview to make these decisions. That is indeed what the governance model is all about, and I do not think the members opposite would take very kindly if we were to rush in and do all of the activities, make all the decisions of that local board.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Minister of Education understands. Physiotherapy is in fact now as a result of the cut‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Inkster with his question.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would ask the Minister of Health‑‑physiotherapy is a medical requirement that students require. It is something that the school divisions have picked up because of the lack of commitment from this particular government to be able to provide‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster, kindly put your question now, sir.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health is: Will he indicate to this Chamber what sort of alternatives the minister has to deal with this particular area?

Mr. Manness: Again, not to reflect too strongly on decisions made by other levels of government, but there are other alternatives. I say that we are open to the local school division. There are other priorities that could be chosen, but again, the member is asking us to somehow defend the actions of the local school board who have given lesser priority to this particular health care issue than some other areas.

* (1405)

So, Mr. Speaker, what the members are saying now is, more clearly define education from health and make sure that health is funded out of this pocket and education is funded out of this pocket.

It does not work that way, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is responsible for the whole Consolidated Revenue Fund, and indeed the whole process of budgetary decisions are all directed towards drawing from one Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that is the issue here. As far as the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 making certain decisions with respect to their responsibilities, they have done so accordingly.

Western Premiers' Conference

Agenda‑‑Farm Support Programs

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, given that the western Premiers will be meeting in Manitoba, I would hope high priority will be given to agriculture issues.

My question to the Premier is: Will agriculture be on the agenda, and can he tell us if he will be encouraging a co‑ordinated effort by western provinces to develop a national farm support program to replace the existing programs?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Indeed, Mr. Speaker, agriculture and particularly agricultural trade and some of the harassments that western agriculture has been experiencing at the hands of the Americans will be a serious issue for debate on our agenda.

I know that the member will want us to ensure that we speak out in the strongest possible terms against the harassments that the U.S. government has been placing against things like hogs, things like sugar, durum wheat, barley exports and all of these other issues.

Ms. Wowchuk: Certainly we will want those issues addressed, but my question is, will there be a discussion on farm support programs, and can the Premier tell us what position he will be taking to the table as far as support programs?

Has the committee that is developing the replacement program here in Manitoba put any proposals forward, and can those proposals be tabled here in the House?

Mr. Filmon: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course the Agriculture ministers will be meeting, I believe, in Manitoba this summer and will be discussing very seriously those issues.

We in Manitoba, of course, have continued our commitment to programs like GRIP and NISA. We, in fact, extended the time of the agreement on GRIP to provide that extra security of the safety net to our farmers, and we, of course, believe that that is the approach to take, that we ought to be ensuring that our farmers have that kind of safety net which they can fall back on.

Agriculture is an extremely important part of the Manitoba economy. We will continue to give it our utmost support, Mr. Speaker.

Farm Support Programs

Government Position

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether his committee has put any proposals forward as to what they see as a replacement program, whether they are supporting a national program and whether they are considering programs that will have caps on them and programs that are based on the cost of production, and if there is a proposal, will he table it in the House for us?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the member asks a very large question. A committee is busy at work. Those proposals will be viewed very seriously by the Ag ministers who will be meeting here in the national conference during the first week of July.

They contain a host of variations. Some include an enhanced NISA type program. Others, in particular eastern provinces, are looking towards extension of current stabilization programs.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the honourable member to enter into this discussion with me during the Estimates debate on the Department of Agriculture.

Keewatinowi Awasisak Opi‑Ki‑Wak

Funding

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): The provision of adequate child care is important to many people, particularly women entering the labour force, also to students, particularly the ACCESS students, and many child care centres are facing difficulty because of this government's policies, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Family Services whether this government will be responding to the Keewatinowi Awasisak Opi‑Ki‑Wak child care centre, which is targeted towards aboriginal students and particularly ACCESS students in Thompson, that is indicating, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: Without provincial funding and subsidy spaces allocated to our centre, it will be impossible for the Keewatinowi Awasisak Opi‑Ki‑Wak to continue to provide services.

Will the minister be responding to this application?

* (1410)

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure and the opportunity of visiting Thompson not long ago on the consultation process that we held with the community volunteers, with the service providers, with clients that receive support from social assistance, and I visited the infant lab and the child care that does support young single parents who are trying to complete their Grade 12 education.

I must say that I was quite impressed with some of the programming that is going on in the Thompson area. I think we have to look at what is happening there in the whole context of what some of our pilot projects might look like for single moms as we develop them and approach the federal government for support and for funding.

I have received a letter, and I did hear first‑hand, Mr. Speaker, some of the issues and concerns around child care support in Thompson. We will be addressing those issues, and when those decisions are made, I will certainly communicate.

Child Care System

Single‑Parent Families

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will look favourably in terms of that. I would also like to ask the minister if she is aware of the pressure that is being put on the child care centres, whether it be the Teekinakan Centre, which is having to close infant care, whether it be the Juniper Pre‑School, which has a waiting list of 131, particularly single parents.

Will she ensure, now the minister is talking about a single‑parent initiative in conjunction with the federal government, that one of the aspects that will be dealt with will be changing some of the government's own policies in terms of child care which are impacting negatively, Mr. Speaker, on single parents?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we have had several consultations right throughout the province, including Thompson. The issues around child care were issues that were raised as a result of that consultation process. As we develop proposals and projected, proposed pilots to deal with the issue around single moms and getting them off of welfare into the workforce, into training opportunities, completion of high school education, all of those issues will have to be dealt with in the context of what our pilot projects might look like.

Mr. Ashton: My final question, Mr. Speaker, will the minister in particular look at what is happening? Many child care centres are reporting an increase in the number of single parents, many of them women who are unable to obtain the support they are entitled to legally because of problems of enforcement.

Will she review the government's decision to cap the number of subsidized spaces and provide the spaces that are absolutely key for many single parents to get off welfare, to get into the workforce, the child care system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I do want to indicate and put again on the record this government's commitment to child care in the province of Manitoba. We have increased dramatically the support in the child care area with dollars and with increased subsidized spaces, twice as many as were in place under the former NDP administration. So we have made a major commitment. There are more subsidized spaces within the system, considerably more. There are more licensed daycare spaces in the province of Manitoba, considerably more than were there under the NDP government.

I just want to relate and put things into perspective when we look at our $47 million budget for child care as opposed to $14 million in NDP Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Question has expired.

Speaker's Ruling

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have a ruling for the House.

After Prayers on May 17, 1994, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) rose on a matter of privilege and moved "THAT the motion moved by the member of the official opposition in Committee of Supply calling for the question to be put is a breach of privilege and should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections."

I thank the honourable member for his submission, as well as that from the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

In his argument, the honourable member for Inkster submitted, I believe, that his privileges as a member had been breached because he was not able to speak to a motion under consideration in the Committee of Supply on May 16 because a motion "THAT the question be now put" was presented, and terminated debate on the main motion.

The honourable member fulfilled the first condition of privilege by raising the matter at the first available opportunity. As to the second condition, that of establishing a prima facie case, I am ruling that this is not a matter of privilege.

Beauchesne's Citation 107 indicates that a matter of privilege arising in a committee must be raised initially in that committee. The House can only deal with a matter of privilege which originated in a committee on receipt of a report from that committee. I would add that our Rule 65(14) permits the use of the previous question in Committee of Supply and states that the motion is not debatable.

Also, I would remind all honourable members of rulings of June 2, 1989, and July 7, 1993, when events arising from committee meetings were raised in the House as an alleged matter of privilege. On those dates, I pointed out to the House that it is not competent for a Speaker to exercise procedural control over committees. The proper course of action on May 16 for the honourable member for Inkster would have been to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity in committee.

There is, therefore, no prima facie case evidence for a case of privilege.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I move the Supply motion, I do have two or three items of House business that I would like to attend to if I could.

On April 29, I announced in the House that there was an agreement between House leaders for the House to sit Monday hours on Tuesday, May 24. If you were to canvass the House, I believe you will find unanimous consent to make this adjustment to our sitting hours, and following that I would have a couple of other items.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to sit Monday hours on Tuesday, May 24? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Discussions amongst House leaders, Mr. Speaker, lead me to believe there may be unanimous consent for the Committee of Supply to sit in two sections on Wednesday, May 25, from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to sit next Wednesday between the hours of 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.? Is that what you said?

An Honourable Member: Today.

Mr. Speaker: Today. That has already been agreed to though. Next Wednesday is what you are asking for? Yes, next Wednesday. Is there unanimous consent of the House to sit next Wednesday night between the hours of 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, House leaders have also had discussions respecting tonight's sittings of the Committee of Supply and also now those on the evening of May 25, and they have agreed that provisions of subrule 65.(9), which include reference to formal votes and the introduction of Estimates of a new department should apply from 7 p.m. until adjournment. I believe there may be unanimous consent for that.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have Rule 65.(9) of our rules apply for this Wednesday night and also again for the next following Wednesday? [agreed]

* (1420)

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider 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 for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Health.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 4.(b) on page 41 of the Estimates book.

Shall the item pass?

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): This is still the ACCESS line, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Yes, it is.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to follow up with the minister on a couple of the questions I raised yesterday, and one of those is the issue of the Canada Student Loan regulations. The existing regulations are such that there are indeed annual caps and total caps for different degrees or for the number of years of particular programs, and I suggested to him that in general this is going to affect adversely the ability of many, not all but many, of the ACCESS students to complete their programs.

I want to ask the minister what he plans to do about that? Has he made any representation to the federal government? Is there any flexibility within the program for changes within Manitoba regulations that might enable him to assist students who are caught in that particular bind? What plans does he have?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know in the mind of the member for Wolseley it is impossible to separate the ACCESS Program from changes that might be contemplated by the federal government with respect to student financial assistance, and therefore drawing the question, well, if there are changes what would be your support? But more importantly, I suppose, the question arises, well, what will you do to take into account these caps coming into place and being more effective?

Ms. Friesen: The caps are already in.

Mr. Manness: I know the caps are in place, but I think what the member is saying is now we are going to be driving a new group of students against those caps. I think that is what she is saying. As I said yesterday on the record that to the extent of the few cases that that may be happening, then obviously those individuals are going to have to make the same decisions as regular students today who are also coming against those caps.

Now we keep hearing statements made that the federal government is going to increase those caps. In what time frame I do not know. The member says, well, the legislation is tabled and does not make any reference to‑‑I do not know whether this draw of cap changes were to draw their support from regulatory changes that could flow from therein, I do not know. The member probably knows the bill better than I do. The public stance‑‑I mean, first of all I do not know whether the government is going to come out strongly supporting the increase in caps and total indebtedness for across the board, beyond the levels that are in place now. So that is why I am kind of hesitating.

I say that in all candour because I question the wisdom of enticing people beyond the caps that now exist. I have no problem, though, asking some groups that up to this point have not had significant loan requirements because of the nature of certain programs, i.e., ACCESS, I have no problem whatsoever asking them to begin to move towards whatever caps are in place, but I still generally support lesser debt as compared to greater debt. In saying that, if the province is borrowing in support of free education for those students, they too have their own debt, and they no longer can do that.

* (1430)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are really two issues here. The first issue is the existing regulations and the existing caps which are in place, which presumably will remain in place until the federal bill is passed and until the regulations flowing from that have been introduced.

Okay, so let us take situation (a) right now where there are existing caps which the minister knew about. It has been brought to his attention that this will have an impact on some students. The minister's argument is that this, his new program, introduces the principle of equality into the bill, into the program. But the response of the students is that they are not equal to the majority and to the average Manitoba students, that they are starting from further behind, that they are starting from a lower grade level, and their programs have been arranged in such a way that they do move, as they are adult learners, more quickly through a program, so that they are, in fact, using up the caps, particularly since many of them are parents, more quickly than the average students.

So the idea of equality, that they are similar to other representative groups of Manitobans, seems to me to be not borne out.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in part, the argument is correct, and that is why, of course, we do not wish and will not force individuals of whom we are speaking to the second level of loan, that being the Manitoba Student Loan portion, the $110 level per week.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have any sense of how to feed a family of two or three on $165, plus the $40 bursary, plus pay fees, plus pay books, plus pay transport?

Mr. Manness: Again, it is $110 plus $40, so her numbers are wrong.

Ms. Friesen: I am giving you the Canada loan, plus your bursary, which is $165 plus $40.

Mr. Manness: $165 plus $110 plus $40.

Ms. Friesen: But you are now forcing them to the Manitoba level.

Mr. Manness: We are not forcing them to take a loan. We are providing that as a grant. We are providing the second level as a grant. That is why the second level is uncapped for ACCESS students.

Ms. Friesen: So will the minister then give us the budget then for an ACCESS student who accesses the maximum amount available? It will be $165 Canada Student Loan, repayable; $110 Manitoba Student Loan, nonrepayable? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Manness: $110 Manitoba Student Loan, nonrepayable.

Ms. Friesen: So that is a bursary given at the time?

Mr. Manness: Yes.

Ms. Friesen: And how many of the ACCESS students will be eligible for that?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, whoever meets the regulations and the criteria that are in place right now. What number, I do not know. Until we go through the whole eligibility criteria and all of the process, we do not know. And yet, as we indicated before‑‑I think I read the numbers the other day, that 30 percent of those applying would not qualify for any Canada Student Loan portion.

Ms. Friesen: There are two sides to that. There are those who do not qualify, because their assets are sufficient; there are those who do not quality for other reasons; and there are those who do not qualify unless they liquidize their assets, such as their house or their car, and under the new federal regulations, that is going to be a car over $2,000, which I think is going to be an issue for rural students. I am sure the minister appreciates that.

But to continue on the other line of questioning, the Manitoba Student Loan then will become a Manitoba student bursary of $110 available to students who qualify under what regulations? Where are the regulations and what are the criteria for qualification?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, as I pointed out and as I have indicated in the House several times, I indicated to the audience here yesterday, these are policy. These are not required‑‑changes do not have to be put into place with regulatory change. These are policy changes, and this is why students who come in and are eligible under certain sets of rules and policies are told at the time that this may not be the guarantee of support in terms of the length of your program. This will vary from budgetary year to budgetary year. That is well known, maybe not as well known as it should be, but I mean, an attempt is made. And so what we will do here, when we do not need to make regulatory changes, we will just indicate that those, of course, who come through the criteria are ACCESS students in this case who qualify, will indeed be provided with nonrepayables on their Manitoba Student Loan side of the issue.

Ms. Friesen: I am trying to get at what the implications are for individual students. There is a first barrier they are going to have to face under this new program as whether or not they fulfill the criteria for Canada Student Loan, and the minister, I think, is aware that there are restrictions on that which will adversely affect people who are in this program now or who had anticipated being in this program.

I tried to discuss with the minister yesterday what representations he might have made, might be interested in making, to the federal government for some flexibility in their rules of application of Canada Student Loan regulations, existing ones, to ACCESS students, and I really have not heard any response on that.

The second issue I am trying to get at now is who is eligible, what are the criteria to be eligible for what the minister is calling that second stage, that $110 bursary as it has become for ACCESS students.

Then there is a third level, I understand, of approximately $40 per week available to ACCESS students, also as a bursary.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the $40 third level is available to all students who achieve the criteria, but let me point out, the member would say, well, some students may not be able to be brought under this program because indeed of certain sets of circumstances, and as I said yesterday, I cannot change the Canada Student Loan program to make it work better specifically in Manitoba for one subset of students, but what we can do, and as I said yesterday always happens, if there are special sets of circumstances, then they would form, I would think, the basis for an appeal to the appeal board under the Canada Student Loan program.

Ms. Friesen: So the minister as Minister of Education in this province is essentially prepared to put the burden on the student of essentially changing regulations across Canada so that they can be eligible for this program. I mean the limitations on accessibility in a program called ACCESS seem to me very evident in what he is doing, making this program, by making students go to loan under the regulations of the Canada Student Loan, less accessible.

Mr. Manness: I guess we agree to disagree. We are asking individuals who today, in larger and larger number by way of the survey have greater and greater means, we are asking for support for the program to change to take into account what is happening. Yes, obviously, there are going to be some negative impacts on certain individuals who come against the cap sooner than otherwise may be the case.

But I say what we are trying to do to moderate those impacts is to make ACCESS students, have them treated differently under the second level, the Manitoba Student portion which would now shift from loan to grant and, thirdly, ask those who for whatever set of circumstances would dictate in the first instance that they not even be eligible to appeal under the existing mechanism.

* (1440)

We are not going to recreate Canada Student Loan, that whole process and that whole procedure, for one specific subset of students. Likewise we are not going to maintain the existing ACCESS Program, take into account the new reality of a larger and larger number of student intake who have the means. Still the minority, granted, but the reality is, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a policy decision of government, it is supportable by, as we indicated yesterday and the day before and the day before that, information we have, which we will make available as quickly as we can.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to have some information on the eligibility criteria for that second level of student bursary.

Mr. Manness: Exactly the same criteria except we ask the institution to sign on the form as to whether or not the applicant is an ACCESS student. That is then what allows the process to reflect the policy decision that I have just enunciated here a few minutes ago.

Ms. Friesen: Each of those institutions works under a formula of student needs, established by, I understand, the Canada Student Loan Program. So are we working essentially on federal guidelines still for this second level, and if we are not, what are the guidelines?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the criteria are the same criteria that are in upon entry, and the needs are determined by way of the requirements of the individual. If they require the second level of support, the second level of support flows. All the institution does is indicate that this is an ACCESS student and consequently turns over the machinery for needs over to the Canada Student Loan process.

Ms. Friesen: So the answer is that we are working on the guidelines established by Canada throughout. Now, those guidelines‑‑

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was in error. The provincial guidelines apply to the second and third level. They are specific provincial guidelines, and the member wants to know what those are. When I have the staff here for the next line, I could certainly‑‑well, they are all‑needs based, and of course it is very complex and complicated. I will gladly share that with the member when we have the staff here who brings forward that particular information.

Ms. Friesen: As I believed, in fact there were and are provincial guidelines along the issue of need. Is the minister anticipating any changes in that to accommodate the ACCESS students who might find themselves in difficulty as a result of the total caps that do exist now and presumably will exist in some form under the Canada Student Loan programming? This is the area where the department has some flexibility.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will monitor this, but the flexibility is within the budgetary discretionary decisions of the government. It is not the department's discretionary; it is the Treasury Board's discretionary powers, and indeed the budget has been set. The budget has been set, but it will be monitored, and indeed if a year from now, if it requires a change after that monitoring, it will be looked at at that time in keeping with the budgetary requirements of the province.

Ms. Friesen: The minister has flexibility in determining how needs are assessed and how institutions apply those needs and how they apply to individual students. We already know that going to the Canada Student Loan Program is going to eliminate some students.

I am looking at the ones who may indeed pass that needs test, and who might still need some kind of flexibility. I am looking at what kind of planning the department has done. It has made a drastic move again this year in this area. What kind of planning has it done in the areas within which it has control to make some steps towards meeting those needs?

Mr. Manness: We are doing everything we can to provide support to, hopefully, by far, virtually all of the students. The flexibility that we have shown in this case is to of course not make the second level of provincial support repayable. That is a flexible decision. That has been accounted for, and that is reflected in the numbers.

The member says, well, you have discretion, the ministry has discretion. The ministry does not have discretion just to begin to spend more money at will. If the changing of guidelines‑‑and after monitoring, you can change it‑‑but if you do not have any money to support it, then you do not have effective discretion. You have discretion from budgetary year to budgetary year. That is where your discretion comes in. It does not come in halfway through the year unless there is money to support that.

Ms. Friesen: Well, you know, as soon as one suggests any change to the minister, any sense of flexibility, any sense of adapting a particular program to the needs that are on the ground, he immediately thinks more money. He does not seem to have any other way of thinking. These are quite rigid guidelines that are made by Canada Student Loan, quite rigid guidelines which are set by the Manitoba Student Loan Programs, and yet we have now in the ACCESS Program people with very different kinds of circumstances‑‑longer programs done more quickly, mature students. I mean, is there no sense there might be some adaptability, some flexibility, within the overall money that has been established?

Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we understand that, and that is why we have allowed for the flexibility with respect to nonpayable on the Manitoba Student Loan side and, secondly, the appeal process which hopefully will take that into account. It is built into the system. Why recreate something that is there?

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, will there be a review of this program at the end of this year, and is the minister anticipating further changes next year to the ACCESS Program?

Mr. Manness: This program has been reviewed every year since we have been in government, every year, in all detail. I am sure it will be reviewed again next year, No. 1, and the second question‑‑I am sorry?

Ms. Friesen: What plans for change did the minister have for next year since we have had very short‑term notice to students on dramatic changes over the last two years?

Mr. Manness: I cannot answer that because it depends what the reviews show, firstly, and, secondly, the requirements and the global funding targets that are placed upon this department by the Minister of Finance once we begin the next budgetary cycle.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister anticipate that that Manitoba student bursary, the second level, will remain in place next year?

Mr. Manness: Well, it is the current policy. It is there because we, I guess, are in sympathy indeed with some of the arguments put forward by the member and saw them coming long before she did. I mean, that is why it is there, but ultimately is it going to be rigidly locked into concrete? I cannot make a commitment. I refuse to make a commitment because indeed the very essence of these programs, and the students know, is from year to year policies change. No long‑term commitment is made to any student with respect to the level of tuition, with respect to the level of support that government provides. None.

So the member is saying provide a commitment. I cannot do that. I can say that right now I am hoping that the changes we are talking about are the final significant changes that need to be made to this program, but as we begin the new budgetary cycle, ultimately as Education will have to make its commitment to the‑‑I mean, the member opposite, I could get into a philosophical statement here. I know that there are members opposite that do not give a darn, one hoot, as to the financial standing of the province and where it finds‑‑[interjection] I did not accuse the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) to say that.

But the reality is, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have budgeting. It means you are dealing within targets, and if the Minister of Finance says that the targets for the Department of Education are such, then you have to live within those targets, and that brings us right, I guess, back to the beginning of the discussion and the motion put forward by the member the other night.

* (1450)

Ms. Friesen: I am pointing out to the minister, underlining for him, that this is a program which deals with students who on the whole are less well equipped to deal with planning for the future than others. In the past two years, there have been two very dramatic changes in this program. We have eliminated some students. You have reduced the accessibility of this program. I am looking for some sense of security. What can students plan on for the next 12 to 24 months? That is not asking a great deal, and I am looking for how committed you are in fact to the program you put in place this year.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the programs are obviously going to stay, the ones that are in place now. They are going to be there till their completion. The counselling support and all of the other ancillary supports obviously have to be in place to maintain the program.

Ms. Friesen: My question was directed at what assurance the students could receive. I was not speaking at this point of the assurances to the programs.

The federal program which is now going to have such an impact upon not only ACCESS students but all students in Manitoba, but particularly ACCESS students, is in the process of being reshaped. The bill has been tabled. I assume it will pass. I do not know what kind of revisions there might be to that bill, and eventually there will be regulations flowing from that. Can the minister tell us what representations he has made, what discussions he has had? Is there anybody in his department who is in contact with and has had some impact upon indicating Manitoba needs and particularly ACCESS student needs under the new Canada Student Loan Program?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is ongoing. There are interprovincial committees. There is certainly a committee who deals on an ongoing basis with Canada Student Loan issues. I can indicate that our government probably in a formal way became most highly involved when it became apparent the federal government changes, and reaching to a higher level, $165, was in essence just basically offloading part of the first dollar costs on the province. This troubled us greatly, and there has been an awful lot of dialogue with respect to that issue over the course of the last year and a half, certainly since I have been in office, because certainly staff and our interprovincial officials saw this coming. Well, this started under the regime of the other government, of the former federal government, and from a Manitoba's point of view just represented a pretty hard offload. Yet certainly the new federal Liberal government has seen fit not to change the process.

Ms. Friesen: I asked specifically about what representations Manitoba had made about the difficulties of such students as ACCESS students under the Canada Student Loan Program. Has the minister made any attempt to, at this stage when regulations and bills and material is being drafted, have Canada understand that some provinces will need some flexibility in the administration of those loans?

Mr. Manness: As announced also by the former government, and I am led to believe supported by the present federal government that they too will introduce programs that will benefit certain groupings of students, particularly grants to women in Ph.D. studies, grants to students at risk, and I would have to think that ACCESS students, as we understand them today, possibly may be eligible for that area of programming, and grants to students with disabilities. If the federal government comes through with that in '95‑96, like they have indicated to some they plan to, then obviously there may be new sources of support available to all students who find particular sets of circumstances, find themselves in those sets of circumstances, of course, that would dictate they should have additional support.

Ms. Friesen: There are two provinces, or three provinces, which have not gone into the Canada Student Loan Program this year, and Quebec, of course, deals with its Student Loan Program very differently. I understand from some students, certainly, that the Quebec one is viewed as one of the best in the country. What alternatives has the minister looked at?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, ours I always thought was deemed to be one of the best in the country. As a matter of fact when we have been studying Manitoba's rate of support and indeed the monitoring that we have in place, and thirdly, how it is the scrutiny with which we try and screen only those in who have legitimate needs, I can indicate my experience is that nobody has had a program that has provided more or has a program which is probably less subject to abuse. So I do not know if we should point to any other jurisdiction other than ourselves with respect to leadership in this issue.

Ms. Friesen: Has this department considered in the last two years, in the changes that it is making to these programs, any move towards loan capping, budget planning, loan remission, over a certain amount?

The minister indicated earlier that he does not like the idea of enticing students into large loans. Has he looked at any incentives, such as British Columbia, for example, has to reduce that enticement into large loans?

Mr. Manness: Last year, as the member knows, we made significant change in the Student Loan Program. Last year was the first year that we required or we provided for no offset, no forgiveness with respect to the second level, the Manitoba student portion.

Early indications or early monitoring of trends indicates no real significant change as to impact, so it is too soon to say with certainty the effects of last year's decision.

Ms. Friesen: Do I understand the minister to say then that that tool of loan remission upon completion of degree is something which the ministry has not as yet ruled out?

Mr. Manness: At this point, we changed from the policy. When you say remission, is the member indicating on behalf of the student to pay back the loan or is she talking about forgiving the second level, as was the old policy?

If she is asking whether or not we are contemplating reinstituting that particular policy at this point, the answer is no. We will not grant remission.

Ms. Friesen: The term I was using was one that is used in other provinces. It is essentially a deferred bursary. It is upon completion of a degree within a short period of time, loan remission.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is what we had in this province for years. It is called loan rebate. Here it was called rebate. In other words, they did not need to pay it back. We have changed that last year.

Ms. Friesen: In other provinces, it is tied to completion of degree within a certain period of time, and it was tied to a total debt load. As we have now moved to a different situation where there is an increased debt load on some students, and again, I am particularly thinking on the ACCESS line, so I am asking, has the minister again ruled that out as an element of policy?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we made significant policy change in this area a year ago. Right now we are trying to find ways of reducing the call on administration in going after those who owe money on either levels. We are trying to make arrangements with financial institutions, and the member would be aware of this. This is happening in other provinces.

I would think that those represent the significant changes in the Canada Student Loan/Manitoba Student Loan portion. At this point, I do not contemplate significant changes from that over the next number of months into the next year.

* (1500)

Ms. Friesen: The minister has used as one of his arguments in the changes to the ACCESS Program the idea that the majority of students here receive employment. I do not know if the minister has numbers on the wages that are received afterwards, whether this is full‑time or part‑time employment, whether it is contract employment, whether it is secure employment.

My guess is that over the last five or six years, certainly, it probably has been, compared to the general population, relatively secure employment. I am not sure that one can make that assertion for the future, obviously, and if you look at the trends and the growth of part‑time employment, the growth of contract employment, if these students are employed in ways similar to the general population, it is likely that that instability in employment will increase.

However, one could still argue, as the minister does, that they are more likely than other students, on immediate graduation, to gain some kind of employment, and given that that is the minister's argument, would he be prepared to consider income‑contingent loan repayment?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the track record to this point, 79 are employed. The vast majority of that 79 percent are employed today in meaningful employment, the vast majority full time. Given that 96 percent today of students within the programs are in the professional areas, I do not think this is going to become a problem. If it does become a problem, I do not sense that the province can take the lead on this. I mean, Mr. Axworthy is talking about in the federal government because indeed right now that is going to be the only outstanding debt, is on the federal portion, on the Canada Student Loan portion.

Obviously, as the member knows, there is a pilot being done in Ontario now to try and ascertain the feasibility of income‑contingency paybacks with respect to all student loans. I dare say that that philosophy, which might appear as kind of interesting on the surface, has incredible difficulties associated within a practical sense.

So I would have to say that we really believe that once the changes are instituted and once some of the impacts move through the present program, this program will be well received. Maybe it will be able to maintain it at the present level for a longer period of time than otherwise would be the case if we maintained the exact program that used to be in place.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to look at the funding for the Manitoba Association for Native Languages and the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, and I wonder if the minister could just give me some numbers on that, on what the funding was last year and what the funding is this year. It is on this line.

Mr. Manness: Seventy‑five thousand dollars for Manitoba Association for Native Languages, which has not changed, and also $100,000 for the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, which has not changed, although there has certainly been strong representation to the government and myself for increase over the course of the last number of months.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, does the departmental staff, does the minister have with him a longer time frame on that? What has been the funding over the last four or five years?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am certain that the last three or four budgets, the funding has been at $100,000. Previous to '91 it was, I believe, $165,000.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us a sense of how the department is evaluating the request for further funding? I am trying to get a sense of where the government thinks the Churchill Northern Studies program and institute should be going. Where do you see it fitting into a longer‑term program of further education?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sure the member is well aware that the longevity and the greater certainty around this training facility is all tied into the proposal by AKJUIT respecting the rocket‑range program. Right now the federal government is saying that they will support the institution by way of standby costs to this fall, after which time support will no longer be there.

(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Of course, if indeed greater certainty develops with respect to the AKJUIT proposals, and they come about and they have a meaningful commitment to Churchill, as they want to have over the course of several years, then they will assume the responsibility for this training facility. That should be known by late this summer.

Ms. Friesen: I am just trying to get a sense of the timing of this. By late summer the department expects to know what the federal government's plans are.

Mr. Manness: We know what the federal government's plans are, with certainty. We do not know right now AKJUIT's plans, the private concern that wants to maintain this facility, indeed, the whole presence basically of many of the activities around Churchill.

Ms. Friesen: If those plans become available then by the end of the summer, if they can fit with the federal government plans, what is the provincial response?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the AKJUIT program would want to take responsibility for the training facility because they would have it. They would require it for their needs, and therefore they would want to be responsible for the training facility.

Ms. Friesen: Does that mean that that envisages over the next fiscal year the elimination of the provincial grant?

Mr. Manness: It is just too soon to say, but obviously this whole‑‑not only this training facility but the whole Churchill complex has all of the uncertainty associated with it. That is why we have become such strong supporters of the AKJUIT proposal because it will lend some certainty to that location, not only this training facility, which, otherwise, would not be there. So we are working very diligently in all our departments in support of this proposal.

* (1510)

Ms. Friesen: Well, I could ask the minister about plan B, but I do not expect I would get any answers.

So, continuing along with plan A, could the minister as Minister of Education‑‑he has given us a regional perspective; he has given us an economic development perspective on the Churchill training facility, but the initial question I asked was about the educational purpose. Where does the minister see that fitting with other educational institutions, other educational goals in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is a study centre. We have not had a bunch of people rushing to our door who want to assume responsibility. When I say other people, I am talking about institutions, so some decisions, whether they are difficult or not, obviously are going to have to be made if the federal government is not going to support. We will do our evaluations and make our decisions accordingly for the next budget year at that time.

Ms. Friesen: I am really searching to see if the minister has an educational vision for this. Is there, for example‑‑what is the international role to be played, what is the national role? The minister has sections within his department, and he is a part of a Council of Ministers of Education which looks at national positions in education. What is the educational purpose from the minister's perspective of the Churchill Northern Studies? Where does it fit with the goals and missions of our provincial universities, and where does it fit with the minister's vision of education in the province?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is a study system where three ecosystems come together, I mean, winter ecosystems. Igloo building, survival in winter environment, birding workshop, photography workshop, archeological field techniques, printmaking and clay workshops, wild flowers of Churchill, monitoring and data acquisition workshop, edible berries and plants, polar bear course, northern lights and sky‑‑that is a listing of the research and education program, noncredit courses and conferences.

If the member is saying, what is the priority for these area of study to the provincial government and to what extent are you committed, we have been committed to the tune of $100,000 a year. But the member is saying, then will you be prepared to step in if the federal government walks away? Are you going to step in and assume all the costs? I am just saying that is going to require an awful lot of heady discussion and consideration, and at this point I cannot indicate where that might lead.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, the minister is right. This is another way of coming at plan B. The Churchill Northern Studies Centre has had a national role. It has had national support from the association of‑‑I forget what the exact title is‑‑of universities interested in the North. [interjection] No, not the provincial one, but the national organization of northern studies institutes. There is obviously an educational tourism aspect to it, which might be of use.

I am looking at where the government‑‑does the government have any sense of a broader application for the Churchill Northern Studies unit? Is there a resource there, an educational resource, that can be developed in other ways, and does it fit with any of the mandates of the provincial government in any other department?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not think it is the government's‑‑today in the modern age, I did not realize it is the government's responsibility to take upon itself the primal responsibility of setting into place the future vision, particularly when we are trying to come to grips with the reality of our other post‑secondary institutions that are having grave difficulties of their own. Particularly, the member says that, conceptually, this is supported by a national organization and has been in the past.

I would think, then, given that there is an executive director, a new executive director that has just been put into place, whose role is also to try and find a new vision and the people that support it‑‑people meaning the wider context. Then I would have to think that there must be many, many minds out there who, if they see an opportunity for this particular location to grow and expand, will come forward with a high degree of level of support of their own. I mean, that is the nature of the times. If you believe in something, then surely it is more than just the government of Manitoba or the Government of Canada that should be responsible for supporting.

Ms. Friesen: We have hit one of those philosophical divides again. It does seem to me that a government which puts $100,000 into an institution, and an institution which used to have national support, in a region where there are substantial historic and economic possibilities for Manitoba, that there might be some role for an educational institution to play in that regional development. If the minister is telling me that there is no role for educational institutions, and no role for government leadership in this area, generally, not just in the case of Churchill, then I think we probably hit one of those philosophical divides where he is going to stand aside.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, our commitment has been made to the centre. My staff remind me that not only did we provide $100,000, we were prepared, across many departments, to find additional sums of money just to maintain the upkeep, if the federal government were prepared to match the total. I am led to believe that they were not. So our commitment to this northern training facility is obviously shown to be there, but it is more than that.

I mean, somebody has got to have a national vision, and I mean national; this is more than a province of Manitoba issue‑‑and then have the ability to convince the federal government particularly to come forward by way of maintaining or increasing support. Failing that, then we put our hopes in the AKJUIT proposal, private sector, bringing economic wealth to the region, and having a need, having a legitimate need for this facility.

Ms. Friesen: The issue in this case was not the level of support of the provincial government, I think, as I indicated. The question I was asking at this stage is given that support, given that there is a potential for national/international use and perhaps support in this area, where is the vision of the government? It is putting money into it, has been putting money into it for a long time. Where is the plan?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is not for the government to devise the plan. I mean, my God, the president of the University of Manitoba would never let us devise a plan for the University of Manitoba, a five‑year plan. The challenge is to the new executive director and I believe the supporters of the institution.

We have challenged them over the last 18 months to come forward with a five‑year business plan. It has not come forward. So I mean, the member can try and portray this issue as one that the government has the ultimate responsibility for developing the plan for funding and do it now, but in all honesty if the broader community does not really want to get behind the training facility then we have got a problem.

Ms. Friesen: If I thought that the government was the only one responsible, I would not have talked about national/international position, but the government does put money into it. It is a training facility. This is the Minister of Education. I did ask for what his plans or vision were for this institute. Where does it fit in his overall scheme or his overall sense of where training and planning has to go in Manitoba? What opportunities are there here for the government? If I can use the entrepreneurial language that perhaps he would understand, is there an opportunity here for the government of Manitoba, for the people of Manitoba?

Mr. Manness: Well, we believe there is, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, and that is why we have supported this institution, but beyond saying that and providing that generic level of support, beyond that and making it exist on its own for the most part, with a limited amount of funding from the province, it is going to have to obviously reach out to a larger cross section of people who meaningfully want to contribute to it also.

* (1520)

So, yes, of course we support it. We have proven our support. But making it function beyond obviously what it has to offer, and I have read the list of items, and also the opportunity, of course, of making it a meaningful tourism experience, we see that too, and that is the abstract, but taking the abstract into a workable plan I say is not the responsibility of the Department of Education and Training.

Ms. Friesen: The minister indicates that he has asked for a plan for the last 18 months from the new director. Do you want to change that?

Mr. Manness: From the program, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. I do not even know if the new director has been there that long, but we have been pushing for months for somebody to come to grips with this and take the day‑to‑day leadership.

Ms. Friesen: The minister did earlier say 18 months. Do we agree on that?

Mr. Manness: Yes.

Ms. Friesen: Eighteen months is a long time to come forward with a plan. Why has not anything happened? What steps is the minister taking to ensure that a plan does come forward?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, they have come forward with five or six plans, but not one of them give us any comfort as to the sources of revenue and the stability and the certainty around those. I mean, any person can throw together a plan, but then when it comes to the hard questions, well, how certain are you as to the revenue source. All of a sudden then the plan begins to ultimately begin to grasp for air and ultimately dies.

Ms. Friesen: Well, if I can extract from what the minister has said, his vision or goal for the Churchill Northern Studies Centre is a stand‑alone institution with financial stability, which is not connected to other educational institutions in Manitoba, and which presumably has the same range of programs that the minister read out earlier. Is that essentially the limits of the thinking of the department at this stage?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, people who live this experience day to day, I would think if there were to be an adding of a new study area to the list, they would present that to us, and maybe they have by way of their plans. The users determine how successful a program is going to be, ultimately the people who want to be part of the northern Manitoba experience by way of study.

Ms. Friesen: So, as far as the provincial government is concerned there, will be no further movement on the Churchill Northern Studies program institute until late summer.

Mr. Manness: I think that is a fair way of putting it, but I must tell you we are watching very carefully, and we are really hoping that the AKJUIT proposal moves forward and, indeed, that this training facility then obviously becomes one of the side benefactors and significant benefactors.

Ms. Friesen: Under the AKJUIT program what changes are proposed in the studies at the Northern Studies unit?

Mr. Manness: We do not have that detail in large measure. There may be a requirement for relocation, but ultimately they will take responsibility for the program.

Ms. Friesen: I am not sure that the list that the minister read out of‑‑wildflowers photography, archeology, heritage activities‑‑are actually the kinds of things that the private company is going to be interested in. That is what I am looking for. Are those programs going to continue, or does the acceptance of this particular proposal mean a shift in direction for this institute?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would fail if I would leave on the record the understanding that they would then take control of the programming. What AKJUIT is most interested in, of course, is the rocket range, and they cannot gain access to the rocket range unless, indeed, there is an accommodation done between them and the training facility. They understand the training facility would continue basically in charge of its programming. I mean, that is what the agreement says. There may have to be some relocation of facilities, but they are not in charge then of the programming and dictate ultimately what will be courses of study.

Ms. Friesen: That is what I am trying to get at. Does the acceptance of the AKJUIT program‑‑it means, presumably, shared facilities. The minister has indicated that it may not mean a continuance of provincial support, and so I am concerned about what the future is of the existing programs under the best‑case scenario from the government's point of view.

Mr. Manness: I cannot say at this point. We will have to wait until some greater clarity exists with respect to some of the decisions that are outside of our hands come summer.

Ms. Friesen: So it is possible that as a result of this decision at the end of June that the Churchill Northern Studies unit, as it exists now as a northern studies program, short‑term residential courses, will no longer exist?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have provided funding for this year, $100,000. I would have to assume the vast majority of that will flow through '94‑95 or whatever the school term is.

Ms. Friesen: The long‑term prospect, that is next year, then the future of the programs then becomes an issue that has to be settled.

Mr. Manness: That may well be the case, but we will know an awful lot more come fall this year.

Ms. Friesen: That is why I started this line of questioning by asking where this fitted with university, college, national and international educational institutions.

My sense is that the minister's concern about the Churchill Northern Studies institute is as an issue of real estate, of property and that the programs are secondary.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know. The University of Manitoba does not want it. The University of Brandon has not even appointed a representative to the board. I do not know what to read into that; maybe the member can tell me.

I have not had, and I have been the Minister of Health for several months, one university from outside of the province indicate an interest in some level of association or some line of association. Nobody is beating my door saying they want to be directly related and they want to have a working relationship with this northern training facility. Maybe the member can tell me why. I do not know.

Ms. Friesen: I understood this was the Minister of Education for the Province of Manitoba. I am looking for what his vision is and where he sees the long‑term prospects for this particular institution. It seems that perhaps we could sum it up by essentially saying it is a stand‑aside policy, that if there is a market interest in this that somehow makes itself known to the minister by some magic, he might decide to do something about it.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is unfair. When some of our highest educational leaders in the province, through their institutions, say they do not want any part of it, I think it is unfair that the member then lay it on my shoulders; it is my responsibility to have the vision. That is totally unfair. Where is the community? Do they believe in it? Do they support it? Do they want it?

This is where the difference of philosophy comes in. The member says, make it a state plan, make a plan around it, give it a vision, give it money, make it into something. The reality is, government cannot make things work if indeed the community and society as a whole is lesser interested in this facility than it might be in others.

Ms. Friesen: Well, it seems to me that there is some leadership to be taken here. The government does put in $100,000 and has done for a number of years, and it seems to me there has not been long‑range vision for this facility.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, then why do we have a board? Let us get rid of the damn board. Is that what the member is advocating? That is what the board is in place to do. That is their responsibility, to come up with a vision. They live it from day to day. Tell us what meaningful impact this training facility is going to have on our province and our nation into the future.

I guess the question is: For 18 months they have not been able to do it, so is the problem mine or is it theirs? Of course, the member would let the record show that it is my problem; it is my lack of initiative or ability. Believe me, we have been trying to stimulate and to provide. We are mere mortals. We do not have the solution for a training facility, that those who spend countless hours and days of their time‑‑if they cannot find it, I mean, how is it that we in government are supposed to be able to find it?

* (1530)

Ms. Friesen: The minister leaps to such sudden conclusions. The issue is that there is public money going into this. There does not seem to be a long‑term plan. My questions have been directed to finding out from the minister what he has been doing about that, what prospect there is for some long‑term issues here and where it fits with the broader vision of education in Manitoba.

I think by his responses on the board, his responses on the perceived lack of interest he sees from other universities are quite interesting. I do not see why the minister has to get so excited about it. The issue is essentially what role and what steps the department has taken to try and find some long‑term position for this institute which has been in a kind of limbo for quite a long time.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): 4.(b) ACCESS Programs $7,903.200‑‑pass.

4.(c) Student Financial Assistance (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, $1,381,600.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, some of the issues on this line we have already dealt with under ACCESS, and that is the changes to the Canada Student Loan Program. I have been concerned in the past about the‑‑it seemed in the beginning when Manitoba moved to a student loan program as though it was only moving to one bank. I understand now that a number of banks are involved, and I have also been concerned to have the credit union movement involved in this. So I wonder if the minister could tell us what the situation is in Manitoba now: How many banks are involved in student loans? Which ones? And are the credit unions involved?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, under the existing program, as the member is aware, the guarantee that we provide is available to all lending institutions. As a matter of fact, I sign one every two weeks with respect to a new credit union that is coming forward and wanting guarantee with respect to the present program. Is that the essence of the question, or is the member extending beyond that to possibly a premium for handling the accounts being provided to some financial institutions if indeed Manitoba enters into that type of policy?

Ms. Friesen: No, I was not, but that is very interesting.

Mr. Manness: Well, that is happening in some other provinces.

Ms. Friesen: I actually did not know that Manitoba was not in that system, but it is not something I have asked about before, so that is interesting. I will follow that up in a minute.

No, the question I was asking really is the minister said that all financial institutions are now eligible in Manitoba. Does that include trust companies?

Mr. Manness: The short answer is yes, any financial institution that expresses an interest.

Ms. Friesen: The minister says he signs every two weeks so that there are a number‑‑there is a continuing interest in moving into the loan program. Has there been an analysis done? Is there a summary that the minister might provide on where the bulk of the loans are coming from? Are they particular banks? Is it a particular region? Is it spread more broadly throughout the province? What kind of analysis has the department done?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not imagine the profile looks an awful lot different than it does with respect to an issue that I was much closer to and that was the financial institutions which helped sell our Manitoba HydroBonds in the past. I mean, there was always kind of a distribution and in keeping with the number of clients they have. The new requests that I see every so often periodically are of course the result of a student wanting to deal at his local institution and finding out that his local institution at this point has never been approached by a student before and certainly does not have a signed‑upon agreement. But I would have to think that the major financial institutions, the banks, probably have, I bet, to guess, three‑quarters of the activity.

Ms. Friesen: Are all banks represented in the Manitoba Student Loan Program? I know they are all eligible. I am asking are they all represented.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not absolutely sure, but certainly all the major banks are. I do not know whether that includes some of the smaller banks or not.

Ms. Friesen: Are there particular banks who are predominating in the Student Loan program, as I think is true in some provinces?

Mr. Manness: I would gather the Royal and the CIBC probably would have the lion's share, but, indeed, most of the population of our province belongs in one fashion or another to one or two of these institutions.

Ms. Friesen: I am interested in the banks which are moving into this area. Obviously, in spite of the fact that we see the federal government talking about its increases in the amount of money that is available to students, in fact, of course, this money is not coming from the federal government just as it is not coming from the provincial government. It is coming from the banks, and the banks anticipate all that the governments are doing, and it is in some cases considerable, but certainly what the governments are doing is guaranteeing the risk. They are not providing the money.

Mr. Manness: We are not going out on the street to get it. The banks are going out on the street to get the money. They are using their own deposits but you can bet that, if we did not guarantee it, it would not be there. So I would have to say that we are getting the money in a stretch of the word, but certainly we are getting the money in many cases.

Ms. Friesen: If the minister asserts then that we the government of Manitoba are getting the money, are we the government of Manitoba getting the interest? Presumably the banks are into this for the interest. They assume that there is something in it for them.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is not the banks that are getting the interest, it is the depositors that are getting the interest. Just like we, it is not we the government who is getting it, it is the people. The people are putting it up. So we can get into semantics here, but, yes, we are‑‑and of course the province, the taxpayers put up the interest on all of these loans until such a time as the individual is employed or working.

* (1540)

Ms. Friesen: But the taxpayers do not receive the interest on those loans which are still outstanding.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know who is being offloaded on here. I am saying government money. When we put up all of the interest, we, meaning the taxpayers, put up all of the interest while the student is in course of study. I do not know who is offloading on who.

Secondly, when we say the taxpayer is now prepared to guarantee the capital value of the loan, face value of the loan, I do not know who is offloading there either. So I do not know what point the member is trying to make.

Ms. Friesen: I think that is one of those circular arguments.

I wanted to ask about program abuse. One of the roles of this section is to minimize "program abuse." I wonder if the minister has a longitudinal study of that. How has that changed over the last few years? Is there increasing abuse or less abuse? How does it correlate with the number of students who have access to these programs?

Mr. Manness: If the member is asking about defaults, in '90‑91, there were 1,207; in '91‑92, 1,404; '92‑93, 1,568; and '93‑94, this reduced slightly to 1,653. Now, there are our rates, so those are the numbers.

Ms. Friesen: There does seem to be a steady pattern there. Does it correlate in any way to increase numbers of students in the program or having access to the program?

Mr. Manness: Well, I do not know whether we run regression analysis to determine whether or not it is more directly tied to the fact that there are more students than programs now, as the member indicates, or whether or not there is greater difficulty on achieving employment upon graduation. I imagine it would be a combination of both those factors. It would have to be, but which one is of greater weight or value, I do not know.

Ms. Friesen: Does the department do such investigations? This is a particular unit which does deal with that. It would seem to me that some sense of cause might be of interest to the minister on this one.

Mr. Manness: Well, certainly the entry point and the number of students who are in this program‑‑there is increase there too, but not at the same rate as defaults. Again, I cannot quantify it, but our assumption would be that the greater impact would be as a result of being unable to find employment upon graduation.

Ms. Friesen: I used the term in my first question of program abuse, which is the term in the book. The minister uses the term "default." I assume we are talking about the same thing. Are there other elements which are investigated here?

Mr. Manness: No, there are several differences. Program abuse indicates that individuals have purposely misrepresented some of the facts upon application or failed to reveal changed circumstances which would obviously disqualify or certainly change the level of support in that area. We do audits, and where we find abuse in that area, as a course, we take action.

Ms. Friesen: So that broader area is not included in the numbers that the minister gave me. Those were simply the defaults.

Mr. Manness: Correct. The member wants now audit results dealing with‑‑we have a four‑year trend, '89‑90 to '92‑93.

Through our audit procedure in the first year, we found 361 clients where there had been some misrepresentation and/or some honest mistake. That fluctuated. It went to 390, back to 362, up to 378 in '92‑93, and the recoveries, dollars that were brought back as a result of that, range anywhere from three‑quarters of a million up to $1 million, down to $600,000.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to go back to the defaults to see what other trends there are there. The minister assumes that it is a combination of unemployment and larger numbers of students in the program.

Well, for example, maybe we should first start with, how does the department define default? What is the time limit on that? At what point do you say that a student has defaulted?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the main process for allocating some to the default list is that after missed payments, two letters go out registered, indicating that they will be placed on default if they do not deal with their account.

Ms. Friesen: The minister says "deal with their account." What does that mean? Does that mean a payment? A payment of a particular size? A negotiated agreement to begin a series of payments? I am hearing, for example, of students who are finding themselves on a treadmill of only being able to pay the interest. Is that possible under the regulations that the department has?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are like most institutions. If you come in and talk about some greater flexibility or some of the difficulties, that and the flexibility are there; and, if indeed you do not have a strong case, we expect you to make a commitment and to live up to the commitment that was made several years previously.

Ms. Friesen: Is this negotiation done with the government on a regular basis, or is it done with the banks? I am not sure now who "we" is in this case.

Mr. Manness: This is why we are contemplating changes, because presently with the banks, two payments are missed, and they come after the government and say that they want to evoke the guarantee. Governments, then, both federal and provincial, do not know where to turn, so they put it in the hands of collection agencies which try for a period of time, and if are successful, of course, maintain a large fee for their success.

That is why we are contemplating changing the system and putting an upfront fee there immediately for the banks to take as their direct contribution in support of using their own processes to ensure a repayment.

Ms. Friesen: So this is the program in place in other provinces the minister was referring to earlier. Is that being contemplated for every student in the loan program, that is, the payment from the government to the bank, or is it contemplated for only students in default, or is it contemplated for high‑risk students? How is the government looking at that?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it represents the total portfolio, but that is why it is a risk premium, because the most, the vast majority will pay. Some will not, and there will be considerable expense associated with trying to make or have those debtors pay who are supposed to pay. Ultimately, you give up, and there is a loss then. That is part of the risk premium we are talking about, so the whole portfolio would go.

* (1550)

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Ms. Friesen: How is this to be negotiated? Is this going to be on an annual basis? Will the premium vary? Is the government entering into long‑term agreements on this?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot say very much more. This is a fluid situation right now, and obviously institutions are asked to determine whether or not they may be interested in being a part of this, so that is what is happening right now. A decision has not been made, and, certainly, the financial industry is well aware that the government is contemplating moving to this system.

Ms. Friesen: Would this require having a negotiation with every financial institution that is lending, or are there some centralized ways of doing this? I mean, if the minister is signing every two weeks a new agreement, will this involve that length of negotiation?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have, since late January this year, called for proposals from those in the financial industry that are interested. Maybe nobody is interested, and, ultimately, we will have to stay with the process we have; but, if we do come to an agreement with somebody and we move to the new regime, then, obviously, we will honour those loans which, under the old system, of course, were guaranteed at all of the financial institutions in our province for the most part.

Ms. Friesen: What is the time line for resolution of this?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we want to have a decision made on this for the summer so that, in essence, for the new school year, there would be in place a new system.

Ms. Friesen: The fee for that new system, where will that appear in the Estimates? Where will it appear on the books?

Mr. Manness: The fee for that schedule appears nowhere right now. It will not because it has not been negotiated yet. What the fee represents in terms of dollars ultimately will be built in to the Estimates and will be shown as a cost under this program.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly‑‑

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was just wanting to ask the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) with respect to post‑secondary service fees that have been charged. Would this be an appropriate time to ask that question?

Mr. Manness: Institutions.

Mr. Lamoureux: Institutions.

Mr. Manness: I gather the member is talking about fees imposed by universities on students, and the time would be during consideration of post‑secondary institutions.

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

Item 4.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $1,166,000‑‑pass; (3) Assistance $7,122,600‑‑pass.

4.(d) Student Financial Assistance Appeal Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $152,100.

Ms. Friesen: I would like again to have a historical view of the number of appeals that have been processed by this section.

Mr. Manness: Reading this time from the right to the left side of the page: '90‑91 actuals, in response to the question, 761 received; '91‑92, 1,055; '92‑93, 949; '93‑94 estimated, and it would be 650; and '94‑95 projected, 750.

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

4.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $24,200‑‑pass.

4.(e) Labour Market Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $479,700.

Ms. Friesen: The obvious question in this section is, where is the strategic development plan that the government has been promising for, I think, every year that I have been in the Legislature? I understand that it has been completed, that it is sitting on somebody's desk or some group of people's desks for some time. Could the minister explain why Manitoba has no labour force development strategy?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a draft was completed and a lot of discussion has been held around that draft; but, given the reality of the social policy reform that is being led by the federal government this time, it would almost be fruitless, we think at least, to proceed.

The first meeting I had when I became the minister was a planning meeting with the labour market development board, when we were still trying to define ultimately who would be named to a steering board, steering panel, of course, an awful lot of strong views as to ultimately what the make‑up of the steering committee could be, let alone the board.

This experience was not just happening in Manitoba, obviously, it was happening across the country. As a matter of fact, the turf protection and indeed the mistrust that obviously exists was of such high level that‑‑no differently than in Manitoba. Across the country a little success was achieved in working toward the putting into place of these boards. The federal government subsequently has not only indicated that they will set up, that they will do, I understand, bilaterals almost directly, that they will put into place their own model which will not allow for provincial involvement.

Secondly, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the whole area of social reform, which is so closely associated with this issue, really at this point in time has us saving our resources and not proceeding on this in isolation.

You must remember, as the labour market minister for the province, I have been in meetings on three occasions with the federal minister. As the minister talks about his pilots within social reform, as he talks about leading toward the $65 billion of social policy reform, this whole area is just kind of a vortex of uncertainty. It is caught in that draw, in that swirl of activity at this point.

Ms. Friesen: The minister has perhaps explained some uncertainties for the last few months. It does not explain the last few years of absence of activity on a labour force development strategy. I was not asking about the boards at this point. That is something obviously that we will come to, but the planning for a development strategy on the part of the province, I think, has come up at every Estimates that I have been to and it has not happened. It was not contingent on the creation of the labour force development boards.

It certainly would have been affected by them, but it was not contingent upon that. Other provinces, both those who have labour force development boards and those who do not, have policies on their labour force strategy. They know what‑‑they have the skills inventory, they know where they are heading. There is at least some sense of a document, something they can share with the public about where they are going in both educational and training terms and labour adjustment strategies for the province, but Manitoba has nothing. It has spent considerable resources over the last three years in trying to do this.

* (1600)

So it is that long‑term prospect. The absence of that kind of document. One would assume that it would have paralleled the so‑called economic strategy that the government put out a year ago. Why has there been no parallel document on the labour side?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have had strategic plans and we have developed them. They are in keeping with something the other provinces do not have. They do not have a framework for economic development like our province does, where we have targeted those areas that we deemed to be the areas of growth, but beyond that, my earlier point still stands.

We could put out a strategic initiative that we have done, but we think it is really not wise, given the changes that might impact on it almost immediately as we move through this pilot phase of study on training and, ultimately, how it leads to greater labour force numbers and, of course, so closely tied to that the whole reform within the social safety net area. I think it is foolhardy to proceed at this time in pure isolation from really what is happening everywhere.

I look at what is happening, and the member can talk about other provinces. So other provinces have a plan. I mean, where is it leading them? Maybe the member can enlighten me. I do not see‑‑even though the process and hopefully the ideal of being able to lay before the public how it is we want to focus in this area, I tell you right now, there are greater forces at work that are going to have to show us the way and complement the efforts that we are providing at this point.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister said he had a strategic plan. Is that available?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the department's plan? Yes, and that was released ages ago.

Ms. Friesen: Perhaps I did not recognize it as a plan. Could the minister give me the title of the document?

Mr. Manness: The report is called, Building a Solid Foundation for our Future. That is the department plan. We will try and provide a report. It was tabled in the House last year, obviously, by my predecessor.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, and I would be interested in seeing that. It was not something which had certainly struck me as a strategic plan for labour force development in the province. Perhaps the minister could tell us what the difference between that and the unpublished plan is, the one that requires further discussion and perhaps the one that he considers to be somewhat outdated by current circumstances. So this plan that has already been tabled, what does it consist of?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a public document which I do not have with me. I am sorry, I was not the minister here when it was tabled, and I am not intimate with it. I mean, I should be, but I am not.

Ms. Friesen: Is it in fact a labour force plan, or is it a departmental strategic plan, including all elements of the department?

Mr. Manness: It is a departmental strategic plan. As far as the divisional strategic plan, it was done two years ago, and we can make it available if the minister wishes.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then summarize what that plan has to say about labour force development?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the goals that were set out in that document, from memory, were those in keeping with what we have said in many other documents put forward by the government. Certainly greater emphasis on community colleges, greater skill sets in support of entrepreneurial growth and wealth creation, partnership mechanisms such as the boards, which we obviously have not had much success in bringing into place. I mean, that was the focus and the plan three years ago, and I suppose none of those areas have changed significantly.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister intend in this coming year to in fact produce a strategic document for labour force development? Is the one that has been done, the one that he refers to having fallen into a vortex of uncertainty, over and done with? Is the department working on one at all?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my earlier statement stands. I mean, you cannot do very much until the discussions with the federal government with respect to social policy reform are really gone very far. I mean, that is setting the course for this nation for the next 25 years in the area of social support, skill areas that will be targeted, the acceptance of technology; fourthly, the whole consideration of labour market strategy.

I mean, how do we make a document like this when we have, for instance, the head of‑‑Mr. White and the federal government talking about overtime policy, and who it is that should have the right to the jobs, the limited number of jobs, that are in place? I mean, there are massive issues that we never, when we started on this process two or three years ago, nobody contemplated. We are caught right within that sphere right now, and I think until we can see it with greater clarity where it is the nation wants to go in its future. It is a little bit counterproductive, even though as we have said before, the strategic plan, '91 to '96, under Planning and Policy Co‑ordination, we talked about that before, even though we will try and address the broader scope of activity of the department, including this area. Still, when it comes right down to specifics, we are going to have to wait.

Ms. Friesen: It seems to me, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that the government which has been in place since 1988 now faces, and certainly I agree that it is an area of uncertainty now, although I think perhaps the minister may be exaggerating some of it.

I mean, he raises the issue of overtime, for example, which I believe was on the front page of The Globe and Mail today, but that issue of overtime and the distribution of jobs is one that has been raised in Canadian Auto Workers contracts for a number of years now, particularly Ontario, so it is perhaps not quite as complex or as new to some people as it is to the minister. But certainly dealing with it on a national basis and a provincial basis is certainly broader than some of the autoworker contracts have dealt with it.

But I want to suggest that since 1988 this province has had no labour force development strategy. It was one of the last three to sign any agreement with the federal government over the labour force development boards. It has been slow, slow, slowest on moving in any kind of direction, putting anything on the record, having any discussions with Manitobans generally about its labour force development strategy. Now we come to a period of uncertainty‑‑I agree with the minister‑‑but we come to it unprepared. We come to it without having formulated the public discussion or the public policy, which would have given us some kind of sense of direction of where the province is going in this period of uncertainty.

So it is that absence of direction in view of the uncertainty, which I think has put Manitoba in a very difficult position.

Mr. Manness: That is nonsense, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I sit with other ministers of labour market development across the land and I ask them, I say what are you doing that we are not, and they are saying, well, we are not near as far advanced as you, because at least you have done some college governance issues, you have done some literacy task force, you have done some areas of Roblin looking at commissions. At least you understand where the issues are, at least the reports are coming before you and giving you some focus and giving you some indication of the changes that need to be made.

We have done those. The members can talk about the additional time or indeed maybe even the lack of success we had in striking a board, and that is because, of course, we were going to have a model forced upon us by the federal government that was not accepting to this province. We were going to make sure that the model that we brought forward had a strong support from the private sector. The member did not want that. The member just wanted, indeed, funding to continue to flow and move off into all of these other areas, and who knew what the evaluations were or anything.

So, of course, this province dictated the model that was being pushed on us by the federal government would be a model in keeping with what the province expected, and that took additional time, and I make no apology for that. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not sit here and accept any of the criticism. I mean, when the member wants to talk, at least she recognizes we are drawn into this period of uncertainty.

* (1610)

I mean, when you talk about changes in Canada Student Loans, a $7.6 billion program since over the last 30 years, and you talk about child tax benefit programs, employment and training programs, and you talk about basic provincial social assistance, and national literacy secretary, but, indeed, when you do not mention all of this in the vein of what is going to happen to established program funding, what is going to happen to the caps on equalization payments, this is all tied into one massive issue.

The member can be as critical as she wants, but, again, I talked to the ministers across the way who wear the same hat I do, and I say, okay, you may have a report out, what has it done, what greater certainty has it given your community? They said, well, none, because right now the federal government is taking the lead and considering all of this, we go right back to the drawing board. We did the right thing in Manitoba.

Ms. Friesen: Is the minister saying that we did the right thing by doing nothing since 1988 in the preparation of the labour force strategy and the creation of labour force development boards? I find that quite astounding.

The minister talks about every other province. It seems to me, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that every province has reviewed its community colleges and its universities, whether it is Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta, so he cannot simply claim that that is the only thing that Manitoba has done.

Others have certainly dealt with literacy issues; others have dealt with university reviews, some of them, I think, far more successfully.

The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board has been up and running for a number of years. [interjection] Well, he has done what? I mean, they have got Jobs Ontario, which is creating and tying jobs to productivity and to‑‑

Mr. Manness: They lost more jobs than any other province in the country.

Ms. Friesen: Well, if the minister wants to get into that kind of‑‑

Mr. Manness: That is what you are doing.

Ms. Friesen: No, I am coming from what the province has done, what the planning has been, what strategic directions of the province have been. Ontario has suffered incredibly under the Free Trade Agreement, and the minister knows that, and if he wants to get into that kind of ridiculous sort of argument, well, let him. I do not think it does him any credit. I think he is capable of much more than that.

We are talking now about what the province has done, where the province has planned, and how the province stands vis‑à‑vis other provinces in the kind of preparation that they might have made for this kind of situation, and I find that we are not in the same position as other provinces. We are all faced with the same uncertainty, but Manitoba, it seems to me, had the opportunity to have a strategic plan. In fact, it wanted one; it has said in every year that it was going to provide one. Now that it has not got one, the minister is now saying somehow that we are better off because we do not have one. Well, that is a very peculiar kind of argument.

It seems to me that, if we had a sense of where Manitoba was going, what our skills inventory was, we might have been able better to have a direction in facing this uncertainty.

In this sense, I would like to ask the minister in the discussions he is having with the federal government, what is the nature of the Manitoba position that he is putting forward? What is Manitoba looking for in this period of uncertainty? What case are we making? Where are we going?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member, in the way she poses her question, senses that there is some magical solution to some of the ills that are confronting the nation right now.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have those in our midst who believe that, by coming forward with a plan, and by changing around or basically reshuffling the limited number of resources that we have available for training, we can find a ready solution to the problem.

I guess the position I take when I go to these meetings is that, first of all, as political leaders, let us be honest and not build false expectations and hopes. Let us not try and tell all of our citizenry that just by retraining and changing around the support, for instance, unemployment insurance, towards greater training‑‑and, indeed, as New Brunswick, in their New Brunswick works where they have allocated $100,000 per job per training position, indeed, with an attrition rate, a dropout rate of 50 percent. [interjection] Attrition, yes. Let us be so honest with the people and say that it is a bigger problem than just training and retraining. Let us recognize it very quickly. We are right back into the basic philosophy that drives us, that we are into wealth creation. We are talking about taxes. We are talking about payroll taxes. We are talking about stopping consuming on services today so that we can build a better structure for tomorrow.

The member would say, well, no, we should spend on the services today so that we can build a better structure for tomorrow, and it all goes back ultimately to your ability to create wealth.

So a member says, what is your document, what is your strategy? The Premier laid the strategy before the province a year and a half ago, two years ago, the framework for economic growth, because without growth and wealth creation you have nothing. Yes, we can do a skills inventory. Yes, we are macroing; we are trying to match; we are trying to measure where the skill shortages are; and we are measuring where the surplus is.

The reality is, unless you let the marketplace ultimately decide how it is that those jobs match, take into account their knowledge of where the world is going to be in a few years from now or indeed a few months from now, or indeed next week, ergo Workforce 2000, and all of the other short‑term training‑‑unless you take that into account, the dollar that you put in today, unless it is into some very basic building of skill sets, starting at the public school system, you do not know for sure whether it is going to have a payback with certainty.

With due respect to Mr. Axworthy, who, I think, has been given a tremendous responsibility, until you meaningfully address with certainty where we are going, we can talk about boards; we can talk about strategies; we can talk about how it is we retrain, train, how it is we set into place, refocus our institutions of training, post‑secondary education. But, until it is guided by something strategic, which in this province it is in the terms of the framework brought forward by our province, I am afraid we can spend a lot of time in talking and not doing an awful lot.

Now, if the member wants to be critical of the revitalization of apprenticeship programs that we want to talk about next, that is fair comment. If the member wants to talk about how it is or how it is not that we are bringing the new wave of technology in quickly enough, that is fair comment, but to plan out quarterly as a society how it is that we are going to be able to have jobs for all of our citizens gives much more power to the state than the state can deliver.

* (1620)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member can talk about Ontario, and she can talk about the initiatives there. I do not see the benefits or the macro benefits. Certainly, to people when you set up programs and individuals come into them and are somehow favoured and selected‑‑and that was the whole discussion around ACCESS, or not the whole, but some of the discussion‑‑certainly the individuals who get into the program get the benefits, no question, absolutely none, but nobody dares to do the input‑output analysis and ultimately to determine how it pays back, and will it ultimately?

Yes, we can, we try and build the model in the context of the Keynesian model maybe built 50 or 60 years ago, but nobody dares to strive very far from the assumption that more knowledge and better knowledge is obviously better than less. Of course, it is. Who can argue with that? But, when the money is borrowed in support of it, you had better make sure that you know it is being targeted in the right areas. Right today, as we are engaged in significant social reform in this country, leading, honestly I believe, ultimately to more jobs, or maybe not more jobs, more opportunities to create your own employment, I say that we have got some distance to go. The strategic plans that have been put in place by some provinces have not gone one millimetre along the process that needs to be followed or indeed ultimately set upon by our leaders.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, given the minister's aversion to strategic planning which he has just outlined, what has been the point of the last six years? What was the point of creating this document? If the minister believes that the market will do everything and that we do not build false expectations, what has been the point of it? Why have we had this line? Why do we have this section of the department?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to the extent that training is such an important initiative recognized by all, and to the extent that we today, in greater focus, understand that there has to be targeting, and yet to the extent that government and the old model of longer training versus the newer model of shorter training, I say that obviously there has been a shift.

I am not against a strategic plan, trying to develop mission statements. I am not against trying to set goals of 100 percent full employment. Naturally, give yourself a target to try and work toward.

The member, in the essence of her questions, at least what I read out of it, is you have been a dismal failure if you do not come down with a paper. I will not accept that. I will not accept that because the paper that we have brought forward as a province, within the framework for economic growth, is the guideline.

Ms. Friesen: The issue that I raised at the beginning of this is that every year in Estimates we have had the promise of a strategic plan. We are back again with no plan. Now we have a minister who is defending the fact that we do not have a plan.

Do we expect a plan? Is the government still considering a plan?

Mr. Manness: Yes, but in keeping with a greater understanding of what is going to happen on the whole national level at this social safety reform stage.

An Honourable Member: Question?

Ms. Friesen: No, I am not ready for the question yet.

I earlier asked the minister what his position was when he went to meet with his federal counterpart. That was how he launched into a longer discussion of his free market ideology. I do think that Manitobans should know what the government is saying. We have no written documents. We do not have a Labour Force Development Board that we might discuss these elements publicly.

I am looking for the public discussion and the response of the minister to a Manitoba public that says, look, high unemployment rates, they do not seem to be dropping, in some cases they move quite high, particularly in youth unemployment. We do have problems, as do other provinces, on the issue of older workers and unemployed older workers. The answers I am getting from the minister are: We are in a period of uncertainty. We have no plan. When I go and talk to other ministers all I can say is, do not build false expectations.

Is there something more that the minister would like to say to Manitobans about his direction in labour force planning?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not need to be coaxed by the member for Wolseley. The statements that have been made on the record by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), by other ministers, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) and indeed by myself as the monthly employment and unemployment statistics come forward, I think indicate fully well that we are cognizant of the basic statistics.

We are also mindful of Manitoba's relative favourable position in all of the areas mentioned by the member, by the way, including now even youth unemployment, even though an unacceptable high rate. Still, when we look at the participation rate of our youth as measured within our statistics, I mean, vis‑à‑vis virtually every other province, we are doing relatively well. I do not take that credit as a government, but the reality is, the province is doing well.

Do we wish to do better? Of course we do. All of the well‑wishing in the world is not going to somehow deny the fact that other than British Columbia, where you have incredibly large amounts of foreign money coming into that province over the course of the last five years, leading to a massive real estate boom. Other than that, you cannot point to another province where the effects of technology, particularly in manufacturing and many other sectors, have had significant impact upon jobs. I do not want to belabour the numbers themselves. I could get into them. I would love to get into them. I mean, the member is playing to my strength if she wants to engage in that type of exercise.

The reality is that we have as a government, realizing that the finances were not there to buy jobs by way of government funds, short‑term work‑‑the legacy of that experiment I had to deal with on a daily basis as the Minister of Finance‑‑realizing fully well that training in our institutions, in our formal institutions, had to be refocused to make them much more market sensitive than they were previously, and to realize that there was a whole new form of training wanted. That became available out of the STAC report that our businesses and our wealth creators, the people whom we tax, so that we can equalize benefits to society, indeed wanted different training models, again, resulting in Workforce 2000.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I say that the province has a strategy in place that has been more consistent than that of any other province in the country. It is based on low tax levels. It is based on reduction in expenditures of government, trying to remove overlap and duplication, in some cases changing programming around to try and set into place a stable environment, which will result in greater opportunity and job opportunity for those of our citizens.

The member has not had the privilege of being on the Executive Council dealing with, as I have had to, day after day after day the fallout of trying to buy jobs, and building the false expectations once it became evident that the results and the successes were few. So the member can say, well, you do not have a labour job strategy. I mean, we have not talked about minimum wage. We have not talked about hours of work. We have not‑‑I mean, it is just so large in its whole consideration, even though the member would have some believe that government can plan it all. I say they cannot. I say any province or any state today as you look around the world that attempts to do it through pure planning is not going to make it and is not making it and is failing badly.

* (1630)

So I do not have to lay an awful lot more on the record other than to say that the stance that I have taken is that, certainly, let us give better basic skills to our students as they come through the public school system. Let us challenge them at an earlier age to make decisions, for those who want to go to advanced education or those who want to go into skill areas, technical areas, and I dare say that will be coming up in greater demand. Let us try and provide, to the extent that we have resources, for retraining of those who need to make shifts because of no fault of their own, but through it all let us put greater study in those and matching into those areas where we know there will be jobs at the end of the day as compared to where there will just be hope.

We today are graduating a whole number of professions who do not have any guarantee of work, and yet I do not see where the public call comes from our teaching institutions, indeed, our post‑secondary education institutions as to whether or not there will be a balance as demand versus supply.

I mean, people talk about it, but I do not really see it being talked at a very high level. Certainly, when I go to meetings and I broach the subject with ministers across the land, I see everybody sort of just put their head down, no, I do not want to talk about it.

So how then do you, within that wide, incredibly wide scope‑‑it is scopeless; it has no scope. That is the very essence of the society in which we live.

How do you come out and say, well, this is the strategy now to create more jobs? Well, I have laid the strategy for the record. It is consistent with what the government has done for the last six years. Beyond it and how it is the training will try and bridge the supply and demand apprenticeship training and the whole scope of it, yes, we will try and endeavour to give greater detail to that.

Before that there is going to have to be some semblance of understanding of where the nation wants to go collectively.

Ms. Friesen: That is exactly what I am trying to get at, is where is the sense of direction from this minister, and where is the public discussion around that? What the minister has told us so far, that over the last four to six years a department, a section of his department which has been charged and which has promised to create a labour force development strategy has consistently not done that. I think that is of concern to anybody looking at an Estimates process. That has been one of the expected results every year. It is still not here, and the minister is now trying to put some gloss upon that.

Well, now we are in a period of uncertainty, and it is not the time to bring one forward. That does not excuse the last four years of‑‑I cannot say inactivity; I am sure there has been activity, but certainly there has not been the political will to move forward with this particular plan.

So the minister then rests his case upon educational reform, educational changes, and there may indeed, when we see that package, there may indeed be some interesting things in that area. I do not think that anybody who is concerned with education does not believe that there cannot be changes made at every level of education and improvements made continuously in education.

There are particular philosophical directions in which different interests and in different parties will take that, but obviously the changes and some of the diagnoses, in fact, may be the same.

What the minister is essentially planning or has summarized is the creation in Manitoba of a low‑wage, low‑skill, low‑pay environment, one that is essentially, I think, a situation that a number of states in the United States have headed into, and it may be the one that we are heading to. I do not know whether that is the government's direction. It is obviously not going to be what they say, but it is difficult to see where the high‑skill, high‑wage jobs are coming to Manitoba that should flow from the statements in the glossy brochure on economic development.

One would like to assume that they were, but without the companion strategic plan, it is difficult to see how they are coming, and so what we are left with is the low‑tax environment, the increasing impact of technology whose drive essentially is to minimize the use of labour.

An Honourable Member: We embrace that. Society embraces that.

Ms. Friesen: The minister says society embraces that, the reduction of labour. It seems to me that there are other social purposes, and these are ones that the minister obviously does not see as part of his role. There is a philosophical distinction there between his party and our party, and the purposes of society as reflected in government, and I think perhaps we will just have to leave it at that. There really is not much point in furthering the discussion on that.

The minister has also talked about the planning for training in labour force development as something which is beyond his scope. The scope has changed enormously. He talks about a national scope. We need to know where the nation is going. Yes, when you start expanding the field and the range of planning in that way, of course, it becomes something beyond one's control, but we do have a provincial government, we have a provincial budget, we have a provincial minister, we have particular conditions in Manitoba, and it seems to me to get back to that microcosm of a small society that this is a society which ought to have a sense from its government of the direction in which they are taking them in terms of training and retraining and the direction of the province over the next five to 10 years. One tool in that, not the only tool, but one tool in that was the labour force development plan, another was the partnership with both business and with labour in the labour force development boards, and neither of those have come about.

Other provinces who fell through the cracks on labour force development boards went ahead and created their own; both British Columbia and Saskatchewan have done that. I do not see any sense from this government of where it is proceeding with those partnerships with labour, with the educational sector, with the equity groups to create some kind of public discussion and public direction from Manitoba in labour force development.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member can point to British Columbia and Saskatchewan, but we refuse to fund ours without federal government involvement.

Maybe I am looking at it in too simplistic terms, but I have never seen in my involvement, following governments now for 20, 25 years, I have never seen a more consistent approach to where it is we want to go as a government. It is not fast enough for the members opposite, it is not fast enough for some members of the public, and at times it is too slow for me, but the reality is, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you go nowhere on the basis firstly of borrowed money. So we put into place a framework of fiscal responsibility. That is done.

Then we move over to the other areas, and we realize fully well that with respect to labour and training and all that, and the close relationships, that they have got to be built on a foundation too, they have to be built on some foundation, otherwise very quickly you get into a situation where the existing colleagues of the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) were several years ago, you get desperate and you put into place government labour programs. You buy employment. You do not really do anything on the training side, you try and bring in a program to deal with older workers, in other words, you pay them not to retrain, you just pay them basically to walk away from their work. That is what we inherited, and we have maintained in some cases.

There are some good youth programs we inherited, we have maintained them, but beyond that you better realize that unless somebody opens up the door, somebody opens an employment door on the street, either in Winnipeg or in rural town Manitoba, unless somebody is opening up the door to employ individuals then you have mass, major adjustments which you cannot in any way offset as a government, and that is what we have tried to do.

Again, Workforce 2000, changes at the colleges, the increased support going to the colleges, the challenge to universities to also work towards greater centres of excellence, revitalization of apprenticeship training, technology in its outreach to all players within this, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, are all elements in my view of labour market strategy. Those are the foundations, and without it you cannot build anything.

* (1640)

Ms. Friesen: The idea that apprenticeship is the basic part of this government's approach to labour force strategy is unbelievable, given the fact that they have done nothing, they have not called the curriculum boards together for the last few years. Finally, now, as we come up to an election, now they want to talk about apprenticeship after having done nothing for the last six years.

If the government wants to take credit for centres of excellence created at universities and colleges, I mean, either they are arm's length or they are not. I mean, the government wants to take it on both shoulders, in fact, and centres of excellence were created at universities long before this government came into power, some of them with national/international funding.

I mean, we could go through the minister's list. [interjection] Well, if this is the basis of the minister's labour force development strategy, it seems to me to not proceed very much from this particular section and this particular line, which has been charged with developing the process and the criteria, meeting the client's needs, preparing plans, and preparing the information. It seems to me that the minister is now grasping at quite another section of events. I will not necessarily call them government policy, but events, and, again, putting on record his opposition to any kind of intervention in any market whatsoever.

But as we come up to an election year, of course, we do see the government involving itself in job creation strategies. I wonder if the minister could tell us where it fits with his strategic development plan or absence of a strategic development plan to have the Home Renovation Program. That is a very direct job creation mechanism with no training involved, all of the criteria which the minister would like to apply, and yet here we are, $10 million, and it is the only job creation program we have seen from this government.

I wonder if the minister could tell us where exactly that fits with the overall process. Are we to see that next year? Will that be developed into other kinds of job creation programs? Where is this particular element of the government's philosophy going to take us in the next couple of years?

Mr. Manness: Well, Deputy Chairperson, I guess that could be placed in the same category as infrastructure renewal programs. I mean, although this is purely a provincial government program, it is‑‑I look across the landscape and I see governments of all political stripes from time to time over every 10 years or so, again, trying to stimulate the housing industry on the hope, on the expectation that it will catch the right wave coming out of a recession.

The worst thing you can do is do it when you are going into recession or not coming out, we are certainly out of recession, and then it calls into question the benefit, but if you are coming out of recession then the argument could be made that it is time to follow such a program.

I would think the member would better direct her question with respect to the infrastructural program, and indeed what long‑lasting job benefits are there. I notice that she deliberately has chosen not to, but to want to scrutinize that government program.

Ms. Friesen: I deliberately chose to scrutinize the Manitoba program. I am examining the Manitoba Estimates. I am looking for Manitoban policies, and in the absence of the documents which the government has promised for many years, I am trying to infer from the government programs‑‑

Mr. Manness: It is not in our Estimates.

Ms. Friesen: Well, nor is the infrastructure program. What are you talking about?

Mr. Manness: You just wanted what was on the $10 million. It is not here.

Ms. Friesen: I am not sure if Hansard is collecting all of this, but we are having a submicrophone conversation about what is included in these Estimates, and the minister is prepared to discuss one set of numbers, but not another.

The reason I brought up the job creation program is to indicate to the minister that there are ways in which governments can create jobs. This particular program is, I know, a program which is very similar to ones that were in place before this government came in.

As the minister acknowledged in his criticism of earlier programs, it does not have a job training component, is valid criticism, and it is an equally valid criticism of exactly the same program which they have put into place, and it is the only job creation program that comes from this government.

The infrastructure program is one that has been initiated by the federal government.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is a crock. I mean, I can say to the member opposite we have got PAMWI that we were involved in, the Southern Development Initiative, which was pure infrastructure, and it was shared.

I mean, the member tries to say that the initiative for these programs has come from the federal government. I could indicate that the initiative for the municipal infrastructure program came from the municipalities more so than they even came from the province, but certainly much more than they ever came from the federal government.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I think perhaps what brought the fruition of every one of those programs was, in fact, the existence of a shared‑cost possibility with the federal government, whether it was the last federal government or the present federal government.

I think the minister, just as he is saying with the labour force development boards, Manitoba is not prepared to do it on its own. Would Manitoba have been prepared to do those other programs on their own? I do not think, given our experience of this government, that that would have been the case, but in both cases, they were dealing with hypotheticals.

But I am asking, if the minister is concerned about training, he is concerned about job creation programs or, shall we say, at least job creation, why was there not a training component in that Manitoba initiative job creation?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, why would you train a significant number of people when right now the surplus within the industry of individuals who are trained, I think, was as high as 40 percent? Well, why would you have a training component when you have so much surplus within the industry?

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I do not have the right year in front of me, but I think that carpenters were a skill in demand. Perhaps they were under the recruitment stage, but in any case, if you have a lot of work that is going to be initiated, why would you not take that opportunity to train young people as well? Why would you not build for that future?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have the training facilities in place right now to do that. We have apprenticeship programs in place that take into account young people also. I mean, if the member wants to say, well, why do you not change the public school system so that there is greater opportunity to access apprenticeship training at an earlier age and with accreditation, that is a fair statement, but that has nothing to do with this home building program of $10 million.

Ms. Friesen: Well, the minister then was prepared to criticize earlier job creation programs for the absence of training but is not prepared to accept the same criticism of his.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my earlier criticism of job creation programs had nothing to do with the lack of training. What they had was purely with absolutely no longevity associated with the type of work employed, and at the end of the day, in almost all instances, there was nothing left to show.

I mean, I can think of many programs where what was done was the grass was cut and the trees were trimmed, and I did not see where the long‑lasting benefits under those types of programs were provided, let alone training.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will check Hansard, but I do believe the minister indicated lapses of training was one of his criticisms of those programs, and I think that is a legitimate criticism. If you do have a major program like that, building in training and apprenticeship opportunities, I think, is a good idea, and it did seem to me it was something the government, if that was one of its criticisms, might have looked at this.

* (1650)

The minister then goes on to criticize job creation programs for the absence of long‑term benefits, but long‑term benefits, I think, are to be found in a head of a family with work, with‑‑even if we were to use the minister's terminology of labour discipline, of work discipline, one might argue that there was some element there for people who had not had the opportunity to be exposed to that before, to use a very conservative type of analysis of these types of programs.

The arguments are broader than the idea that some grass got cut and that some trees got trimmed. There is a sense that people were not then unemployed, that they were not at home, that they were not in situations of long‑term despair, and that there is a social benefit, difficult to measure, but a social benefit which must be recognized in those kinds of job creation programs. Even perhaps in some conservative ideology I think there would be some recognition of that benefit.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can agree in part with what the member says, as long as the money to support that is not borrowed, which it was. Had it been paid for, I would not even use it as an example if those programs had been paid for at the time. But governments tend not to pay for those programs at the time by taxing its citizens and being honest with its citizens and transferring wealth at that point in time to that greater good, yes, employing the head of the household; no, it tends to borrow money to do that, and the legacy of that is what we are grappling with today. The Keynesian model, if it had ever been practised, was probably a very good model; never been practised.

I remember asking Howard Pawley in 1985, when we had surplus, virtually surplus, when the revenue growth to government was 19 percent, last year it was 1; 19 percent, I said, do you ever see the time when we can begin to pay for these programs now and/or reduce the program, pay back some of the debt so that we will be in a position to once again offer them for the needs of the day when times are tougher? The response was on record, in Hansard, he said, well, you know, the needs are still pretty great today. I do not think we can do it, even though our revenue increase is 19 percent.

So I do not disagree with the member, but when you are borrowing money, for all of the good reasons today, and saying, well, look after it, tomorrow we will worry about it, then you have got a problem. We have got a problem collectively in this nation, we have got a problem in the Province of Manitoba, but all of a sudden it is not as bad as many other provinces, but it is still a problem.

Ms. Friesen: And the response to that, of course, is that we pay for unemployment now and we pay for it in the future.

Mr. Manness: When?

Ms. Friesen: Forever. We pay for it.

Mr. Manness: When do you pay for it?

Ms. Friesen: We pay for it in the impact upon our health services, the impact upon our schools, the impact upon the family, long, long term.

Mr. Manness: It was never paid.

Ms. Friesen: Well, this is the basis obviously of the difference between us. The minister believes that social needs are secondary, and that the long‑term health and viability of Manitobans comes secondary, and it seems to me that that is not the only way of approaching this. This may not be the forum for discussion of that obviously, but the impact of unemployment upon Manitoba families simply cannot be underestimated. The impact upon the health care services, the impact upon our social services, the amount of money that we are spending in fact to care for those people who have been broken by unemployment, and who now have no hope, is extensive. The minister must recognize that as a Minister of Finance.

Mr. Manness: I realize that, but we vote on every health dollar, we vote on every education dollar. We do not vote on the $550 million that goes into interest payments. We do not have one moment's say because the teachers of Texas who have lent us the money will not allow us to have a discretionary vote on it. We do not vote on it, and so as the interest bill continues to mount, it tears away at the discretion with respect to every one of these lines.

So the member can talk about what we want to do for society and the unemployed, and all that, fine. Arithmetic, I am sorry, will destroy that. It has in every other country, and I do not care what the philosophy is at work. I have seen communist countries do well and I have seen communist countries go broke. I have seen socialist countries do well and I have seen socialist countries go broke. I have seen capitalist countries do well and I have seen capitalist countries go broke because the theory of arithmetic and compounding interest knows no philosophical boundary, and none, absolutely none.

Russia today cannot feed itself and they cannot get on their knees far enough to borrow to buy wheat off of us. China today comes in, a communist country, and they put cash on the barrel head to buy our wheat. Is it philosophy? It has got nothing to do with philosophy. You either pay your debts or you do not.

So when Howard Pawley's government 10 years ago brought in the Jobs Fund, good for him, good for him, but why did he not pay for it at the time, instead of pushing it off so that today the students that the member teaches, and, indeed, the students under ACCESS that we talk about would not be impacted in the same way that they have to be because of the fact that the interest is chewing up all of the money. Where was he then, and where was his government? That is all we are talking about. Indeed, I could say the same thing about Grant Devine in Saskatchewan. This is not philosophical; this is not Conservative versus New Democratic Party. This is leadership, nothing more.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to remind the honourable members that we are dealing with item 4.(e) Labour Market Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Ms. Friesen: Absolutely. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, well, the minister can say that interest rates are not political and not philosophical, and the 10 years of the Tory rule in Ottawa drove up those interest rates. They are one of the major‑‑they are not the only‑‑but they are one of the major factors in the debt of every province, and the minister knows that.

Those Tory interest rates benefited one part of society, and that was a political and philosophical decision. It is one that he has to live with, and he cannot say that that is nonpartisan or that it is nonpolitical. It was a political decision of that government and that Bank of Canada.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not borrow $1 from the Bank of Canada. In my tenure as a Minister of Finance, I borrowed about $3 billion; I did not borrow $1 from John Crow. I went to the market where I could get it the cheapest, and the investors in this country, the savers, said, we are not giving it to you unless you pay us 11 or 12 percent.

John Crow dealt with 60‑day money, 50‑day money. I needed 10‑year money; it had absolutely nothing to do with John Crow. I needed 10‑year money. The Bank of Canada has nothing to do with long‑term money, but treasury bills. I did not borrow a dollar from John Crow, but the investors who saw opportunities, the pension fund, the pension fund of the teachers who saw an opportunity to lend money to governments at 12 percent, said, I would rather lend it to the government at 12 percent because that is what they are going to bid up as compared to a private‑sector, job‑creating person who was prepared to pay 8 percent.

Where are your jobs today? Ask the institutions who have money, and you and I are to blame. We are to blame indirectly through the superannuation fund, the Civil Service Superannuation Fund, the teacher pension fund, or any pension fund there is in the nation. What we have said to the people that are managing those portfolios, you go out and, if you can get 12 percent guaranteed from the Province of Manitoba for 10 years, take that rather than giving it to some new entrepreneur at 8 percent who is going to employ 500 people. That is what we have said.

You wonder why there are no jobs out there. Yet there are amongst us people who say if that person is successful you make sure that you hit him with a corporate tax and an individual income tax that just about takes everything he has earned. That is right; there are people that are saying that. We have got the highest corporate taxes in the world. We have got almost the highest individual income taxes in the world as a country. So, if we want to look to people to blame, it is so easy to blame John Crow.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., I am interrupting the committee. It is time for private members' hour. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.

HEALTH

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Health. We are on item 4.(a)(1) on page 84 of the Estimates manual.

Will the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

* (1430)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, at the onset I just want to indicate I appreciate the fact that the minister and the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) left this portion of the Estimates still open to allow me to ask some questions, given my absence yesterday because of illness. I appreciate that very much.

I also note from discussions with the member for Crescentwood that much of what I would have asked she has covered, and I will attempt in my questions‑‑I will confine my questions because of that and will limit them because of that, in order to expedite the proceedings and because I will have an opportunity to review Hansard, once Hansard has been produced, in order to review the material. So I thank the committee for its indulgence in that regard.

My first question‑‑I apologize, my voice is not carrying. Can you hear me now? I see some of the minister's old skills from his court reporter days have come back to him, as he assisted in making sure that staff could hear my questions.

My first question is just a general one. On March 17 of last year when the government announced basically its expansion of community‑based mental health services, there was a major press release out and a major announcement. I noticed that the government announced $4 million in funding for new and expanded programs. That was the title of the press release. Just roughly calculating I noticed that the increase in expenditures between last year's Estimates and this year's Estimates approximate that amount.

My question is twofold. Firstly, that $4 million announced last year, I assume, has shown up as the expansion in programs this year. My second question: Are there any additional programs or program enhancements that have been made in mental health community‑based programming since this major announcement on March 17 of last year?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Chairperson, I am glad to see the honourable member back because I was beginning to feel guilty that it might have been me who had made him sick. I am glad to see him back and that whatever I did to him, he is recovering from.

In addition to what the honourable member has referred to, the press release that he referred to, there has been $1 million additional announced in Winnipeg when I attended the Mental Health Consumer Fair.

We announced the Salvation Army telephone line, the Employment Dimensions project, which is a CMHA Winnipeg program that will allow the Employment Dimensions project to operate until early 1995. That $1 million was also for the Safe Home, that is a CMHA Winnipeg program. The Sara Riel Incorporated, support to new In‑Home Support services, that is ongoing funding.

There was also, as part of that announcement, training for direct service providers, an amount for the Manitoba Network for Mental Health, an amount for board development for new programs, and also a smaller amount for the Popular Theatre Alliance. Those were the things announced in Winnipeg and are additional to what the honourable member referred to.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister can simply advise me if I am asking a question that has already been answered yesterday. There is no need to repeat, just advise that it was dealt with and I will review it in Hansard.

Does the minister have any statistics on the occupancy and rate of utilization of the Salvation Army Crisis Stabilization service and the Sara Riel Crisis Stabilization service?

Mr. McCrae: I cannot recall precisely if I finished answering this question, because it did get raised. I will be as brief as I can.

During the calendar year 1993, the Salvation Army Crisis Stabilization Unit, which has been expanded by six beds to a total of 22, during the calendar year 1993, the facility handled 767 admissions. That was 401 men and 366 women.

During the month of December 1993, the facility handled a total of 71 admissions, 33 women and 38 men. Average daily patient population during December of 1994 was 13 and average length of stay was 5.1 days. To the present, the facility has operated at or near capacity. I cannot help but observe that it is a good thing that we have this crisis stabilization unit and this capacity, because, if not, that would be further pressure on the emergency rooms that we have talked about before.

* (1440)

Sara Riel Incorporated has a new eight‑bed crisis stabilization unit. Between its opening date in July of 1993 and the end of March of '94, the Sara Riel unit handled 354 admissions. That was 138 men and 216 women. The average length of stay in that period was five days. To the present, the facility has operated at or near capacity.

With respect to Mobile Crisis services, the Salvation Army has 11 staff, and this team provides crisis intervention and short‑term follow‑up 24 hours a day, seven days week. Between May 19, '93, which was the month of inception, and March of 1994, the service had 9,002 contacts with a total of 2,181 individuals in crisis situations. I think those are the ones the honourable member asked about.

Mr. Chomiak: The program also called for an expansion of supported housing to accommodate 110 individuals, as well as adding 20 subsidized rental units. Are those in place and are there any, because housing is so fundamental, plans to expand the housing assistance?

Mr. McCrae: Our initial objective was to provide additional funding to the CMHA, Winnipeg supportive housing program, which we have done. There has been a significant increase in funding which allowed the program to increase the number of persons served from 25 to 110. The program is now full a