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