VOL. XLV No. 20B - 8 p.m., MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1995

Monday, June 19, 1995

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, June 19, 1995

The House met at 8 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

CULTURE, HERITAGE AND CITIZENSHIP

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

This evening, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.

When the committee last sat, it was considering item 4.(a)(1) on page 33 of the Estimates book and on page 49 of the yellow supplement book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I did have a number of questions that I was wanting to ask in this area. I did not quite expect to be up asking them as early as I am but am pleased to get the opportunity.

The minister and the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) made a number of remarks, and some of the remarks that were made I think, in part, were quite justified. Like them, I, too, am concerned and see the great potential of favourable immigration policy to the province, to the country actually, and the many different benefits of having a favourable immigration policy would be phenomenal. We need to do what we can to ensure that Manitoba does, in fact, get its fair share, if you like.

As opposed to giving opening remarks, I just want to go directly into questions and ask the minister what he believes in terms of the number of immigrants that the province of Manitoba should be taking in, in any given year.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Well, I have said before that we have used 4 percent as a target, one that I guess we would be pleased if we got the numbers up that high. I think the member knows that immigrants when they come to Canada really settle wherever they wish to go; 4 percent of Canada's intake, for instance, in '94 would have given us almost 9,000, and we were at about half of that or less than half of that.

We could talk about targets and move that number around wherever you like, but we also have to be able to accommodate them in terms of our programs and have work for them in many cases. I guess it is kind of a delicate balance. If you get too many immigrants in any one year, there will be settlement issues and there will be issues around accommodation and jobs and so forth, but we do have 4 percent of the Canadian population, and if we had 4 percent of the actual immigration, we would be pleased.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate who is negotiating on behalf of this government in terms of attempting to get a bilateral immigration agreement, and then just confirm, if you will, that the starting point from this government's perspective is to argue for 4 percent of the total number of immigrants who come to Canada?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, staff from our Citizenship Branch, including the assistant deputy minister, and certainly, we have also included staff from interprovincial relations in doing this.

Mr. Lamoureux: I just want to be sure of this; that is, if the minister and his staff along with the interprovincial civil servants or the individuals who are responsible for interprovincial relations, if you will, are from a starting point arguing that Manitoba is entitled to 4 percent of the total number of immigrants who come to Canada.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would hesitate to use the word "entitled." I said earlier today that the federal government has an ability to direct the refugee component of the immigrants to the country, and, in fact, they approach provinces to see how many refugees they can accommodate, and we have always said we will do our share.

Over and above that, other immigrants who come to Canada can settle wherever they want. There are no limitations put on them or strings put on them to say we will let you into Canada if you settle here, here or here. In fact, the most popular destinations are the three city states that I mentioned before: Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. We know that the federal government cannot steer the family class immigrants or the independent immigrants to any particular place, but what we are saying, by putting undue financial burdens on potential immigrants, is that it cuts down on the total immigration to Canada.

* (2010)

There are a number of areas that we feel we could work with the federal government to assist Manitoba. One would be to have the federal government recognize that there indeed is a shortage of garment workers in Manitoba. At the present time they say no, it can be filled domestically.

Well, the fact of the matter is it is not being, and it cannot be. We have every belief that there are potential immigrants in certain parts of the world who would love to come and have a job here, but the federal government will not recognize that as one of the labour market demands.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I guess, when I think in terms of what is in Manitoba's best interests, I would ultimately argue that it is not in our best interest to say, look, we want 4 percent of whatever number of immigrants that come to the province of Manitoba.

I know the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) in his comments made reference to percentages and said, look, we only get 1.8 percent; we should be entitled--or might not have used the word "entitled," but suggested again 4 percent. We make up, I believe it is, somewhere around 3.7 percent of the overall population of Canada, thereby we should be receiving that same percentage of the number of immigrants that come to the province.

I think this is an argument that I hear from the member for Point Douglas as the NDP representative. I hear from the minister that in fact this is the argument that government is prepared to articulate, at least I am given the impression that this is in fact what they are articulating.

I would argue that is not the position you should be articulating. I would argue what you should be articulating is what you feel, what government feels the province of Manitoba can handle in any given year.

The minister himself said too many immigrants in one year could cause potentially some problems. He makes reference to Vancouver, Toronto and I believe it was Montreal, the three major cities in which the vast majority--I should not say vast majority because I do not know if it is a vast majority, but there has been concern raised from those centres that they have been receiving too many immigrants coming in and have caused a number of perceived problems.

What concerns me is that if the federal government responds to different regions of the country and says, look, we have the province of Quebec, we have the province of Ontario and B.C. saying that we are having some problems with immigrant settlement, then the province of Manitoba is a net loser if in fact we are arguing we want a percentage of whatever number of immigrants that come to the province.

I believe what you should be arguing for is whatever Manitoba's economy--go through the different classifications that are out there, not only our economy but also our social structure--can sustain in any given year. So, for example, as both the minister and the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) were quite prepared to point out, the Liberal Party indicated 1 percent. I am assuming that both the member for Point Douglas--and one should not assume, but I will--and the Minister of Family Services supports the idea of 1 percent.

If in fact that is the case, then what is 1 percent of the population of Manitoba? Well, that would exceed 10,000, closer to 11,000, give or take 500 if you will. Then, if that is in fact what you believe and the member for Point Douglas believes, instead of arguing for a percentage of immigrants that are coming to Canada, what we should be arguing for is 11,000 immigrants to come to the province of Manitoba. You start us off in a handicap situation if you say, look, we just want a set percentage of immigrants coming.

I guess I would ask the minister responsible for citizenship has he any idea in terms of the number of immigrants and classifications that he would like to see come to the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am having trouble understanding the member for Inkster's logic. We are getting, the last couple of years, 4,000, and we are saying that we think we could handle maybe twice as many. The member for Inkster says, well, that is not a good argument; you should be arguing for three times as many. You should have 12,000 immigrants. These are moot points.

The issue is immigration policy which is detrimental to Manitoba. We want the right for Manitobans to bring relatives here, and things like the head tax and other charges are making it nearly impossible. The member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) indicated this in his comments that the federal government is standing in the way of family reunification by putting these fees out there. We talked about the bonds and the head tax, and then there is the administration fee which is nonrefundable. These financial barriers that are being placed there by the federal government make it very difficult for us to sustain the level of immigration that we have.

We have also put some proposals before the federal government where certain pilot projects would assist us to get more immigrants, and we have had no response from the federal government, so to argue about whether it should be 4,000 or 8,000 or 12,000, I mean, it is a moot point if the federal government continues to put blockages there and is unco-operative in attracting more immigrants to Canada.

I mean, those are horrendous numbers, a $10,000 bond, when we had 0.4 of 1 percent of these reunifications fail. I mean, we can argue about numbers. The 4 percent we talk about is a minimum. If we exceed that, fine, but you are saying because we do not meet that 4 percent target here, we should put the bar up higher. I am not sure how we are going to get immigrants to come to Canada and Manitoba unless the federal government changes these policies.

We need to get the federal government to accept some of these pilots which are geared to our own community. As I said earlier, we have 800 jobs in the garment industry, but the federal government does not recognize that that is a labour market shortage here, and they are saying, no, you have to fill that with Manitobans and Canadians. Well, the garment industry has tried, and with a little co-operation from the federal government, we would have people immigrating to take those jobs.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, there are a whole series of questions that I would like to ask with respect to the garment industry and labour demands, but for now--and I do not think the minister is actually understanding what it is that I am saying, and that is, you talk about 4 percent.

If the federal government was to decide tomorrow that they are going to have 100,000 immigrants, well, then, we would have been at our 4 percent in terms of we receive just over 4,000, I believe is what the minister had referred to. If the federal government brings in 250,000 immigrants in any given year and then we get our 4 percent, well, then we are getting closer to that 1 percent that both the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the minister made reference to in terms of the Liberal commitment for the number of immigrants to come to Canada.

I will argue, and I ask for the minister to give some clarification on this, because I do not believe it is a moot point, how many immigrants can the province of Manitoba--types of classification, ideal scenario--how many immigrants would you allow into the province tomorrow?

If you could decide as a minister of immigration, how many immigrants would you allow in for the year of 1994-95?

* (2020)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the point is I am not the minister of immigration, and I do not set immigration policy. That is done by the federal minister and the federal Liberal government in Ottawa, and instead of allowing the 240,000 last year, they are going to downsize that to about 190,000.

Well, if we are going from 240,000 or 250,000 immigrants one year and by their policies, they are going to shrink that total number to about 190,000, I believe Manitoba will get less, because these immigrants will choose where it is they want to reside, unless we have projects that will bring them to Manitoba, or we have particular jobs that need to be filled here.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do not want to belabour this point. I do believe the minister is missing the boat here. He does not understand that there is an optimum number of immigrants for the province of Manitoba, and that is the reason why--for example, the province of Quebec and I believe seven other provinces outside of Manitoba, I think it is Manitoba, B.C. and there is one other province that have failed to achieve a bilateral agreement as of yet.

I am surprised that the minister responsible cannot give us any indication in terms of what he believes Manitoba could sustain in any given year. That is somewhat disappointing, because one would anticipate that the people who are negotiating the bilateral agreement should have some sort of an idea, so that if, in fact, federal civil servants posed the question, well, what type of immigrants would you like and what sort of numbers would the province of Manitoba like to receive, I would be disappointed if other provinces did not have access to these types of numbers and descriptions.

The most successful immigrants in terms of classifications who come to the province of Manitoba are under family reunification. I believe that the numbers in the province of Manitoba will clearly indicate that under reuniting of families, we have seen immigrants who come to the province in a larger percentage than virtually any other province. So I would think that this is one aspect of a bilateral agreement that should be emphasized: the importance of the reuniting of families because they come to the province of Manitoba, and they are more inclined to stay here because they have family connections--very, very important.

I guess I would ask the minister if he could provide us some sort of percentages on the types of classifications of immigrants that have decided to come to the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I would say to my honourable friend that, yes, Manitoba has historically benefited from family reunification, and the family reunification has been very, very successful here, with very few failures where the family has agreed to look after those immigrants that are being brought here.

I indicated it was less than 0.4 of 1 percent. We welcome family reunification, but the stumbling block is the numbers that the federal government is putting up in the face of this type of immigrant, the head tax and the bond and the processing fee. We certainly feel that the family class immigrant has made an immense contribution to Manitoba and would welcome that type of immigration.

Every province in the country likes independent immigrants who come here with their own skills and their own wealth, and certainly we have always had a balance. The only way we can direct some of that is if we can get the federal government to co-operate in terms of what the needs of the community are and to accept some of these pilots that they asked us to come forward with and to fill some of these labour force needs that are out there.

At the present time, it would appear that the federal government is on a track where they are going to restrict substantially the annual flow of immigrants into Canada from somewhere around 240,000, and I think they have maybe set a target of about 190,000 for the current year. That will surely impact on Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I believe the question was, does the minister know what percentage of family reunification over the last number of years has come to the province of Manitoba through immigration?

What percentage of those immigrants were under family reunification? I think that is a very important stat and would trust that the department would have it.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The proportion of the immigrants coming to Manitoba who are regarded as family class, about 43 percent, a substantial number.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister then share with us--because I concur, it is a substantial number, and it is somewhat what I had assumed it would be.

Can the minister provide a breakdown then of the percentages overall in terms of independent and business, entrepreneur?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there was about a similar number of independent, and the remainder would be refugee.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am interested in knowing, when the minister has made a point of telling committee members that this has been a government that has continuously lobbied to get the bilateral agreement achieved with the federal government, can the minister indicate to us--he makes reference to a number of letters.

Can the minister provide us with some of the correspondence or give us some sort of indication just exactly what he has done to achieve that bilateral agreement? I was under the impression that other provinces, even of a different political persuasion, were quite successful in achieving a bilateral agreement, and I am wondering as to just how this government has managed not to achieve an agreement with the federal government.

* (2030)

He makes reference to the letters. I would definitely be interested in seeing copies of the letters, if at all possible.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am advised by senior staff that only the province of Quebec has a really meaningful agreement on immigration, and that some of the other provinces who have agreements, they are not what would be called substantive agreements. We are looking for a substantive agreement. Now, I am told that none of those agreements set any targets, levels or numbers, with the exception of Quebec.

Mr. Lamoureux: So the minister is looking for more of a comprehensive agreement, and this is the reason why there has not been an agreement signed, compared to seven other provinces that have signed an agreement, from what I understand.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that nobody has signed an agreement for the last four years, that the really meaningful immigration agreement that is out there is the one with the Province of Quebec. We want an agreement that sets levels and a mix of immigrants and a meaningful agreement. I do not have copies of the other agreements with me, but my staff tell me that these agreements with other provinces are not substantive agreements.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister wants an agreement that sets levels and mix. Can the minister share with us what sorts of levels and mix he would ideally like to see?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I can give the member some background of some of the other agreements to give him a better understanding of that, but in terms of our own agreement, we are not trying to sell set, hard and fixed numbers that are there forever and a day. We want to be able to assess the needs in the province, and the labour market needs that are out there and work with the federal government to enhance our immigration. I will just give you some examples here.

Nova Scotia in 1978 entered into a letter of agreement to outline the respective governments' responsibilities on immigration matters, and then it talks about level setting, implementation authority, policy integration and settlement arrangements. None of them contain any targets. It is simply an agreement to work together without having any clout within the agreement.

Canada and Saskatchewan have a letter of agreement also signed in 1978, and it deals with immigrant and nonimmigrant selection monitoring.

Canada and New Brunswick signed an agreement in 1978. It must have been a good year for agreements.

We want to have a more meaningful one than ones signed with the other provinces and perhaps I can, at some point, get some more information on these for the member.

Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister indicate what would be--he makes reference in terms of levels and mix of immigrants being a part of any sort of an agreement. Can the minister give us any indication in terms of the presentations that have been made to the federal civil servants, or correspondence that has been sent? To what degree of depth does it really address these issues which the minister has talked about?

Mr. Gilleshammer: My understanding is that the member wants to get some documentation of the discussions that have taken place with the federal government, and the position that the federal government is taking?

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes. The position in which this government and in particular this minister is taking with respect to the signing of an agreement.

Mr. Gilleshammer: In the area of levels and mix, we are looking for some mechanisms that we can negotiate with the federal government to influence the levels and composition of immigration for Manitoba. We want to have mechanisms to ensure that the immigrants' skills and business expertise will fulfill Manitoba's labour market requirements and I have mentioned, once or twice, the garment industry.

We want some appropriate funding arrangements from the federal government to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of these levels. We are looking for support for settlement and integration. At the present time we do get a little support from the federal government, but that is declining. So we have been at the table and would like to--and I might say that there has been some agreement at the local level on some of the things that we want for Manitoba, but as that works its way up into the federal department, we have not got a response at this time on many of those things.

I have written to the federal minister in recent days again asking if he and I can have a face to face meeting on this. I wrote to him in December to make that request. We have still had no response on that, so we think that our people at the table here and staff from intergovernmental affairs have worked well with the local federal immigration staff to achieve some of the goals I think we want for Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Has the minister corresponded with the Department of Immigration, in essence, what he just finished talking about, in a written fashion?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That was the essence of the letter I referred to that we got away in recent days and the letter that I sent in December.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister give any sort of indication as to when he would anticipate to have an agreement signed?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We signed the Memorandum of Understanding in October, and we expect that within three or four months we would have the agreement signed. I mean we are almost eight months, so twice as long from that point, and we do not have an agreement.

Mr. Lamoureux: I want to move on to a question with respect to the garment industry, but just before I do that, the 43 percent from the family class that Manitoba has been beneficial in terms of receiving, I am wondering if the minister can indicate when he talks about his mixtures, looking at the same basic composition, mixture, into the future in any agreement that is going to be signed it would be somewhat reflective of what it has been over the last number of years in terms of percentage of which classifications of immigrants.

Mr. Gilleshammer: We are not going to put hard and fast numbers in there on percentages, for instance, some countries, the Philippines for example, the family reunification numbers have been over 60 percent. Those are historical numbers that I gave the member and there are only three classes, and you can move those percentages around a bit but it is the total number of immigrants that we want to improve for Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the minister makes reference to from within the garment industry there has been a request to have some 800 jobs filled. I am wondering if the minister can give a bit of clarification. Is the industry recommending that it be filled using immigrants?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The industry has more than one strategy to solve their problem, and certainly one other strategy is to train people who are already in Manitoba, in Canada. They have other proposals out there, but they are in need of about 800 people and certainly a portion of those jobs could be filled through immigration. An industry like that cannot stand still. If that is not going to work, or if they are not seeing significant numbers coming, they have other strategies of training people as well, but it is an example of where there are jobs going wanting, and they do not view immigration as the sole solution to their problem.

Mr. Lamoureux: Have they suggested or recommended to the government what possible percentage of the 800 may be a short term. Are they talking 400 people that they would love to be able to get involved in the garment industry through immigration? Is it about short-term, long-term proposals, any indication whatsoever with respect to a further breakdown on percentages from the industry in terms of requesting immigrants?

* (2040)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the problem is that they have been told by the federal government that this is not a possibility, to target immigrants to fill these jobs. This is the point I was making earlier. The federal government is saying that that shortage should be made up from within, and, again, it is very difficult to train that many people. As the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) mentioned, these are sometimes lower-paying jobs as well. I think, in the minds of the industry, it is part of the solution. We have tried to intercede and suggested that we get a hundred immigrants, but the federal government has said no.

Mr. Lamoureux: So the government is on the record of requesting the federal government to allow for a hundred garment industry workers to come to the province.

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister then indicate when this actually occurred?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it was in November of 1994.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate in terms of how long jobs of this nature have been going unfilled for, given that I can recall, when I was first elected, seeing individuals like Bob Silver and other members of the garment industry talking about the need for people to work within the industry? How long have we seen this particular problem over recent years?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that this has been an ongoing problem. As people are trained and go to these jobs, there are people leaving the workforce as well, but there have been job openings there, it might be fair to say, almost on an historical basis.

Mr. Lamoureux: I want to get back to these hundred jobs that have been requested in terms of filling. Has the Government of Canada ever responded to the November '94 request?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told the response was no.

Mr. Lamoureux: Was there any rationale or reasoning given?

Mr. Gilleshammer: In the view of the federal government, the jobs should be filled with existing Canadian citizens.

Mr. Lamoureux: Has the minister or is the minister aware of maybe possibly the Premier or anyone else requesting a meeting or presenting to the Minister of Immigration the seriousness of the matter, as opposed to having to go through the civil service?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I have indicated just earlier that it has been raised at the staff level, and I have raised immigration matters in a number of letters to Minister Marchi.

Mr. Lamoureux: Has this minister or the Premier requested personally, regarding the garment industry, that we would like to achieve an agreement that would see these jobs being filled?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I have not personally spoken to Mr. Marchi on any occasion. I have written to him on immigration matters, and I believe what the member is suggesting is that the federal government has said, no, at the staff level, to this particular project, that he is suggesting that I would take this particular project up with the federal minister. I guess I would like to know if that is what his point is.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I believe that the issue is serious enough that, not only does it warrant this minister getting involved, I would ultimately argue that it warrants the Premier (Mr. Filmon) getting involved. This is in fact a very serious, grave issue, when you have literally hundreds of jobs within the economy that have not been filled, that have been wanting for years, not since November of '94.

If this minister or the Premier were really seriously attempting to fill these jobs, I would have thought--I know, myself being put in the same sort of a situation that the minister is fortunate enough to be in, I would be inclined to be a bit more aggressive on this issue.

I do not believe it is good enough if the only thing the minister has is a letter that says no, to leave it at that. I believe that it does warrant his attention, and I would ask the minister whether or not he believes that this particular matter is serious enough in which he personally will get involved and whether it is making the trip or phoning his counterparts or writing a letter, indicating just how much Manitoba needs to ensure that this happens. I think if we look over the years that a very strong case could be built.

I was under the impression after listening to Question Period and responses when I posed the same question in essence to the Premier, was that this government has been very aggressively trying to fill these jobs. That is why I am somewhat surprised, if I understand correctly, that this minister has not corresponded himself. Yes, some of the civil servants from within the department, but this minister has never raised it at ministerial meetings. Maybe he will correct me and say that at one of the last ministerial meetings he raised it. I hope he does say that. There is nothing that he has indicated to us to demonstrate that he himself or this government is prepared to resolve this problem once and for all.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I will just assure the member again that this has been brought up at the bureaucratic level at the highest levels. There has not been a ministerial meeting. Usually this is called by the federal minister. In two letters and possibly three requesting a bilateral meeting with the federal minister he has not responded to that. So when we have that meeting, if we have that meeting, there are a whole host of issues that I as provincial minister want to bring up, but, again, the request for a meeting with the federal minister has not succeeded at this point in time. There has not been a meeting of ministers responsible for citizenship and immigration across the country.

Mr. Lamoureux: But the minister still does have other communication tools that could be made available for him so that he can directly get involved. In fact, there have been opportunities when our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has met with the Prime Minister, and it is not like you are talking 10 or 12 jobs. You are talking about something that is supposedly very, very important. You know, it is interesting sitting with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) right now. When I had asked him the question about the garment industry and number of jobs, I think that he would have definitely found it most interesting to hear what the Minister of Culture and Heritage has to say about this particular issue and would actually suggest that he might even want to share some of the knowledge he has on this particular issue with the Deputy Premier.

Again, I do not necessarily want to focus too much attention on this minister's, what I would classify as lack of an attempt to try to resolve this problem, because I do not believe a letter in November from within the Civil Service is good enough. It would have been wonderful had it been accepted and they came up with a program. In the late '60s, early '70s, there was an agreement of--I do not know the details of it, but there was the Fashion Institute, from what I understand, sent down a contingent of people outside of Canada in order to fill these jobs.

I am wondering if the minister can provide us information in terms of just exactly what it was that the department did request. Did they put forward a proposal that would have seen these jobs being filled, or was it a relatively straightforward letter just asking to have a hundred garment workers come to Manitoba?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I will tell the member one more time. There was a concrete proposal from the department to bring over a hundred immigrants to help the labour market shortage in the garment industry that was turned by the federal government. That means the federal government said no. I will also reiterate that on a number of occasions I have personally written to the federal minister requesting opportunity to meet with him over immigration issues. We have not had a response to that. We have not had a federal minister who has acceded to meet with this provincial minister.

We have many issues surrounding immigration and settlement issues that we would like to talk to the federal minister about. The only time he has communicated with me is through the Winnipeg Free Press in the month of April. I dare say that is not a very effective way of communicating. I tell you that, when other ministers of the Crown, whether they be federal or provincial, communicate with me as a minister, they get a response, and they get it very quickly.

* (2050)

Mr. Lamoureux: Earlier, before we broke earlier today, the minister made comments, something to the effect that we could not get people to fill the jobs because of the bonds, making reference to the garment industry. I would ask the minister, does he sincerely believe that the bond issue will prevent these jobs from being filled?

Mr. Gilleshammer: What I tried to convey in answering the member from Point Douglas is, when the federal government puts a $10,000 bond in place in terms of family class sponsorship, it has an exceedingly detrimental effect in bringing immigrants to Canada. The bond is being demanded by the federal government to supposedly correct a problem where the sponsors are not fulfilling their responsibilities. That is not an issue in Manitoba. If this member from Inkster is trying to say a $10,000 bond should not stop anybody from coming to Canada or the right-of-landing fee of $975 is not a problem, he is wrong. These are tremendous problems in terms of increasing immigration to Canada.

I am surprised. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) seems to me like he is in favour of it, that he supports the federal government's activities in this area, that he supports this bond that is going to protect the federal government from the sponsorships that do not work and he supports this right-of-landing fee. I can tell you, not many people that I have talked to do support it, and I think the member for Inkster is offside on this issue.

Mr. Lamoureux: In time I will address the $975 issue in a bit more detail with respect to the bond, but I would ask the minister--I believe it is still a proposed $10,000 bond that is being talked about. From what I understand, it deals strictly with family unification.

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Lamoureux: Is it the intention then of this minister that the 100 jobs, immigrants, that they would be trying to fill would then be under the family reunification?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Our intention is to increase the number of immigrants that come to Manitoba. What I am telling the member for Inkster, federal initiatives which he seems to support, like the sponsorship bond and the right-of-landing fee and the other fees that are being put in there, are not going to be helpful in improving the immigration picture in Canada or in Manitoba. In fact, I indicated, it appears to be federal policy to reduce the number of immigrants from somewhere around 240,000 or 250,000 last year to 190,000 this year. How do you do that? You do that by putting in policies like the ones we have been talking about.

Mr. Lamoureux: I guess, to a certain degree, I am concerned about--because I have encountered it even as recent as the provincial election--the spreading of misinformation of sorts.

The minister talks about filling these jobs; he now indicated earlier today. It would have been nice to have heard sort of a response in terms of a commitment when I had asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon), but possibly the Premier was not aware of the hundred being requested from the province. But I do expect that the minister would be a bit more straightforward with some of the facts that are there. As he says, the sponsor is the family reunification.

I believe that the vast majority--I am not even too sure if there are very many who had come under family reunification during the late '60s, early '70s to work within the garment industry. If in fact that is the case and that is the intent of this government, through the garment industries, to bring in independent immigrants with the skills to be able to fill these particular jobs, then the $10,000 proposed bond would not be applied. So what concerns me? Well, the minister was wanting to be convincing in his argument that what the federal government was doing with respect to the $10,000 bond was going to have an impact in terms of filling vacant jobs, or jobs that are unfilled in the province of Manitoba when, in fact he does know there is no bond that is even being proposed, from what I understand.

The minister has not corrected me on it, and I would assume then that is the case, that the bond was not going to be applicable to an independent. That is the reason why I asked, was the minister looking at having family unification as being the primary classification for individuals coming to Canada to fill garment jobs? That in itself, if the minister did respond yes, would be somewhat applaudable, but the minister might want to briefly comment on that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: We seem to be covering some of the same ground here, and I regret that the member for Inkster is here as an apologist for the federal government. I tried to make clear to him, and I think virtually everyone here agrees, that federal government policies are having a detrimental effect on the ability of various industries to try and fill these jobs.

The member can try and make this $10,000 bond seem like it is a good idea, and I am sure he is going to start talking about the right-of-landing fee, and, maybe, we will get to the processing fees. All of these things that are put in place by the federal government are road blocks and barriers to immigration to Canada. When we are asked to come up with proposals that would assist to fill some of the needs within the job market here in Manitoba we are not getting support from the federal government. I am not sure where the member is going with all of this, but I suspect he is saying that the federal government policies and fees have no effect on immigration and that they are sort of revenue generation for the federal government.

Well, this is their policy to bring down the number of immigrants who will be coming to Canada, and that will certainly have an effect on Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the minister made reference to three proposals, the first one being with respect to the Ukrainian community. Can the minister indicate what the other two proposals are?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I can maybe indicate, one of the other ones was the domestic recruitment of foreign students, that there are a number of foreign students in Manitoba and in Canada and we had a proposal for the domestic recruitment of these students who are being educated in Canada. We have not had a response on that one yet. It has been before the federal government since February of 1994. That is a year and a bit, no response.

Mr. Lamoureux: So the purpose of this is the foreign student that gets the education at the University of Manitoba would then be allowed to stay in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that would be targeted to those occupations where we had a demand.

Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister indicate which occupations those would be?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that they are in a document that is drawn up by the federal government and the Department of Education. They are the occupations that are published in that document. It is called, Prospects.

Mr. Lamoureux: The third proposal, can the minister give any sort of indication on that?

Mr. Gilleshammer: It was a proposal to link up our department of Citizenship with the foreign posts abroad to have better communication with those posts and who are in direct contact with citizens of foreign countries who want to emigrate somewhere. Many of them want immigrate to Canada. In some ways, they are there providing a service and, in other ways, doing some recruitment. We wanted to develop a more direct relationship with those posts so that we could make our labour market needs known to them, and we could put information in front of those people working in those posts, which would help them understand Manitoba's needs.

Mr. Lamoureux: So this would be a kind of council of sorts in the different embassies. Is that the idea of promoting the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Gilleshammer: This is electronic communication between our people in Manitoba and those posts abroad. Those posts may be an embassy, or it may be a high commission.

Mr. Lamoureux: What would be the difference between, let us say, that and faxing to an embassy what the requirement would be?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think that the electronic communications that we desire to have is a more interactive way with those embassies and high commissions than simply sending a fax. I suppose there was a time when people got excited when the fax machine kicked in and they were getting a fax. Now that is just another way of sending junk mail. I think what we wanted to do was to establish a relationship between our program people and those people who are directly working with folks who want to immigrate to Canada.

Certainly part of our advertising proposals within our department was to get as much information about Manitoba and the Manitoba advantage into those posts. We wanted to be able to send them some text about Manitoba, to send them some videos and images. We wanted an interactive dialogue. We do not have the capacity to send staff to each and every post in the world. We are trying to find ways of promoting Manitoba through a folder that we have put together on the Manitoba advantage, which is intended, not only to instruct the Canadians who work in those posts, but also to make it available to potential immigrants.

Some of those posts will gather together, on a weekly basis, a couple of hundred people who want to know more about Canada. Part of our role is to make the Canadians working in those posts know more about Manitoba. That is part of the selling of Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Is this something which the province--I know, for example, you used to have an office in Hong Kong, I believe it was, a trade mission of sorts. The idea behind that, I believe, was just trying to make people better aware that the province of Manitoba exists within Canada and the promotion of the province. Would this be somewhat the same focus, summed up, that the third proposal is a promotional tool that would be used for advancing Manitoba as the destination for potential immigrants.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think the member has mostly captured it. I guess it is important that our personnel have the ability to talk directly to the personnel at those posts who are meeting with emigrants on a daily or weekly basis and to get some dialogue and communication going from our Citizenship branch or a part of our Citizenship branch to those posts who work with people who want to immigrate to Canada.

* (2100)

Mr. Lamoureux: It was interesting, one of the opening remarks that the minister gave regarding this resolution was something to the effect that the Government of Canada has 100 percent, if you will, authority over immigration. They are the ones that determine the numbers, the classifications, or the mixture, if you like, and, after making sure that committee members understood that, then went on to give a bit of a commentary on what he feels that they are doing wrong. I am interested in knowing whether this minister or the government feels that the Government of Canada does have too much control over immigration, that the provinces should be given more control over immigration.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there have been a couple of attempts to rewrite the Constitution in the time the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has been a member of this Legislature, and both of those have failed. I have no doubt in my mind that immigration is a federal jurisdiction, that people emigrate to the country of Canada and receive Canadian citizenship. I guess I am not aware of any country in the world where--for instance, in the U.S. you do not have 50 states being in charge of immigration, that you become an American citizen, or you become a citizen of France or the Philippines or whatever.

So this is a federal jurisdiction. I said that the federal government is the gatekeeper. It is the way it has been, and it is the way I believe it is going to continue to be.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister, when he refers to some of the roadblocks that have been put in place over the recent couple of years from the federal government, makes reference in particular to the landing fee, the processing fee. I am not too sure if it was the minister or the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) then that made reference to the citizenship fee and then came up with different figures in terms of cost of all of this and how this ultimately will prevent us from receiving immigrants. And, of course, that issue does concern me. So the minister does not need to put words in my mouth, but I did not support the $975 landing fee.

Mr. Gilleshammer: You supported it?

Mr. Lamoureux: I did not support the $975 landing fee and for a number of different reasons.

I am wondering, because the government and--I am sure you will even find the government of Manitoba charges for a great deal of services that it offers to the public. I can recall having many discussions with respect to a processing fee even prior to this particular administration, federal administration. One of the things that I had advocated was that in fact the processing fee would be something that would be acceptable if in fact the applicant was successful and for those applicants that are not successful that the government consider reimbursing the $500 fee.

The minister has had many different discussions, no doubt, whether it is with staff or members of the community or within the caucus. I am interested in knowing just what the government's position is on the processing fee. I have a fairly good idea, in terms of the landing fee, what the position is, but I am interested in the citizenship fee and interested in knowing what the arguments of this government are, whether it is they are for it or against it.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not think you can take these fees in isolation. You have to look at the total impact. I have got two pages of fees where it indicates the old fee and the new fee, and it was the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) that pointed out a few of these. In virtually every case, the fee has gone up, and some of them have gone up in excess of 10 and 20 percent. Then on top of the topping up of these fees, a new one has been introduced, called the right-of-landing fee.

* (2110)

So, while I accept that there should be some cost recovery for immigrants who have their papers processed, and if they wanted to top up each of these fees, they would have garnered substantial revenue. They not only did that, but they created a new one, and it is one thing to move a fee from $75 to $85 or from $100 to $125, whatever, but to put in a $975 fee on top of that, called the right of landing, is just making it prohibitive for immigrants from many parts of the world to now access immigration to Canada.

I do not think you can cherry pick and say, well, you want this one or you do not want that one. I think you have to look at the total package. I do not have the total picture of the revenue that the federal government brings in on this or their expenses. My point is that by putting in new initiatives like the sponsorship bond and the right-of-landing fee, the federal government is screening out immigrants from certain countries and they are sending the signal that it is going to be more difficult to immigrate to Canada, and that is going to affect most provinces, including Manitoba. On that basis we are opposed to it.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister provide me information on that? I see that he is actually reading from a sheet. Would that be okay? Could I get a copy of what the different fees are?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I was not reading from it, I was referring to it. I will take a look at it and see if it is a classified document or not. If there is information on there that I can make available to the member I will.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am sure that it should all be public information in terms of fees. It is just a question of getting them on a piece of paper and so forth, and it just seems if the minister has it, I would appreciate receiving a copy of it. Part of the reason why I ask this is that I am curious to know.

The minister says, look, he wants to sit down with the federal Minister of Immigration and to express his concerns. When you express your concerns, obviously you have the resources to be able to do some research. I would assume then that you would be familiar with what other countries are doing because, ultimately, there are other countries that all compete for immigration. I am wondering if the minister can comment in terms of how would, for example, Canada's fees compare, let us say, to the United States or to England.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we do have some information provided from other countries, but you cannot just accept the figures as raw data and think you have a fair comparison. You have to look at a number of the other factors which are part and parcel of their immigration policy. It just seems to me that this dramatic upswing in the costs to come to Canada is sending one very strong message and that is that the Canadian government is trying to control downwardly the number of people coming to Canada in the near future.

Mr. Lamoureux: Indeed, Mr. Chairperson, if the intent of the federal government is to do just that, I too, like the minister, would have real concerns and would want to equally express them. I am sure that the minister will no doubt be at the table at some point in time with the Minister of Immigration, at least I would anticipate that to be the case. I am somewhat concerned about the manner in which this issue has been dealt with.

As I indicated earlier and tried to point out when I was talking about the jobs and the $10,000 bond, I think that there is some excessive exaggeration that is going on. The family of four is quite often cited, for example, and with the $975 fee that means it is going to be an additional $4,000. Well, we do know there is, again, age where there are exemptions, loans and so forth. Even though, as I have indicated earlier, I do not personally support a landing fee, I do believe to a certain degree that the minister has been participating in exaggerating a number of things with respect to cost for potential immigrants. I do not believe that you are necessarily doing a service.

* (2120)

If the minister was to articulate what he believes is right or wrong about a policy, particularly a national policy, I would anticipate with less political rhetoric--you have to excuse me in the sense that I went through a provincial election as he did and I heard a considerable amount of rhetoric on this particular issue--and it somewhat concerns me in terms of the manner in which to a certain degree it has been dealt with.

We cannot underestimate the importance of immigration to the province of Manitoba, and the best thing that we can do in order to accomplish what is a fair immigration for the province of Manitoba is to do what we can in terms of trying to achieve this bilateral immigration agreement. I think that it potentially can resolve a lot of problems that the province of Manitoba faces, whether it is within the job sector, such as the garment industry, whether it is through the reuniting of families, a program which I feel is absolutely essential and has to be a central point, if you like, to any bilateral agreement, because it is that particular aspect of immigration that has allowed Manitoba to do so well with respect to retaining those immigrants within the province of Manitoba.

But it is important that we do achieve a bilateral agreement, and I will be watching this particular issue, because I do have a very high level of interest on immigration as I made reference to in my opening remarks. I was pleased to hear the minister's remarks with respect to Dr. Pagtakhan, the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, a very good friend of mine. In particular, along with the member for Winnipeg North, myself and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), we have sat down and we have expressed our concerns, and Dr. Pagtakhan, I think, is doing an admirable job in terms of trying to do what he can in terms of bringing facts to the table and ensuring that the right thing is done.

Hopefully, with arguments and alternatives and suggestions from individuals who are prepared to be creative with some ideas, we will hopefully prevail, because I really and truly do believe that Canada can only succeed in the future if in fact we have an immigration policy that allows for substantial growth of the economy and ultimately the social fabric of our society.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): I want to remind the honourable member for Inkster to be very careful how you phrase some of your words or how you direct some of your wording. I detected that there was some reference in the remarks of the minister having been maybe questionable in his statements, and I think we are all dedicated to speaking the absolute truth and putting forward our positions clearly and concisely, and I think we all want to honour each other in that respect.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am just wondering if we are going to wrap up soon. I am wondering if the member for Inkster will indicate, are we going to wrap up soon or do you want to go for a while yet?

Mr. Lamoureux: I have a couple of questions, but not on this line. We can pass this line.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): 4. Citizenship (a) Immigration Policy and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $356,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $78,500--pass.

4.(b) Immigrant Credentials and Labour Market (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $276,600.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister can indicate to what degree the minister has been successful in terms of building an immigrant data bank. I believe this is something that was being talked about in the past in terms of an immigrant credentials data bank, if he might be prepared to comment on it at this time.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, we have developed a program called Pathways, which is information on, I believe, a dozen different jobs, vocations, which are available sort of on a one-sheet synopsis basis for use by our department in discussions with the immigrant community and with the posts overseas.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate, in terms of where or what types of jobs, in particular--maybe he has a listing of the jobs where it has been brought to the minister's attention in terms of credentials from foreign lands not being recognized.

I know, for example, within health care, the nursing profession is one of them. I have concern with respect to engineering, accounting. Does the minister actually have a list, or can he indicate where it has been brought to his attention, the lack of immigrant credentials recognition?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I guess the one area that I think I have had some communication on is in the medical field, and, again, you have to balance the rights of the citizens of Manitoba to have medical practitioners duly certified by the existing bodies versus people who have come to this country with some experience in the medical field.

I know that, for instance, with medical practitioners, if they have had their training in the English language, and, basically, in recognized schools, they have no trouble completing the requirements to be on the job in short order.

Where that training was perhaps in another language, it is often more difficult to do the appropriate testing, analysis and evaluation, but, again, we have to rely on the practitioners who have set up bodies within the province to do that evaluation.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister indicates doctors. Does he actually have a list of other jobs or other areas, professions and so forth, that have been tabulated within the department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: No, we do not have a list, but I know that in a number of the professions--and I will use my old profession of education, where school divisions have the responsibility for the hiring and evaluation of teachers. They obviously want someone with appropriate communication skills. They want someone with the specific training that is required to teach in that particular discipline, and, certainly, there are individuals, immigrants, who have come to Canada and Manitoba with a teaching background, but there may be a problem if their lack of communication skills does not allow them to do what teachers do, and that is teach.

So, from time to time, I have heard concerns about people who have been trained as a teacher, but, again, the responsibility for the hiring and evaluation is with the school divisions. We do provide some language training with funding from our department, as well as some from the federal government.

Mr. Lamoureux: With many different discussions that I have had on this particular issue, I do not necessarily hear immigrants saying, we want to receive special treatment. It is more consistent with them, or at least the most consistent thing I have heard with respect to credentials is, put us on an equal playing field.

I understand in terms of what it is the minister is saying, and one of the reasons why the minister makes reference to Pathways or the idea of the data bank for immigrant credentials, if you will, is to try to ensure that individual immigrants who come to Canada who have the expertise and the talents to be able to fill many of the different jobs that are out there, are, in fact, placed on an equal playing field.

One of the worst things you can do for an immigrant who comes to particularly the province of Manitoba is deny them that particular opportunity, because if they are in the profession which they have been trained to do, we will benefit that much more.

The minister makes reference to doctors, teachers. Does the minister's office actually have a listing of the different professions where immigrants have come forward and said, look, I have expertise in this area, but it is not being acknowledged?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We do have a list of folks who have been brought to the department's attention that we can share with him. We do not have it here today.

Many of these people have to be hired by outside bodies, whether it is the private sector or if we are talking about professional people like engineers or architects or accountants, and, yes, they want to be treated the same as any other citizen, but government is not in a position where it can direct the private sector to hire some of these people, so it is a matter of them perhaps gaining employment, getting their foot in the door, so to speak, and with some co-operation from accreditation bodies working within certain companies, I think they gradually find an equal footing in the workplace. It does not work for everyone, though.

At the same time, accreditation bodies cannot move the goalposts to accommodate certain critical professions.

* (2130)

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister made reference to architects, and I recall a conversation that I had with an architect who happens to be a constituent of mine, and he had argued that, look, he is working for an architectural firm. He feels that he is doing a lot of the leg work, the actual designs and so forth, and I am sure that members from the minister's department have heard this argument before, where they are virtually doing all of the work, but the seal of approval, if you will, is ultimately done by someone who has the accreditation to be able to give it that stamp, if you like.

Again, what he is ultimately arguing, as many different immigrants are arguing, is that the government does have a role to play in terms of acknowledging that accreditation should be given if, in fact, it is justified. You cannot necessarily expect this from outside organizations, if you will, because some might be in a conflict of interest of sorts, have other things that they have to be more concerned with, in particular individuals who are currently in that workforce, but the provincial government, and it would be nice even to see the federal government participate to some degree, but at the very least the provincial government where there would be more of an attempt to acknowledge some of the credentials of immigrants who are coming here.

The minister did indicate that he does have a list and did indicate that he would get me a copy of that list, and I would appreciate that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would just point out to the member that I think government's role here is to assist individuals to reach that standard where they will get accredited, but most of the accreditation is done by outside bodies. It is not done by government. In the professions, it is the professional organization which does the accreditation.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

We, in turn, are working with a number of individuals to help them, whether it is to review their knowledge or to assist them to understand better the questions that are being asked or make a better presentation of themselves, but it is the outside bodies that do the accreditation.

Mr. Lamoureux: On this issue, and I hope it can be the final question on this line, does the minister believe that there are, in fact, immigrants who have the ability or the credentials and who do not necessarily need to be updated, who are, in fact, not being given the opportunity to practice whatever their profession was back in their homeland?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I have no reason to believe that the accreditation systems that are set up within those various disciplines do not do a fair job of evaluating people.

Mr. Lamoureux: Again, one of the examples that I had heard, and I seek the minister's response to it, is the example of the nursing profession, where, in fact, nurses who would come from abroad would come to the province of Manitoba, and they are not allowed to practise their profession. Yet they can go to outside jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, in many states, and be able to--if they were working in a hospital back in their homeland--continue to work in a hospital here.

Has he ever heard of situations of this nature where there at least appears on the surface to be something that does not look right in the picture? I use nursing as a specific example.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I can honestly say it has not been brought to my attention.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4. Citizenship (b) Immigrant Credentials and Labour Market (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $276,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $172,700--pass.

4.(c) Citizenship Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $157,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $40,800--pass.

4.(d) Settlement and Adult Language Training (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $627,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $135,600--pass.

Resolution 14.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,845,000 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Citizenship for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 5. Multiculturalism (a) Multiculturalism Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $142,900.

Mr. Hickes: I just wanted to put on record that I have a lot of questions that I wish I had time to have answered, but I have to respect the time that has been allocated to my colleagues in their other critic areas. So this time, because of that respect to my caucus colleagues, I am willing to pass all of the Estimates that come under Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(a)(1) $142,900.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I am wanting to be able to co-operate with the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) in his concerns. I just have a couple of questions with respect to the multicultural directorate's office, and then we could virtually pass things through. Maybe I can just correspond to the year with respect to the community places because I also had a few questions with respect to that.

My first question to the minister is, can you give some sort of an idea in terms of the make-up? I know, for example, that in the Supplementary Information they will give the number of staff years. What I am looking at is who now currently makes up the Multiculturalism Secretariat's office and the Access Office?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I will have that for you in a minute.

I would like to introduce David Langtry who has joined us at the table. He is the executive director of the Multiculturalism Secretariat.

In the Multiculturalism Secretariat, as I have indicated, Mr. Langtry is the executive director. We have a policy analyst position which is vacant at the present time, and we have an administrative assistant position. Do you want the names of the people there?

Mr. Lamoureux: I was just more interested in the vacant spots.

Mr. Gilleshammer: There is an administrative assistant. Then in the Community Access Office we have an outreach officer and an administrative secretary.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate, given that the last time there was a policy analyst officer that was appointed there was some controversy in terms of the manner in which, I believe it was, of that particular position being filled. When can we anticipate it being filled, and what is the process that is being used in terms of filling it?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I would have to say if there was any controversy it was before my time in the ministry, because I do not recall that, but we do review vacancies from time to time. I think we have about a 6 percent vacancy rate in the department at the present time, and the positions come forward from the various units within the department from time to time up through the system to the deputy minister's office. I do not recall having seen anything to do with the secretariat in recent weeks.

Mr. Lamoureux: Does the minister have any idea in terms of when the position will be filled?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I quite frankly do not.

Mr. Lamoureux: Is the minister possibly looking at not filling the position?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I will wait for the recommendations that come from the deputy minister.

Mr. Lamoureux: One of the responsibilities of the secretariat's office is to bring issues of concern regarding multiculturalism to the minister. I am interested in knowing, does the Multiculturalism Secretariat's office have any sort of an annual report or anything of this nature?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Is that a document that is tabled?

* (2140)

Mr. Gilleshammer: There is an annual report and we--I guess with the one--left it at the Clerk's Office. Just a couple of days ago, and this was back in the fall when we were not in session, I just made aware that it was not delivered to all of the members, so we are going to be doing that shortly.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would definitely appreciate that.

I am interested in knowing in terms of what--and if the annual report will, in essence, answer this, then there is no need for me to ask any further questions on it--are the priorities over the next couple of years with respect to multicultural issues?

For example, we just finished talking about credentials. I am sure Mr. Langtry would be familiar with many of the problems with respect to the lack of recognition of foreign credentials. I would assume that would be one of the issues which is being dealt with. Are those issues addressed within the annual report? If not, maybe we could just ask a few more questions regarding the priorities of the Multiculturalism Secretariat's office.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, the priorities of the secretariat are highlighted in the report.

Mr. Lamoureux: Would the Community Access Office also be in the annual report?

Mr. Lamoureux: I am sorry.

Mr. Lamoureux: The Community Access Office, is that part of it too, in the annual report?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(a) Multiculturalism Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $142,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $47,900--pass.

Item 5.(b) Community Access Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $82,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $13,000--pass.

Resolution 14.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $286,600 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Multiculturalism, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 6.(a) Cultural Organizations Grant Assistance (1) Operating $7,616,900--pass; (2) Capital $3,263,000-pass.

6.(b) Arts Grant Assistance $4,054,200--pass.

6.(c) Public Library Services $4,336,200--pass.

6.(d) Historic Resources Grant Assistance (1) Operating $726,800--pass; (2) Capital $360,000--pass.

6.(e) Recreation Grant Assistance $734,200--pass.

6.(f) Regional Services Grant Assistance $35,100--pass.

6.(g) Provincial Archives Grant Assistance $48,800--pass.

6.(h) Citizenship Grant Assistance $1,471,600--pass.

6.(j) Community Places Program (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $175,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $77,800--pass; (3) Grant Assistance - Capital $3,500,000--pass.

6.(k) Manitoba Arts Council $6,767,300--pass.

6.(m) Multicultural Grants Advisory Council $384,300--pass.

6.(n) Heritage Grants Advisory Council $678,100--pass.

Resolution 14.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $34,230,000 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary, $22,800. At this point we request the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $22,800--pass.

Resolution 14.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,037,500 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This completes the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation.

Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and the critics the opportunity to prepare for the commencement of the next set of Estimates? No? We will wait for the ministers and the critics. No recess.

* (2150)