LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, June 10, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Discipline and Assignment of Judges
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a matter of privilege.
This is a serious matter, and this is my first opportunity
to do so. The issue is regarding the
discipline and the assignment of judges, and the role of the chief provincial
court judge by statute, The Provincial Court Act.
The member for
Mr. Speaker, I had no involvement. This is entirely within the jurisdiction of
the chief judge. The chief judge deals
with the assignment of judges to courts.
The chief judge dealt with this matter and controls placements.
Mr. Speaker, the member for
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I was
somewhat surprised that the Attorney General, in attempting to establish a
matter of privilege, made virtually no reference to Beauchesne, and I suspect
there may be a reason for that because I believe the minister is essentially
engaging in debate.
I realize the minister was not present when the comments
were made, but if the minister would care to check in Hansard, the comments she
is alleging in her matter of privilege‑‑the member for St. Johns
(Mr. Mackintosh) was very clear in asking the question: "What role did the government play in
effectively disciplining the only judge who has spoken up against this
backlog?"
Mr. Speaker, that was a question, and I realize the
minister sometimes misunderstands the role of Question Period, but the role of Question
Period is for opposition members to ask questions of the government and,
indeed, we also expect, on occasion, that the government may even answer some
of those questions.
Mr. Speaker, how can an opposition member, our Justice
critic, who has spoken out repeatedly about our concerns about the handling of
the justice system by this minister‑‑how can it be considered a
matter of privilege when our member, who has risen on almost a daily basis to
raise questions about what is happening to our justice system in this province‑‑how
can that be a matter of privilege? Does
it satisfy any of the provisions in Beauchesne, Citations 24, 25, 26?
In fact, if the minister would care, or others on that side
who perhaps advised the minister on this ill‑fated matter of privilege‑‑I
would suggest that not only is the minister's matter of privilege not a matter
of privilege, it is not even close to a prima facie case. If the minister would care to read Beauchesne
about what a matter of privilege is, she will find that it is the privilege of
members, in fact it is the obligation of members to be asking the types of
questions that the member for
I will quote, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion on this so the
minister perhaps will take the time to read about what Parliamentary privilege
is. This is Citation 24: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of
the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of
the High Court of Parliament, . . . . The privileges of Parliament are rights
which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'. They are enjoyed by individual Members,
because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services
of its Members, and by each House for the protection of its members and the
vindication of its own authority and dignity."
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the fundamental
privileges of this House is the right of any member to ask a question of a
government minister and get an answer, not this so‑called matter of
privilege.
* (1005)
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (
First of all, the important point has to be made that my
question was not addressed to the Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey). There was no personal charge, let alone a
charge. It was addressed to the
government. I said: What role did the government have in
effectively disciplining the only judge who spoke up against the backlogs in
A second point is, we have to look at the context within
which this question was raised.
Manitobans have been raising concerns with me on a daily basis about
Furthermore, we have seen how the application has been of
the Filmon Fridays to the courts. Even
more particular, we have seen Manitobans witness a back‑room deal with
judges on their retirement package between the cabinet and judges. There is such a thing as independence of the
judiciary from the government of Manitoba.
That question, which is a subject of the matter of privilege, was a
necessity in this province.
I have a role, and what this matter of privilege is, is a
sad attempt to stifle public debate and stifle the role of the opposition in
examining the administration of justice in this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for trying to advise the Chair on this matter.
I will take this matter under advisement, and I will come back to the
House with a ruling.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF REPORTS
Mr. Speaker: I am tabling, in accordance with Section 42 of
The Ombudsman Act, and I am pleased to submit the 24th Annual Report of the
Ombudsman, covering the calendar year January 1, 1993, to December 31, 1993.
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
morning in the Speaker's Gallery, eight visitors from the Women's Committee of
the MGEU, and they are under the direction of Ms. Myrna Phillips.
Also, from the R.B. Russell Vocational School, we have
twenty‑five Grade 12 students under the direction of Mr. Paul
Sutherland. This school is located in
the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
From the Treherne Elementary School, we have twenty‑seven
Grade 7 students under the direction of Mr. Craig Spencer. This school is located in the constituency of
the Speaker.
Also, we have representatives of the ACCESS program in
Manitoba.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this morning.
* (1010)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have asked repeatedly about
the cutbacks, the 20 percent reduction in spending for the ACCESS program in
the province of Manitoba.
The ACCESS program, of course, has been very, very
successful over the years in training people for educational positions, for
social work positions, for doctors' positions, for engineering students and
graduates. It had a tremendous success,
and even when the former Lyon government looked at it in 1979, they came to the
same conclusion that many of us have come to, that we have a return on our
investment in terms of people being employed in the province of Manitoba in
careers that provide dignity and stature in our communities, Mr. Speaker.
In 1990, when we asked this question about the federal
government's reductions in the ACCESS program, the Premier of the province
said, and I quote: We have argued the
case for BUNTEP and ACCESS programs for these kinds of human resources within
our education and training system, that we believe are absolutely critical and
necessary for the future development of our aboriginal people and for many of
our disadvantaged people, and is a tremendous investment, Mr. Speaker.
That is what the government said in 1990. In 1994, they reduced that investment by some
20 percent.
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey): What impact and how many students will no
longer be able to return to the ACCESS program and return to their educational
programs as a result of the 20 percent reduction made by this government?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, this is the third occasion on which members opposite have asked
questions in the House dealing specifically with ACCESS. Many of the responses and answers that I give
will be those that have been on the record now since the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Stefanson) tabled the budget.
Last year within the ACCESS program, there were some 312
new intakes under that program. There
will be that same number this year, the new entry in 1994‑95. There will be no change in the impact on
intake with respect to the program.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter
from the University of Manitoba to the minister's own deputy minister,
indicating the administrative problems and human problems dealing with the
government's arbitrary change of a 20 percent reduction in this budget.
The minister talks about no change in intake. We have been listening to people who have
been directly affected. Here in
Manitoba, we have a $200‑million increase in the amount of money this
government is spending on social assistance, and it does not make any sense at
all to us to have governments cutting back on investing in education and
training when we see a massive increase in spending on the social assistance
side.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: What does he say in terms of his previous
questions to six students in Lynn Lake who are in the BUNTEP program who no
longer will be able to stay in that BUNTEP program as a direct result of the
Conservative cutback of 20 percent funding for those students and for that
program of ACCESS?
* (1015)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the 20 percent reduction referenced
by the member, roughly 61 percent of that will be institutional costs. Most of the reductions will be at the
institutions themselves. The other 40
percent represents the direct benefit provided to students.
Mr. Speaker, I again point out that, whereas the average
nonrepayable student and academic support received by a student '93‑94
was approximately $11,800, that was for one year, nonrepayable. What we are doing for the sake of equity is
saying to all students, particularly those who have good opportunity for
employment at the end of graduation, certainly there is some incumbency upon
every person requiring support, that the first tranche of that support‑‑$165
a week‑‑should be required to be taken out by way of loan to be
fair across all of the roughly 35,000 post‑secondary students within the
province of Manitoba.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how this
government can talk about equity. Here
is a minister who, as a previous Minister of Finance, approved a $43.5‑million
loss projection coverage for the Winnipeg Jets and at the same time was cutting
back 20 percent from the ACCESS students of Manitoba. Here is a government that increases up to $12
million in the corporate training grants right across Manitoba while it cuts
the guts out of the ACCESS program here in Manitoba. I would ask the minister to start looking at
the human dimensions of his cutbacks.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the question about the six students at
Lynn Lake. What does the minister say in
terms of the human impact and the equity to Michelle, a single mother of three
children who has enrolled in this program, has completed three years of
university education and can no longer continue that education so she can have
the career in the area she is trained after the government has reduced their
commitment by some 20 percent to this good solid investment in the education
and training and the economy of Manitoba?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, we are asking some ACCESS students,
by way of loan, to pick up the cost of $165 a week. Every dollar beyond that required will be by
way of the public purse support, every dollar beyond $165 a week regardless of
the need, not asking one dollar of it to be paid back.
The Leader of the NDP party who has such an aversion to
debt, ergo the reference to the Winnipeg Jets, can maybe explain why it is he
has no problem with the province having a $300‑million or $400‑million
deficit. Maybe he can explain why it is
he has no principles with respect to these issues other than trying, indeed, to
play to an audience because of a policy change.
We made this change notwithstanding the fact that this
government stood in the breach of a federal government which withdrew funding
for a number of years. We have committed
millions of dollars, in some areas $10 million a year, and in some years $10
million a year, to this program.
Unfortunately, we cannot continue to make that contribution. We have asked some of the students to take on
some level of indebtedness with respect to their study.
ACCESS Programs
Student Loan Eligibility
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Since April I have tried to explain to the
Minister of Education what will be the impact of requiring ACCESS students to
go to the Canada Student Loan Program.
We have to remember that these students, many of them, are in 11‑month
programs where they cannot get the summer employment to repay the loans. They are not equal in that sense to other
students.
The Canada Student Loan Program has annual caps which are
too low for students with families to survive.
The Canada Student Loan Program has cumulative funding caps which do not
meet the specific needs of some ACCESS students. The Canada Student Loan Program does not even
meet the basic needs of some of the expensive programs in medicine, and the
Canada Student Loan Program has rigid asset requirements which do not meet the
needs of ACCESS students.
My question for the minister is: Will he determine exactly how many ACCESS
students cannot return to school next year as a result of his policy requiring
Canada Student Loans? Will he make a
commitment to enable all students in the program to complete their degree?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Wolseley knows better than any member of this House
with respect to the ACCESS programming and the lack of caps. These are all of the support policies in
place: basic student allowances; rental
subsidies; transportation allowances; day care expenses; medical; dental;
optical; other student travel; special support; tuition; books and supplies;
program books. All of those are paid for
beyond the Canada Student Loan caps.
They are all paid for until, if the student's household income exceeds the
Stats Canada low‑income cutoff, an equivalent amount is deducted.
Mr. Speaker, that cap for an ACCESS student: one‑person family, $16,000; three
persons, $25,000; six persons, $37,000.
Those are the caps that are in place, not the Canada Student Loans caps
to which the member refers. She has to
be honest.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House
whether in those programs where there are practicums involved‑‑the
northern Bachelor of Social Work and the special premedical programs and other
medical programs‑‑whether those students will be eligible for
funding during the periods of placement?
Will he tell us how the one‑month break that most ACCESS students
have‑‑the one month, not the five months that other students have‑‑will
be handled under this program, and will he finally answer the question: How many students cannot return‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has already put her
question.
* (1020)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, $165 a week. That is what we are asking students to assume
by way of debt.
It is not that they will be short $165. For those students that justify the need, as
every other student within the province does under the criteria put into place
under the Canada Student Loan program, if the need is justified, the money will
be there. But what we are saying is,
those individuals who are virtually guaranteed a job upon graduation, there is
some incumbency that they be treated no differently from any other student in
the province and that they encourage some debt in support of their study.
Federal Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the issue is, under this program
they are not going to graduate, and that is what I am asking the minister. How many will‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister
to meet directly and immediately with his federal counterparts to insist that
they reinstate their share of ACCESS funding and enable those existing students
to complete the program.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think there is a member in this House that does not
understand and accept how good this program has been in many dimensions. There is not a member in this House.
When it was first entered into, it was a shared program
between the federal and provincial governments.
Over the course of a number of years, the province now has been asked to
take on all of the funding. It is a very
rich program, but to the extent that we can no longer have it in place and
support it completely on our own ticket as we have in the past, there has had
to be some changes in the program. We
will try to maintain it, and, yes, every time we meet with the federal
government‑‑and it is pointed out to us by other provinces and
everybody that views it, it is a good program.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, unless the federal Liberal
government comes forward and gives us more money, as used to be the case, we
will have to proceed with the changes within the program.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My question is for
the Minister of Education. I have
listened to the minister's comments in response to the questions of my friends
in the official opposition.
My question for the minister: He keeps saying, as a defence to these cuts,
that in fact it is not going to have a negative impact on enrollment in the
ACCESS program. That is what he says, and
that is one of his key defences of this 20 percent cut.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the program was cut 11 percent, and
enrollment dropped 15 percent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how can he stand today and say that with
a 20 percent cut, there will not be a cut in enrollment? The facts say differently. History proves differently.
Will the minister be open and honest with the members of
this Legislature and acknowledge that this is, in fact, going to deplete
enrollment in this critical program which he himself has just indicated is a
good program?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member does not have to call into question my openness and honesty
on this issue.
The fact is the changes made in '93‑94 did have impact
on intake, and again, that was a decision that had to be made after a number of
considerations.
Mr. Speaker, when we this year asked students, either
coming into the program or who are in the program, to undertake some of the
responsibility with respect to indebtedness, we still believe and we know that
there will be no impact on intake because there is a waiting list. There is a waiting list to come into this
program. Many of the students coming
into this program‑‑as indeed when the ACCESS evaluation and the
Hikel report is tabled, it will show a growing number of students did not need
the level of support provided.
So as they are called upon then to put up more of their own
resources, it will open and free the opportunities for others who are on the
waiting list. That is why the intakes
under this policy change will not be reduced, whereas last year they were
reduced somewhat.
* (1025)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that is simply ridiculous. The minister knows better, and those who will
continue to be able to access this program are those who will be able to afford
it and who have money. That was the
point of this program, was to provide for people who did not have those
resources but did want to educate themselves.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the
minister: The Roblin commission report
was much heralded by this government and was brought down, and they have
consistently indicated, this minister has indicated his support for that
report. That report says, page 49, and
it studied this ACCESS program:
"Viewed in their totality, the Access programs have clearly been
successful in pioneering the integration of Aboriginal people into post‑secondary
education." Recommendation: "That the Access Fund be maintained and,
in years where the operating grant are increased, that the Fund be subject to a
similar increase."
How does this minister justify a 20 percent cut in this
program that the Roblin commission itself studied and decided was a good
program? There is not a word about cutting
that program in this Roblin commission report.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, you see, the Leader of the
Liberal Party fails to distinguish between the ACCESS programs and the ACCESS
fund. His Education critic should
probably have helped him on this.
Mr. Speaker, there are two different issues. The ACCESS fund is seed money that is given
by the Universities Grants Commission to the university to promote and foster a
new program area, and what Roblin was saying basically is: Maintain the fund, but make sure that the
university funding globally takes over the responsibility after two or three
years so that the fund then can move to a new focal area.
The reference to the programs and the fund are not related at
all, so the member does not even know the basis on which he asked his
question. He is wrong. He is dead wrong, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: I am sure the minister will peruse the record
and want to correct himself. Maybe he
should have read the report on page 49, which talked about the ACCESS programs
having been clearly successful in pioneering the integration of aboriginal
people into post‑secondary education.
The minister knows that Roblin supported those programs.
My final question for the minister: Today, the labour statistics came forward
from Statistics Canada and indicated that unemployment for women under the age
of 24 has gone up 3 percent in the last month and has gone up 5.4 percent in
the last year.
Mr. Speaker, women under the age of 24 are a target group
and represent a large user group of the ACCESS programs. Why is this minister cutting that program
when we already know that group is experiencing serious problems in finding
employment in our economy? Why is he
further worsening the problem for that particular group?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, it is because of that group
basically‑‑
An Honourable Member: You do not care . . . .
Mr. Manness: The member shoots across from his chair that
I do not care about them. What a
callous, foolish remark. It is because
there is such employment success for the graduates within that group that I
would ask the member, if he is really serious, that he makes an appeal, seeing
he is so close to Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Chretien, to ask the federal government
to re‑establish the federal funding in this area. To the extent that he is successful, I am
sure the Treasury Board of our government would reconsider and want to review
again the amount of funding so that not only would we maintain the level of
intake, we could probably increase it.
That is the challenge I put to the Leader of the Liberal
Party.
* (1030)
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the support
of the current Liberal Leader (Mr. Edwards).
Regrettably, he was silent when the current federal government refused
to reinstate ACCESS funding in their budget earlier this year. He had the opportunity then.
My question is for the Minister of Education. Rather than just blame the federal
government, will he finally agree that the ACCESS program should be a higher
priority than wasting $43 million on the Jets owners, $4 million on Connie
Curran and $600,000 on political advertising by the Lotteries Foundation?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, nobody has to tell me or refer or ask me to give this program
priority. I was the chair of Treasury
Board for many years where year after year after year, as we went through the
difficult decisions around developing yet another budget, that ACCESS continued
to come forward, again, as one of the very rich programs of support within
government, but yet one of the very laudable programs.
Mr. Speaker, this government did everything possible
through those years. I can remember when
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism supported by the Minister of
Education of the day, made at least one if not two trips down to Ottawa to try
and make the plea that their level of support be maintained. We understand the value of this program. We have always, as a government, given it a
very extremely high priority, I would say the highest priority with respect to
education outside of regular instruction in the K to 12 setting. We have shown and demonstrated our priority
with respect to this program over the years.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of a 1979
study done by the previous Conservative government that found that in terms of
transfer payments saved and taxes paid, program graduates pay back in seven
years not only the cost of their own education, but the cost of dropouts as
well?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of that. That is why, to make this a program which is
fairer and which can reach out to a larger cross‑section of people, we
are asking those people who become part of it to assume some indebtedness, $165
a week. Every dollar required after
that, every dollar up to in some cases a family of three people, up to $25,000
will be paid for by the public purse. We
agree.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, will the House have to censure
this minister a second time before he gets the message that cutting ACCESS
funding was not just wrong morally? It
is a stupid decision that will increase costs to the taxpayers of this
province. Is he aware of that?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, the House will do what the
House wants to do with me. I am
sorry. I am one of 57 people.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, during these times of incredible
fiscal and revenue shortfall to governments everywhere, difficult decisions
have to be made. Whereas over six
budgets this government has been able to continue to maintain the level of
support for the ACCESS program, we have changed the program so as to maintain
the intake and yet call upon some greater responsibility for the individual
student by way of indebtedness over the period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced, given the success
of the program, that those graduates will have an opportunity to pay back a
first level of student loan, and indeed, they will feel better. Ultimately in the end run, I believe students
will feel better in the fact that they have made a contribution, a direct
contribution, to their own education.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, there are many people in our
society who continue to face many barriers, and this is no more true than for
aboriginal people in northern Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency in which many
communities do not have roads, do not have sewer and water, do not have
complete schooling, and the ACCESS program has worked to bring those people,
northern aboriginal people, into the mainstream of our society.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education, who talks
about this being a richly funded program and talks about contributions, when
will the Minister of Education recognize that this program is not dealing with
students living in Tuxedo in half‑million dollar houses, that it is
targeted towards the disadvantaged in the core area of Winnipeg and northern
Manitoba, and that it is absolutely unacceptable that a government, a
provincial government, would cut this program more than any other program in
this provincial budget?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot say this in a categorical sense, although I am pretty sure I
am on solid ground. We are the only
province in Canada that has this program to the level of support offered.
That tells me, Mr. Speaker, that obviously, given the fact
that we have a program at the levels of support that we have, it is a rich
program. The member can try and draw in
the class warfare and the struggles. He
can try and make reference to Tuxedo. He
can try again to talk and draw in for his own political purposes‑‑[interjection]
Well, they tell me to table the report.
It is doing things differently by the Roblin commission. This is a public document and the Leader of
the NDP should know that. He has read it
at least five times.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister has quoted
from the Hikel report repeatedly in this House.
He has never tabled that report in this House. The rights of members in this House, I think,
are to have full access, full information that the government has commissioned
with taxpayers' money. What is the
government hiding?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education and
Training, to finish with his response.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the Leader is losing his cool
over there. I have a document, and he
assumes it is the one that I have not tabled as yet.
Mr. Speaker, my response to the member's question is no
different from the many I have given previously. I suppose I can embellish my response
somewhat by saying‑‑and I say this in response more to the Leader
of the Liberal Party, who gets kind of slippery with respect to remarks,
because this is what page 49 said of the Roblin report, and I quote: Viewed in their totality, the ACCESS programs
have clearly been successful in pioneering the integration of aboriginal people
into post‑secondary education. We
note, however, that in important respects, the programs represent temporary
solutions to larger‑ and longer‑term manners.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the member refused to read that into the
record, did he not? So the point‑‑the
smooth member, of course, from St. James, slides off the path‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Manness: My responses hold, that I have made several
times.
Mr. Ashton: One of the most unfair aspects of this
government's policy, Mr. Speaker, is that it has in midstream cut off students
who have been taken into the program under the original criteria.
There is nothing more unfair than this, and I would like to
ask the minister‑‑and if he wants the opportunity to find out the
impact this is having, he can talk to many of the people who are here today in
this building who are part of the ACCESS program.
Will he now do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, and at least,
at a bare minimum, immediately reinstate all the existing students under the
same criteria as when they entered the program?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I assume and I would believe our
government would reconsider if the federal government will help us in this
program and re‑establish some of the level of support they used to
provide. Under those conditions, I am
sure our government would want to look at this funding issue in a new context.
Mr. Ashton: I have one final question, Mr. Speaker. We have heard a lot about the Winnipeg Jets
the last few days, and one thing the people always say is that professional
sports players provide a role model in our society. Well, I am wondering if the Minister of
Education might consider that the real role models in our society, particularly
in northern Manitoba, are the many people who have completed the ACCESS program
and do the right thing, not spend $43 million on professional sports players,
but at least reinstate the money to the ACCESS programs to provide the real
role models for northern people.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I know if the First Minister
(Mr. Filmon) were here, he would insist on answering that question.
Mr. Speaker, there was a time in Estimates, and the record
will show, when the NDP Leader indicated their party did not want to make the
Jets a political issue, and the member opposite, the Leader, said that as part
of the record.
So, Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Leader of the NDP, his word
is not worth very much, because he said that on the record.
* (1040)
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the
Minister of Education are clearly unparliamentary. In the context of us asking him to live up to
his commitments to the ACCESS students, that he made in this House, I would ask
him to withdraw that and live up to his own word on the ACCESS program.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order, but, indeed, again, for the watching public‑‑you know,
there are many up here in the gallery, indeed there are many watching on this
TV, I would caution all honourable members, pick and choose your words very,
very carefully.
MTS Yellow Pages
Adult Video Advertisements
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): I
took as notice on Tuesday a question from the member for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett) on coupon books that MTS had distributed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that MTS certainly
has very stringent guidelines on the Yellow Pages and the kind of advertising
in the Yellow Pages, but this is a coupon book we are talking about. I can tell the member that MTS has indicated
to me that they will be more diligent in the future in terms of those
guidelines, in terms of moral responsibility and the kind of copy that is used
in advertising in any fashion.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I
remind honourable members who continue the debate that the federal government,
six weeks ago, increased the student loan limit for the first time in eight
years from $3,600 to $5,400. This
government clawed it back. I also remind
honourable members opposite that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), in
January of this year, had nothing but praise for the federal government's
approach to transfer payments and indicated it was a refreshing start of a new
era with the five‑year planning on transfer payments.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness), his colleague, has
just said and put on the record, and I believe I have the quote correctly: There are incredible fiscal and revenue
shortfalls, and as a result, difficult decisions have to be made. That was his statement.
My question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Downey) is, will he make one of those difficult decisions in this time of
incredible revenue shortfall and go to the committee governing the Winnipeg
Jets and ask them to find ways to cut back from the $43.5 million speculated
loss on the Jets and find $2 million, one‑twentieth of that amount, to
put back into the ACCESS program to help the people in this province who want
to become educated and work in our society?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as we
totally expected when we tabled that information on the projected losses of the
Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club, certain members are taking advantage in trying to
score political points by pointing to the long‑term, worst‑case
scenario as opposed to what has realistically happened to date in terms of the
actual costs under that agreement.
I think if they look at that agreement, which I am sure
they will, they will know what the costs to date are, in fact, and that to
date, to the end of March 1994, there has been a cost to the province of some
$2.4 million. During that same time
frame, we have received direct taxation revenues to the three levels of
government of some $35 million.
Really, in answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party's
question, I think we are all waiting for the Burns committee report. That is a report that is mandated to deal
with the long‑term viability of the Jets, the need for a facility in
Manitoba, the ability to address a facility in Manitoba. So all of that can have an impact on these
longer‑term projections of what these losses might ultimately be as it
relates to the Winnipeg Jets.
I do want to correct the Leader of the Liberal Party on one
particular issue. He talks about the
enhancing of the Canada Student Loans Program by the new federal Liberal
government. My understanding is‑‑and
certainly the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) can provide much more
information on this‑‑in effect what they have done under that
decision, Mr. Speaker, is to offload more of a cost onto provincial governments
because now the provincial governments are in from dollar one under student
loan assistance‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Edwards: My further question is for either the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) or the Minister of
Education.
The minister has made much of the $11,000 per year per
student that is government grant. The
average player's salary of the Winnipeg Jets is $440,000. So let us talk about the‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member is trying to put his
question.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for either of those ministers is, will this