The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates for Community Support Programs.
Does the honourable Minister responsible for--
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): A point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is agreement on the four topics, the four groups of Estimates, that we will discuss this afternoon, but I wonder if the minister would be agreeable to putting Community Support Programs at the end of the list instead of the top of the list.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Is there agreement of the committee? [agreed]
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Chairperson, I would imagine then you are calling Allowance for Losses as the first item for discussion on, I believe it is, page 131 of the Estimates book.
* (1440)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates for Allowance for Losses and Expenditures incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities. Does the honourable Minister of Finance have an opening statement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, very briefly, it is the same two entities that have been provided for in previous years: The Manitoba Potash Corporation, which provides for the province's share of the corporation's annual operating costs as per a joint venture agreement with Canamax, and then Venture Manitoba Tours. As the member for Brandon East knows, this is a Crown corporation that operates the Gull Harbour Resort and Conference Centre as well as the Falcon Lake Golf Course. It is the same entities, and these are the amounts that are required to meet the financial requirements for '97-98.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that explanation. I am just trying to reconcile. We have the annual report '95-96 for this particular item, Allowance for Losses, but I gather, of course, we are talking about '97-98, so that explains why the figures do not agree.
At any rate, there is a fair increase in the amount for the Manitoba Potash Corporation, and I wonder if the minister could explain this. It is pursuant to the agreement obviously, and I guess the explanation is that the annual operating costs have increased substantially.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the short answer is the member is right. It really is a budget based on the expected activity as per our agreement for 1997-98.
One of the reasons it is higher, though, is there has been some preliminary discussion about doing an additional feasibility study as it relates to market opportunities and this operation and so on. So that still remains to be finalized, but, obviously, a provision was built into this estimate to allow for that if it proceeds.
So that was one of the areas that added to the costs here. Other than that, it is exactly as the member said. It is, as per our agreement, our share of the loss for the upcoming year '97-98.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Can the minister tell us, Mr. Chairman, what is the accumulated loss payout by the Crown to Manitoba Potash Corporation to date?
Mr. Stefanson: We are just checking Public Accounts to see if we have that number handy now, otherwise we can certainly provide it to the member, but to give him a sense of what the magnitude has been over the last two years, the actual loss for our share of the loss, the actual loss for '92-93 was $120,000; for '93-94, it was $250,000; for '94-95, it was $220,000; for '95-96, it was $160,000; and for '96-97, it was $145,000.
So that gives him a sense of the magnitude over these last five years. At the end of March 1996, the total accumulation of our share of losses was $2,575,000.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I appreciate the fact that the operation of this corporation and its function generally would probably be particularly of interest to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman), who would probably have the operating responsibility and that the Minister of Finance has this because he is the minister responsible for coming up with the money to pay the bills, to pay for the losses, so I guess it may not be appropriate to start discussing the pros and cons of the function of that corporation.
I guess we can all only hope that at some point, someday, we may find potash in Manitoba that is feasible to mine and provide some economic benefit to make up for these various subsidies, these various payments for losses that have been realized over the last several years. At any rate, I just mention and the minister has explained it has been quite a substantial increase over the last two years but, again, I guess we just keep our fingers crossed and hope that that is well worth the money.
Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member for Brandon East is right. Time will tell in terms of the ultimate value of this investment. We have provided for all of the contributions to date, that is, the total of approximately $2.6 million, so it has been provided for each and every year through our budget process. As I have indicated, we are looking at some initiatives for 1997-98 but, ultimately, time will tell what the final value is of this investment in the potash operation.
Mr. Leonard Evans: We do not want to belabour the point here on this item, but I just have this question. Could the minister explain, how large is this corporation? How many people work for the corporation?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, rather than try to spend a lot of time here, where I do not have people who are as directly involved in this initiative, as the member knows, it is a joint venture with Canamax. As he himself indicated, I think in many respects some of the particulars could be provided by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman) and possibly through other forums like Public Accounts. I would certainly undertake to get any specific information for him but, beyond that, I do not have the information here today.
Mr. Leonard Evans: That is fine. I would appreciate if the minister could send me a note or some material on it. I am sure if I went to the library or someplace there is some material, but if he could undertake to do that I would appreciate that very much.
Just going on to the next item, Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd., I see the request of $525,000 is the same as last year and, again, primarily I would understand to pay for the losses or potential losses of this company, which operates, I believe, only operates the Gull Harbour Resort. I do not believe it has any responsibility for other operations. I stand to be corrected, but I think essentially it is the Gull Harbour Resort we are talking about. Is that correct?
* (1450)
Mr. Stefanson: Not quite, Mr. Chairman. Starting about a year ago, they also took over responsibility for the Falcon Lake Golf Course as well. I think we might have touched on that during prior Estimates or during Public Accounts. So they have the Gull Harbour Resort on Hecla Island and they now manage the Falcon Lake Golf Course as well.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Chairman, can the minister advise whether there are any losses being picked up re the Falcon Lake operation as opposed to the Gull Harbour Resort?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will provide the member with the specific details, but the Falcon Lake Golf Course does not lose money. It has been functioning to date on a break-even, and the money it has been making has been going back into improvements in the golf course, but it traditionally has either broken even or made a little bit of money.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, obviously, any profits from the Falcon Lake operation would not go to Gull Harbour. I am glad to hear what the minister said but, essentially then therefore this amount of money of $525,000 is for the subsidization of the Gull Harbour Resort, period. No one likes to see subsidization of this amount and, of course, this has gone on for some time, but I think we all appreciate that it is of great importance to the tourist industry. It is a fine facility, and it does provide recreational services to the people of Manitoba. It also helps to attract tourists into Manitoba.
Has the minister any knowledge of any cost-benefit study of the Gull Harbour Resort? Because presumably at some point, governments may wish to cease subsidization of a continuing loss operation. On the other hand, I guess, an argument could be made to continue subsidization if it could be shown that in terms of the provincial economy, the benefits to the provincial economy outweighed the costs to the taxpayers to subsidize the operation.
Mr. Stefanson: I know there has been various discussions at the committee level when Venture Manitoba Tours appears before committee in terms of the process of looking at that operation. I know it is looked at on an ongoing basis, assessed in terms of its long-term viability, its market potential and so on. I think at the end of the day, the decision has been made for government to continue to support that operation, to continue to operate it.
I should point out that the situation has improved somewhat of late, and if there is some good news, it would be--even looking at the '97-98 projection, we are providing for $525,000, but the operation does make a profit before interest and depreciation. It actually makes about $250,000 before interest and depreciation, and no matter what we did with the facility, unless you could get a significant amount of money for it, you still have that debt against the facility, and the depreciation of course is a noncash item requirement. It is a provision against a capital asset.
So on an overall basis it has improved. It does have a world-class golf course facility that is a tourist attraction. It is put to good use in our province. I think the occupancy rates have sort of inched up, I guess, is the best way to describe them at the facility, and we continue to look at the kinds of things that should be done to minimize the amount of loss that has to be provided. But as the member for Brandon East knows, it is also a significant employer in the Interlake region and that part of the Interlake region with people from the Riverton area and Hecla Island and so on, and it is a tourism destination. We continue to assess it, but at this point in time, the best approach is for us to continue to provide for these losses.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I certainly agree with the minister in his observation of the value of that facility to tourism and recreation in Manitoba. We are pleased to hear that there is some progress being made on the financial side.
Just one last question. I would imagine that the Council of Crown Corporations who reports to the minister also would be analyzing the operation of this facility and would be making recommendations one way or the other on it. I would gather that they are being positive re the continued function of Venture Manitoba Tours Limited?
Mr. Stefanson: The member is correct that this is one of the entities that falls under the Crown Corporations Council which does report to me. They do an ongoing assessment of the financial operations of the capital requirements and provide me with their best advice in terms of some of the things we should be doing or should not be doing with the facility. So they continue to monitor and assess. They certainly have been positive of some of the improvements at the facility in terms of enhanced utilization, some of the physical improvements that have been put in place in the resort itself.
I think the combination of the two golf courses provides a certain level of synergy, because the other one in Falcon Lake of course is in a provincial park as well, so there is merit to the link between the two facilities and so on. So the council does keep a close watch on this facility in terms of its financial performance and also continues to provide advice on an ongoing basis as it relates to this facility.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Resolution 27.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,725,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1998.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Next, 26.4, Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates for Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases. Does the honourable minister have any opening statement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine ): Does the honourable official opposition critic have an opening statement?
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): No, not an opening statement. I do not believe it is necessary. I just have a question. I just point out or observe that the amount compared to last year is significantly higher, $15 million as opposed to $4 million. I presume, therefore, included in there is some, and I am not sure--oh, I am going to correct myself. I see there is no item in here for general salary increases. There is nothing built in. This total amount of money is related to internal reform and workforce adjustment, I gather from reading it. I was going to ask the question, but I have answered my own question.
Well, in that case, could the minister advise, and I do not know what other department is dealing with this, unless it is the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission (Mr. Gilleshammer), whether he could just highlight the major internal reform initiatives that all this money is going towards?
* (1500)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, this really relates to the discussion we had the other day regarding the Estimates for the Finance department, when we talked at some length about one of the initiatives called Better Methods. The Better Methods Initiative, as we discussed, is looking at many aspects of our information technology. What this line item provides is it provides the dollars which are then distributed to individual departments to meet the information technology improvements. We discussed the Department of Finance specifics.
We are only one department that is affected by the various information technology improvements. There are two very significant information technology issues--well, there are probably more than two, but there are two that fall directly under the Better Methods right now. That is the financial reporting system that we discussed and also the Human Resource Management system, which are both being significantly enhanced and upgraded.
Another component that has to be met within our entire system is the year 2000 and the requirement to convert all of our systems, our software, to meet the year 2000 requirements, so this line item is providing the dollars against the Better Methods that we just touched on. It provides for the year 2000. It provides resources for the desktop management initiative that we have had some discussion about, some questions here during Question Period.
Again, the resources are housed here to move forward with the desktop management initiative. This area also provides some Workforce Adjustment money when we announced our current negotiating position with the Manitoba Government Employees' Union. The minister responsible indicated there are Workforce Adjustment allocations for training and other initiatives. This category provides the dollars for that area.
So those are some examples of the areas of responsibility under Internal Reform. The reason for the growth in dollars is purely that the two issues that we are going to significantly be upgrading our systems. We also have the year 2000 requirement that has to be met obviously by the year 2000, so there is a time restriction here in terms of the adjustments that have to be made.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that information. Just the other item, the General Salary Increases, no information, no item, no dollars are put alongside this. Of course there were no general salary increases in '96-97, and I understand the government is in negotiation now with the MGEU regarding a general salary increase.
I would gather the minister and the government deems it wise not to put any figure there for whatever strategic reasons, but therefore I ask the minister, I would expect then that he would be forthcoming at some point with supplementary Estimates for this amount of money or for whatever amount of money is deemed appropriate for General Salary Increases.
Mr. Stefanson: Without getting into too much of the details of our current bargaining with the Manitoba Government Employees' Union, as the member for Brandon East I think is aware, we put forward a proposal for a three-year-agreement, and in year one of the agreement, our proposal was for no base salary increase but allowing employees to cash out, I believe, up to three days of vacation, that rather than take the vacation days, to actually work those days and get paid for them obviously.
The concern being that some employees were indicating that with the workweek reduction, the 10-days-workweek reduction, plus their vacation time, some employees indicated they felt they had more than enough time off than they really needed, and they preferred an opportunity to work and earn some money. So we have put on the table the ability to work for three days and be paid. I will not go into the rest of the contract, but that is the impact on '97-98.
So the direction to departments was, if we are successful in terms of a collective agreement along those kinds of terms with the MGEU, then the department should attempt to find all of that from within to manage their vacation time and so on.
Having said all of that, MGEU has provided their response. We are right in the midst of negotiations with the MGEU. It remains to be seen what ultimately happens. If there was a need for some additional compensation, the first review would be within this total category. We would come back and look at our total line items (a) and (b) Internal Reform and General Salary Increases to see if we needed any resources from that total allocation before we would be into looking at supplementary funding.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Resolution 26.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $15,000,000 for Enabling Appropriations, Internal Reform Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Move to page 131 of the Estimates book. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of Urban Economic Development Initiatives. Does the Minister of Finance have an opening statement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): It is just an observation, Mr. Chairman, that this particular item can provide for a great deal of debate and discussion because I note, among others, we have the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club, the agreement between the Jets hockey ventures and the province and the city, whereby the province is responsible for one-half of the Jets operating losses up to and including June 30, 1997. I guess it opens the door to all that kind of debate we have had before.
There is also funding in here, I gather, for Winter Cities, or there has been in the past, and I am not sure whether it is at the present, so this really leads me to the question of $16.5 million, a slight increase or a bit of an increase over the last year. Can the minister very briefly list or outline the initiatives that these monies are being provided for?
I note in the '95-96 annual report related to Other Appropriations that there is a list on page 13, which is self-explanatory. So I wondered if the minister could be kind enough to just briefly update us with regard to these monies being asked for in this '97-98 fiscal year.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable member for Brandon East for those comments.
Mr. Stefanson: The member is right that the detailed breakdown of '96-97 will come out in the '96-97 annual report, and he has touched on some of the areas that are funded from this area. This is the 25 percent urban VLT money, what this represents, the equivalent of the 25 percent rural VLT, which is the Rural Economic Development Initiatives and so on, but some examples of items that were funded in '96-97 was the final payment under the agreement with the Winnipeg Jets that he referred to.
This is also where the $2 million is provided for the Winnipeg Police Services agreement. Two million dollars it provides for 40 police officers in the city of Winnipeg. It also provides for the Urban Green Team initiative. It also, last year, provided for a contribution to the operations of the Winnipeg Convention Centre, similarly Winnipeg 2000 and similarly Tourism Winnipeg.
* (1510)
Looking ahead to 1997-98, the ones that we anticipate are sort of ongoing--that would be the Winnipeg Convention Centre, although we have not concluded that, but we have made a contribution in the last couple of years. I would expect we would do the same. Tourism Winnipeg, I expect we will be supporting. Winnipeg 2000 we will support. Urban Green Team is provided from here. The Winnipeg Police Services agreement of $2 million is provided from here. Those would be the ones that are ongoing, and then just about a month ago the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) announced funding for both University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg towards some emergency repairs at those facilities that will also be funded from here in '97-98. So that gives the member a sample or summary of many of the areas that will be funded from this line item.
Mr. Leonard Evans: So, of course, the other items that had been previously listed in '95-96 are, I presume, history so, obviously, the Winter Cities '96 Conference, for example.
What about the Northern Hemisphere Distribution Alliance or is that history as well or is that an ongoing program?
Mr. Stefanson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the member is right. At that particular point in time, it was a one-time funding source from this area and that is true of many items, as the member points out. The Winter Cities Conference that was held in Winnipeg was funded on a one-time basis from this line item. I gave him samples of the areas that are receiving ongoing funding and the ones that I have outlined are the best information I have at this point in time, those three or four organizations in Winnipeg and the Police Services agreement. Other than that what you will tend to see are either one-time only or agreements that run for a shorter period of time and ultimately have a lapsed date. So I guess at the end of the day you will see a little bit of both, some that we are supporting each and every year and many one-time-only kind of initiatives.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Just to clarify. I gather from the minister then, apart from those ongoing items that he referred to, the only new initiative for this '97-98 fiscal year would be the U of M and U of W support.
Mr. Stefanson: Well, I guess one other area that has been announced in the last several weeks was additional funding for the General Council of Community Centres; $300,000 was funded from this source as well. So the items that I have already outlined are the ones that have either been announced or are examples of initiatives that we funded in the past and we expect to be funding again. But even all of those areas that I outlined for the member for Brandon East, they do not total $16.5 million, so there still would be money left in this account for initiatives that warrant support throughout the year.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for that information. Just a question on process. I would assume that it is the City of Winnipeg per se that comes to the government with a shopping list, more or less, of items they would like us to support or does the province take the initiative on its own. For instance, the Council of Community Centres that he referred to, I mean, that could be done directly I suppose between the province and the community without involving the City of Winnipeg whatsoever, the municipal government and the City of Winnipeg.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, it is a little bit of both is really the answer. The City of Winnipeg has made specific requests, given us an indication of some of the projects that they would like to see supported. That is really how we ended up supporting the Convention Centre, Winnipeg 2000, Tourism Winnipeg. In fact, we fund 50 percent of the operating deficiencies of those organizations. We match that 50-50 with the City of Winnipeg, but he is also right that some initiatives come directly to us. The General Council of Community Centres came directly to government, made a case in terms of their requirements and as a result were dealt with directly. So it can happen either way and does happen both ways.
Mr. Leonard Evans: We are prepared to pass this item now.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Resolution 27.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $16,500,000 for Other Appropriations, Urban Economic Development Initiatives, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I do have a very brief opening statement. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some opening remarks. The role of Community Support Programs is really threefold. Firstly, it provides management in co-ordination of grants through government departments. Secondly, it provides access to community organizations seeking information on funding and as well may provide grant assistance to organizations who do not meet normal funding criteria within the system. Its third component is to monitor and evaluate the nonprofit community organizations who receive funding to ensure compliance to the original objectives of these organizations.
Community Support Programs provides an accountable, efficient, accessible and flexible system to support nonprofit organization in the context of quality of life development. Through the Community Support Programs, the government of Manitoba is able to support such diverse cultural and tourism attractions as the Festival du Voyageur, Folklorama and the Manitoba Stampede. It also provides funds to cover the administrative and fundraising costs for the United Way campaigns throughout Manitoba. I do not think I will go into explaining all of those events and organizations. I think everybody in the Chamber knows them quite well.
In a related area, the Community Support Programs, in partnership with the Manitoba Government Employees Union, provides staff-related funding in support of the government employees' All Charities campaign. In 1996 this campaign raised over $835,000 from Manitoba government employees' contributions in aid of the charitable organizations of their choice.
Today I am pleased to have been able to highlight some of the groups and organizations who benefit from funding through Community Support Programs. As the Minister responsible for Community Support Programs, I am proud to ensure these funds are being used for the benefit of all Manitobans to enhance the quality of life in communities, large and small, throughout Manitoba.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister for those comments. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Not necessarily an opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I just point out that my colleague the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) has a large number of questions she would like to put on Community Support Programs, but before she does, I wonder by way of overview whether the minister could indicate if there is much change in those organizations who will be recipient of these funds in the '97-98 fiscal year. We have a list based on the annual report of '95-96. I think that is the latest information we have. If he wishes we could look at the table of contents there, and he could just indicate whether there is any change from that list, any additions or deletions.
Mr. Stefanson: Joining me is Mr. Jim Berry, the Director of Community Support Programs.
The simplest thing might be to look in the Estimates of Expenditures on page 22 which shows the comparisons over the last two years. Again I guess the short answer to the question is that in terms of areas being supported, there are no fundamental changes. You can see from that summary that the organizations that were supported last year, in 1996-97, continue to be supported again in 1997-98.
* (1520)
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for the explanation. My colleague the member for St. James is deemed our critic of this area. I happen to be sitting here because it is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) who has brought it in, and we have some mutual concerns. I know my colleague from St. James has a lot of specific questions.
I just want to ask one question though about the Valley Agricultural Society. I guess it is always a question of judgment why one group is selected over another and why one group gets a particular amount of money compared with another, but the Valley Agricultural Society for whatever reason is selected by this program. I realize as I gather from the report that this is related to the Manitoba Stampede, which is fine, but on the other hand one could ask what about the various other agricultural societies in Manitoba and why is this one singled out as compared to all the other agricultural activities, agricultural organizations, that do a very good job in the various regions, the various communities of the province.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent this one goes back to when there were separate Lottery agreements with individual facilities or organizations. This was done at the time for some of the capital enhancements to the Big M Centre and so on. Over time the amount of support has been reduced periodically based on their financial performance; 1997-98, we are now at $50,000, as the member indicated, down from $63,000 last year. I am told that this does continue to be one of our largest tourism attractions outside of Winnipeg, but we have continued to support agricultural societies through the Department of Agriculture.
There is a line item Agricultural Societies Grant Assistance, some $368,000 provided directly through Agriculture to various agricultural organizations. As the member knows, we continue to support the Keystone Centre in Brandon for similar reasons in terms of what it does to the economy for tourism in the Brandon area and so on. It is not uncommon to be supporting ag societies and/or events or facilities of this nature, and this has been one that we feel that has deserved continued ongoing support. [interjection]
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear I am not critical of this expenditure. I just wondered about the process, because I was quite aware of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has many hundreds of thousands of dollars to hand out to very worthwhile agricultural societies and organizations--[interjection] Too much? [interjection]
So, I guess, the question is why is this itemized here? Why is not our good Minister of Agriculture directly providing funding for the Manitoba Stampede, as opposed to it being singled out and financed under this Community Support Programs?
Mr. Stefanson: As I did indicate, this is as much historical in that it goes back to the old process of individual agreements with individual organizations. This was one that had a separate lottery-funded agreement. So it has carried on to date, although the level of support because of its overall financial performance has been able to be reduced periodically over these years.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Would there be any thought of transferring it from this expenditure to the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Stefanson: That certainly is something that we could look at, but at this point in time it really has been historical. It was not necessarily meant to be long-term, because it was originally for capital, but because of a combination of events out there, there has been ongoing support provided. So I think there is some merit to carrying on on a stand-alone basis the way it is now, to continue to assess it every year and hopefully, as they perform better through attracting more Manitobans and more tourists, they will not necessarily need the same level of support that they do now.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I just want to make it clear again that I am not opposing the expenditure. It is really a process or a method question or a problem that I posed. At any rate, I am going to defer now to my colleague the MLA for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), who I know has some questions.
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Will I be allowed a short introductory statement?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Is there leave of the committee for opening remarks by the critic for committee, the official opposition critic? [agreed]
Ms. Mihychuk: I wish to thank the committee for allowing me leave to say a few words. Basically this is my first opportunity to delve into the world of Lotteries and lottery support, so much of my questioning will be a learning experience as well.
There is one of the areas that I have raised in my new critic area of Lotteries, the financial support to the Manitoba Community Services Council, which has seen over the last eight, nine years a dramatic cut. In fact 50 percent of their funding has been cut by this government. So I will be asking some very clear questions on the support for these nonprofit groups, which do provide services directly to the community and why the government has decided that indeed this group will be cut while, for instance, other groups have maintained their funding.
There will be questions of the process and, in addition, questions of accountability. How does the government assure themselves that the programs are operating in an efficient manner that is meeting its mandate? I know that recently there have been some changes. For instance, I understand that the government now has a representative on the board of the Manitoba Community Services Council, but the question remains, over the past eight or nine years, I would assume then that the government did not have direct representation and so I will be delving into the process of accountability in the various sectors.
In general, Lotteries revenues we have seen move substantially from data that I have put together from Manitoba Lotteries, would indicate that in the '89-90 year, Manitoba received through Lotteries net revenue of approximately $54 million and now, as of '95-96, in excess of $227 million of Lotteries revenue. I will be asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), who is responsible ultimately for the distribution of Lotteries money, as to why decisions were made to then reduce the percentage substantially.
* (1530)
If you look at the proportion, the ratio of Lotteries money allocated to community groups back in '88-89, it was substantially higher, approximately 10 percent. Now we look at contributions that are perhaps 1 percent. That is a fundamental change in the distribution of money or the proportion of revenue.
I would ask the minister to perhaps give us an overall policy for the distribution of Lotteries money and why we see this dramatic change in the support to nonprofit community groups.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): We thank the honourable member for those comments.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly prepared to respond to a specific question, but I think it is important to recognize that there was a change a couple of years ago in the sense that none of these are lottery-funded areas any more.
Lottery revenue now just comes into the general revenue of government like any other revenue source, and expenditures all stand an equal test in terms of what are priorities of government. So lottery revenue comes in as general revenue. It goes to our health care system, goes to our education system, goes to our family services area, and so on.
The only areas today that receive a percentage of gaming or gambling revenue are the VLT allocations. I think, as members know, that we do allocate 10 percent of VLT revenue on an unconditional basis back to municipalities on a per capita basis, and we do allocate 25 percent of VLT into economic development initiatives. The area that we just talked about a few minutes ago, the Urban Economic Development Initiative, and of course, the Rural Economic Development Initiative. So beyond that, there are no ongoing lottery-funded areas of expenditure.
The agreements with all of these organizations no longer refer to lottery revenues or lottery sources. These are just areas that we have determined, as part of our budget process, warrant ongoing support from the taxpayers of Manitoba. So there is no connection back to lottery revenue whatsoever as it relates to these or many other expenditures within government.
Ms. Mihychuk: Perhaps the minister could clarify. When the grants were associated with Lotteries, there was a clear association between the Lotteries money and these groups. Are we not talking basically about a change in accounting? What the intent was, was to turn back money raised through Lotteries into the community. That was the intent of this organization, or these groups, and I am assuming that basically that is still the intent.
Mr. Stefanson: Well, the short answer is, that is not right. There is no longer any relationship between lottery revenue and these areas of expenditure.
In fact, as I have already said, the lottery revenue, and that was a policy decision over a couple of years ago, was that the revenue comes in just like any other source of revenue, whether it is revenue from tobacco or revenue from liquor or revenue from other sources, whether it is our provincial sales tax or income tax.
What Manitobans have told us consistently is bring in all of your revenue, and all of these expenditures should be prioritized against one another. You should not be dedicating funding sources because that gets you locked into funding areas that might not be the highest priority of Manitobans or the government. Clearly our priorities are health, education and support to families, as can be determined by looking at our overall expenditures. Those three areas represent two-thirds of our expenditures. I think, on an overall basis, those are still the areas of greatest priority to Manitobans.
Having said that, Manitobans still support other areas of expenditure from government, areas like we are looking at here, but it was a policy decision to get away from dedicated funding. I think dedicated funding, whether it is dedicating lotteries to a source or dedicating any other gasoline tax back to certain things, you get into dedicated funding, you start to cause all kinds of problems for governments, and you do not necessarily meet the overall priorities of the people you represent. So lottery revenue comes in, and other than those couple of areas where they are dedicated, they are no longer dedicated.
These organizations know that. We have renegotiated the agreements with them. They know they are not linked to Lotteries. There is no reference to Lotteries in the agreements, and I think that is a much more overall responsible way to move forward with dealing with priorities of government.
Ms. Mihychuk: The policy decision to move Lotteries revenue into general revenue was made. However, this program, as I understand it, dates back to the '80s. I am not sure quite when it was established. I have records that go back to '88, and in those documents it was related to Lotteries disbursements.
Given that this is no longer the financial process, are the minister and government perhaps reviewing the whole necessity of having the Manitoba Community Support Programs? Because clearly these programs were established initially, historically to distribute Lotteries funds.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think what we have found is that this is a very efficient way to deal with the distribution of dollars with the organizations that we are dealing with, who are basically nonprofit community organizations. So the delivery mechanism has been efficient, has served government well, has served these organizations well, has developed a focal point to deal with, has developed a liaison through Mr. Jim Berry, who really represents Community Support Programs on these various organizations either directly or in contact with them on an ongoing basis. So the process has been very efficient and effective.
Obviously these are still priorities of our government. The fact that we have renewed agreements with these organizations and we continue to support them does show that they still are an overall priority of government. Sure, you could take them and spread them into individual departments. That would be an alternative that one could look at, but I think when we have looked at the Community Support Programs area, we have found that it has been a very effective and efficient way to deal with organizations. I know the feedback I get from these organizations that are funded have been very complimentary of the process, the access they have to government through Mr. Berry and so on, and I think it has served the organization and served the government well.
I am always open to suggestions as to how--I am assuming what the member is referring to is the process, not the merit of funding these organizations, which is another issue we can certainly discuss, but we have found that this process is working very well and do not see any reason to change it.
Ms. Mihychuk: No, I am not discussing whether the actual allocations are viable or not or meaningful. For the most part, I would say they are. In fact I am arguing that indeed in the case of the Manitoba Community Services Council, they have been shortchanged. If you look at the relationship historically back in, for example, 1988, the Manitoba Community Services Council, and then historically it was related to Lotteries money, received, as far as my calculations indicate, $3.6 million. Today they receive $2 million. The $3.6 million of the $50-million revenue generated from Lotteries was a significant proportion. I would imagine that that is probably 6 or 7 percent.
Now we see that if you looked at that proportion, and I understand again that the way the accounting has moved we do not actually say it is direct Lotteries money, but Lotteries revenue is well over $225 million, and these nonprofit community groups are receiving $2 million. That is a pittance when you look at the revenue that the government has received from Lotteries.
* (1540)
Can the minister explain, if he believes, if his government believes that these are valuable organizations for funding and seriously believes this is an effective and efficient way to distribute money, why did they choose to cut the funding to these groups, this particular umbrella organization, in half? In 1991 the Manitoba Community Services Council received $3,987,213. They now receive $2 million.
Mr. Stefanson: Without debating with the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), I do want to make it clear that it is more than an accounting issue in terms of the change of policy. I want to stress that because, as I have already said, we made the decision to bring Lotteries into our overall revenue, so that when we look at all of our expenditures of government as we should do, and I am sure as she would do if she were in government, and you prioritize them and say you have a certain amount of money, where should it be spent? What are the priorities of government? What are the priorities of Manitobans?
That is the policy change we made when we brought it into income, and when we did that, I am proud that we are still able to support this organization at the level of $2 million recognizing all of the decisions we have had to make over 10 budgets, Mr. Chairman, that this organization is still funded to the level of approximately $2 million, still meeting the needs of hundreds of nonprofit organizations that are out there. You have to look at the service this organization provides, requests it gets for funding compared to all of our other needs, whether it is in health care, Education, Justice, Family Services, the list goes on and on.
I am also pleased that we were able to provide them with some additional resources this year by redirecting the funding for the greater Winnipeg community centres to the area we just discussed earlier, the Urban Economic Development Initiatives. That was about $143,000, so that gives the council some additional flexibility in 1997-98 to deal with any additional requests that they might have from worthwhile organizations.
So it really does come down to priorities, decisions, and I am pleased that we are still supporting this organization to the level of approximately $2 million and continuing to work with them in terms of meeting the needs of nonprofit organizations.
Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, to the minister responsible, basically it is a funding decision then, I understand, by the government who allocates the funding to, in this case we are talking about the Manitoba Community Services Council. Then it is indeed the government's decision to grant an allocation of $2 million a year.
When we looked at the Morris Stampede, the minister was assuring us that the need was there, and in fact perhaps if revenues were increased, the need for this allocation would go down. Mr. Minister, I ask you: How can you justify a cut to these groups when the need has gone up and yet your support has gone down?
Mr. Stefanson: I guess one other role that this council plays is they also distribute about $800,000 in bingo events over and above the $2 million in direct funding provided to them, which are allocations made to nonprofit organizations, as well. But I have had the opportunity to meet with the council. Mr. Berry serves as a liaison with the council, and I am informed that the levels of request have been fairly consistent over the last few years, certainly. So it is not as though there is this explosion of demand or pressure on this organization today as compared to a year ago or a couple of years ago. Again, I will just go back to budgets are about priorities, and when you only have a certain amount of money to allocate, you establish your priorities. This is a priority for our government, but it is funded at the level of $2 million. When they distribute that, they also establish priorities. Almost no matter what sum of money this organization had, they might well have more requests than they have money, and they have to establish priorities.
The member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) served on school board and had to establish priorities. I mean, that is a reality of serving on an organization or being in government, and clearly, this is a very worthwhile organization, but we also have priority areas in health and education and other expenditures of government.
Ms. Mihychuk: Is the minister aware that in fact in 1988 the Manitoba Community Services Council handed out or was responsible for distributing bingo earnings at that time, as well, to the tune of $812,000? So the fact that they are distributing $800,000 today is in fact a symbol of what?--frozen funding, that over the last nine or 10 years, perhaps, we could have expected to see even greater share of bingo revenues, given inflation. Can the minister explain why the amount of bingo revenues distributed to community groups has actually been frozen since 1988?
Mr. Stefanson: Well, certainly the member is right that bingo events have been an ongoing way of providing additional support through the Community Services Council for several years, but bingo revenues have more or less been flat the last period of time, and if you are going to provide additional resources to the Community Services Council, I would ask her where do you take them from? What other worthwhile organization should bingo events be taken from that are currently deriving support? Again, it comes down to a fair and equitable distribution. Bingo events are provided to other organizations as well, and we feel that this has been a reasonable allocation to the Community Services Council to meet the requests that they have and the needs that they have.
Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, Manitoba Community Services Council funds such groups as the Adamar Manor seniors group, resource councils, the Argyle drop-in centre, many community centres, the Brandon Friendship Centre, Broad Valley community centre, Brokenhead library, the Charleswood Curling Club, the city kids, and the list goes on and on and on. These are groups that are at the front line, and so when we talk about need, there are many, and I go on. The J. H. Bruns parent council, many parent councils, many schools, many parent-teacher associations, community centres. Now, fortunately again, we see daycares being eligible. Can the minister explain, given that these groups are on the front line, are facing the challenges which we all agree are increasing, have not seen a proportional increase to their funding? Will the minister make that commitment or at least prepare to review the situation? Because indeed when the government talks about supporting communities, this is an area that does give money directly to the communities that are facing the challenges that we know are increasing.
Mr. Stefanson: First of all, Mr. Chairman, a good majority of the funding from the Community Services Council is not meant nor has it been meant in the past to be base-funding support for various organizations. It has been more related to projects or special initiatives and so on.
I just want to go back to--there are two points. First of all, in this budget we are able to provide a little bit of additional support for the council by redirecting the funding source for the greater Winnipeg communities centres council that will provide $143,000 for this organization, and we will fund that source from elsewhere. I just go back to the overall issue of budgets being about priorities.
* (1550)
Starting a year ago, in fact, starting in 1995-96, with significant reductions in funding from the federal government, over the next five to six years we are going to be faced with about $1.1 billion less in funding. So I think the fact that we are able to maintain the funding levels for these organizations is very positive, that we have shown our support book for them by maintaining their level of funding when we are being hit with very significant funding reductions from another level of government. That is a major challenge for our government in terms of balancing our budget and so on.
Ms. Mihychuk: The minister, in his response, said that these grants were never intended to be a supplement to their revenues and that is true. Unfortunately many of the groups, and here in particular, are community centres that I want to refer to. Many community centres have seen a dramatic loss of ongoing revenue because of, and many of them attribute, to the proliferation of VLTs and the casinos in Manitoba and particularly in Winnipeg.
So what they have seen is the loss of revenues from their bingos or the actual shutdown of bingos which were a major source of revenue for community centres. Because of the government's policy to expand VLTs and to have casinos in Winnipeg, it has pulled away from the ongoing revenue that community centres were able to, indeed, earn on their own. Many of them then turned to the Manitoba Services Council because historically it was delivering Lotteries money.
They turned to the Manitoba Services Council as an opportunity for them to continue those front line services. In my constituency alone, I have four community centres. Each one of them has seen a loss of revenue which exceeds $10,000 annually. So I turn to the minister and suggest that it is indeed government policy which has had a direct effect on communities, and will he, for the issue of community centres, look at the distribution or the redistribution of funds and make community centres a priority by increasing the allocation to the Manitoba Community Services Council.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think certainly as the member for St. James knows, probably the main funder of community centres in many respects is the City of Winnipeg. We have certainly been very supportive of the City of Winnipeg with our funding commitments over the last several budgets, unlike what is happening in many provinces. There have actually been increases in funding for the City of Winnipeg, along with other municipalities, for various reasons, because we are one of only two provinces that actually share VLT revenue on an unconditional basis. Also, we are the only province in Canada that shares our personal income tax and our corporate income tax with the municipalities.
But the issue of the funding for the community centres, certainly in Winnipeg, with the announcement that was made just a few weeks ago by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), last year the Community Services Council funded, I believe, about $143,000 to community centres in Winnipeg. The greater Winnipeg community centres council made the request that they be the distribution body for funding for community centres. As a result, we have entered a three-year agreement directly with them, providing them $200,000 in assistance annually to be distributed to community centres.
That is a growth of about $57,000 over last year's budget. So it accomplishes two things. It puts more money into the area of support for community centres in Winnipeg, which I think the member for St. James would agree is a positive initiative, and it also frees up $143,000 for the Community Services Council to distribute to other worthwhile projects. So it really offers greater opportunity on both of those fronts, for community centres and for the council to meet some of the needs that are out there. I think that is a positive aspect of the '97-98 budget.
Ms. Mihychuk: We will continue on this subject as I will be speaking for my communities and argue that indeed support needs to be increased dramatically for community groups.
Can the minister tell us, the requests for grants from the Manitoba Community Services Council last year, how much was requested? Do we know?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information here, but I will certainly undertake to provide what I can in that area.
Ms. Mihychuk: I thank the minister, and if it is not too burdensome, if there could be a historical record of the grant request in that area, I would appreciate that information.
In terms of the Manitoba Community Services Council, my question to the minister: Given that overall the distribution of the funds occurs through this umbrella group, but it is government money that is funnelled to the umbrella group, which then distributes it to the community, is it government that is responsible for the overall policies of these umbrella groups?
Mr. Stefanson: I think, as the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) knows, the council is quite an autonomous body. There are 17 members that are appointed by a committee which is made up of the past chairperson, along with a representative from the province and two other individuals. So the province does have one representative on the council, but all of the rest are appointed through a process where they are determined from the public at large. So they function very much on an autonomous basis, they have their own criteria, do their own analysis. A similar process, I am told, has been in place for many years in Manitoba.
Obviously there are vehicles. If the government was not happy with performance, the most significant vehicle is the funding and the funding agreement that is in place, but the fact that we have been renewing this agreement on an ongoing basis and continue now to maintain the level of funding over the last several years would show that we are supportive of the job they are doing and of the need that they are meeting.
* (1600)
Ms. Mihychuk: Just so that the record is clear, that it is my understanding that actually there has been a cut to funding over the past three years, that in fact the past two years we have seen stable funding, but there has been a reduction in funding previous to that.
My question is: The Manitoba Services Council, as an example, has a policy of, or its overall mandate is to provide, I understand, nonprofit groups with grants. Is the minister aware that until last year a significant proportion or a fairly large body of nonprofit daycare centres were ineligible to collect money from the Manitoba Services Council? These are nonprofit, community daycare organizations.
Mr. Stefanson: I guess on the issue of funding, it has been more or less stable since 1993-94. From '93-94 to '95-96 the direct funding was $2 million; and then in '96-97, '97-98 it has been $1,980,000; so it has been more or less stable since '93-94. On the issue of funding daycares and the nature of support that the council should provide, those are policy decisions that the council makes. The member asked about how the council does, in fact, function. It has been autonomous for several years. It functions on an autonomous basis, makes decisions about what organizations it feels warrants support or does not warrant support, so it will continue to function on that basis.
I understand that whole area of support for daycares and nursery schools is being reviewed again. I think in light of the fact that they do have some additional resources this year that I have already explained in some detail, so I will not do it again. So those are decisions that are made by the council.
Ms. Mihychuk: What accountability does this government have to these groups; or what accountability do these groups have to the government, let me put it that way? The mandate of this group was to distribute grants to nonprofit community groups. Under that mandate it would seem to me to be logical that daycares would have, in fact, been included under that mandate. Is there not a component of responsibility that the government, which provides the money to this group, insures that this umbrella group is, indeed, fulfilling its mandate and providing fair and reasonable access by nonprofit groups? I will let the minister answer that question.
Mr. Stefanson: I just go back to how this board has functioned under our administration and I think previous administrations, as they have been autonomous, and unless we are really unhappy with the overall performance, I am not so sure that we should be injecting ourselves into the process or forcing our views on the council. I think we look at them on an overall basis, and overall I think most would agree they are doing a good job.
I do not get any complaints about the council. I have met with the council themselves and generally they are satisfied with the role they are playing. We have discussed issues like funding, and they are not making requests for huge increases in funding from myself directly. So I think it is like any organization. You assess your overall performance and give them the autonomy to make decisions and be held accountable.
Ultimately, as I said, they are held accountable through the agreement that we enter in with them. If we were not happy with their performance obviously we would review that agreement and the funding levels. But we have been happy on an overall basis with the performance of the council.
Ms. Mihychuk: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat shocked. There have been numerous daycares who have appealed to me to somehow have the government intervene and look at having the Manitoba Community Services Council in fact allocate some grants to daycares. I use them as one example, and I know that the Manitoba Community Services Council has attempted to change its process and, indeed, I believe this year is allocating about $100,000 to daycares. That is a small step because, at one time, they received almost a million dollars of money from this group. So a million dollars from two million of total money to allocate does indeed seem to be impossible at this time.
There was a group, and I use it as an example, that was excluded. How can the government justify such a clear, I will say, discriminatory policy? It is the government's money that is going to this group, that is supposed to be distributing these funds fairly to nonprofit community groups. Daycares clearly fall under that, and there may be other community groups that are not eligible. I do not know. Those are the questions that are raised when you have one sector of the community that was not eligible for a while.
I asked the government again through the minister, is it not the government's responsibility to ensure that the government's money is distributed fairly according to the mandate of the community, this umbrella organization?
Mr. Stefanson: I am not sure if the member for St. James is aware that in the 1997-98 budget we have provided $42,947,000 for child daycare, support that has been at a consistent level of funding for the last several years. As part of the budget process, I have met with child daycare organizations. Our Minister of Family Services meets with them on an ongoing basis. I think we are recognized as having one of the better child daycare systems in all of Canada. So I think that part of our society is generally quite satisfied with the treatment they are receiving from the provincial government, the level of financial support they are receiving from the provincial government and so on.
You have a Community Services Council that has 16 representatives from the public at large. They have all kinds of requests from worthwhile nonprofit organizations. They set the policies, they set the priorities, and I do not feel we should be--I think what the member for St. James seems to be suggesting, we should do away with the council and take control of it and government should just impose all of their priorities, all of their decisions. Well, then we do not need a council. We might as well take the $2 million back into general revenue and have government just distribute it. Here we have a chance for public input, for community input from people who are genuinely interested in all of the priorities of our community, and they set those priorities. I think to be active members of a council, they want to have certain delegated authority. They want to have certain decision making. They have that and, as I have said, on an overall basis they are doing a very good job. Our priority for daycare support, I would argue, is amongst the best in Canada when you look at the direct levels of support that we provide, Mr. Chairman, and I have certainly heard similar comments from people directly in that industry in that area.
Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, my line of questioning is not to suggest that daycares do not deserve funding or that the Community Services Council representatives are not trying to do their best. In fact, I know several of the people who sit on the Manitoba Services Council. I have heard them lament that the need by far exceeds the amount of money that they have and that they have a very difficult situation trying to distribute the limited amount of money to some very wonderful organizations that can use this money. The fact is that we have seen this umbrella group, for reasons that I understand made that policy decision, were unable to allocate money to daycares.
* (1610)
Would the minister then suggest that this was indeed fair and reasonable for daycares? Would he then agree that it would be fair and reasonable to exclude all community groups in Assiniboia, St. James for a period of time? It is equally as discriminatory. Does the government not have an overall responsibility to ensure that the money is distributed equitably?
Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, we seem to be on a merry-go-round. I think all I will do is be repetitive here, to indicate that this is an autonomous body that has community representation on it and that does establish priorities, does its best to meet the needs that are out there to establish the priorities against those needs. We do that as a government every day in terms of establishing priorities across the board, and we have a high priority for daycare and child daycare. Obviously, this organization has to look at all of the requests they have and establish their priorities. We believe on an overall basis they are doing a good job. We believe also, on an overall basis, Manitoba is doing a good job of meeting the needs in the child daycare area.
I will be careful not to lead into political debate here, but the solution from across the way for everything is always more money, and it is more money in daycare, more money for councils, more money here. That is always the solution from members opposite. Instead of recognizing governments today, people of nonprofit organizations everywhere in society have to establish priorities and that is part of decision making in all of those areas.
Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, my line of argument is that basically we have seen an increasing need in the community. These are front-line organizations that are distributing very small amounts of money that have seen cutbacks since this government took office and, indeed, that the needs have increased. There are other organizations that this government has provided funds on a stable or increasing basis. Those decisions are the government's, but it is also my responsibility to ask and question the government's priorities when they have decided to reduce funding to community groups, and in this case it is daycares, community centres, seniors groups, other organizations that deal with the front line.
I sense some sense of uncomfortableness by the minister, and I would suggest that he deal with the Manitoba Services Council like he deals with the other groups in the Manitoba Community Support Program. The minister stated that the government was very supportive of the other organizations, and I congratulate the government to be sensitive to needs. He said, if I recall, that the Valley Agricultural Society was seeing increasing revenues, and therefore the support or the need for the Community Support Program was going down.
So I am asking, as an overall policy, that the government and himself as minister who is responsible for this line item, that he treat the Manitoba Community Services Council in the same manner. If need is determined to be increasing, will the minister then look at providing larger grants?
Mr. Stefanson: I want to make it clear I am not the slightest bit sensitive in this area, but I did point out for the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) that in this budget year we have maintained the same level of funding for the Community Services Council at $1,980,000, but by shifting the funding for the Winnipeg community centres away from this council, that frees up $143,000 for this council to distribute towards worthwhile projects. So $143,000 against a $2-million budget is about a 7.5 percent increase in terms of additional resources that they will have to meet other needs.
I think in today's fiscal climate the member knows--and I do not need to go through reminding her of the significant challenges to the federal offloading in reductions and establishing priorities. I think that was a significant improvement for the Community Services Council in this budget year. It gives them an additional $143,000 to meet the additional requests and demands out there. It also sets up the delivery vehicle for the Winnipeg community centres through the greater Winnipeg Community Services Council which is something that council has been promoting, and I believe the community centres in Winnipeg support. So I would view that as a win-win. There are more resources for the Community Services Council to distribute, and there is the additional refocusing for the Winnipeg community centres.
I would hope that the member for St. James would acknowledge that as a significant improvement in this budget year if her concern is to see more resources made available for the Community Services Council.
Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, the community centres, and if we just average--we have over 70 community centres--with a grant of $143,000, that adds up to $2,000 per community centre. Indeed that is useful money, but the minister cannot deny that each community centre has seen the loss of revenue of between $10,000 and $15,000, so that his returning $2,000 does not come anywhere near the needs of that community centre or what those community centres have actually lost in ongoing revenue.
So will the minister come clean, and for the record, in fact point out that a grant of $7 million would be required for community centres if that fund was actually going to be restored to the community?
Mr. Stefanson: I think that is the most telling tale of where we differ. I have had the opportunity to meet with the greater Winnipeg community centre council. They do not come asking for the kinds of dollars that the member for St. James is asking for, for a whole range of reasons. They know what the priorities of Manitobans are today in terms of when you look at their governments at all levels: school boards, municipal, provincial, federal, whatever level of government in terms of establishing priorities, living within our means, balancing our budgets, all of those kinds of areas. They also suggest that the areas of greatest importance continue to be health and education.
I think what community centres have done is in a very significant way through their resourcefulness have drawn on the volunteers that are available in their communities. They have found ways to continue to meet the services in their communities without necessarily coming back to government saying give us a whole bunch more money. Certainly the discussions we had with the greater Winnipeg Community Services Council in terms of increasing the funding this year from $143,000 to $200,000 were very well received by them.
They also wanted more autonomy in terms of how that money is distributed by allowing it to go through the greater Winnipeg Community Services Council. So that has been provided. So that has been very well received by that organization and by community centres in Winnipeg.
Unfortunately, the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), I think, is still locked in the 1980s, where everything is determined by just throwing more money at every situation. Whatever the situation, it is always, just give it more money. It does not matter whether we run deficits or increase taxes or quadruple our debt like happened in the 1980s, just put more money, that will solve everything.
* (1620)
Thankfully the attitude and the approach of community centres has not been that. The leadership that they have provided has been recognizing governments have to live within their means, and they have drawn on greater resources within the community and continue to do a great job out there without the simplistic kind of approach that members opposite bring consistently on issues.
Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, the example of community centres is a good one to look at as shallow and poor economic decision making. The decision to expand the Lotteries program has, as my Leader suggested, vacuumed or sucked out the revenues of community centres quite dramatically.
Indeed I would like to cite that we have recently seen in two core community centres, both the one in Elmwood, the Kelvin Community Centre, and in Orioles Community Centre, and in fact in the community centre of Isaac Brock the annual meetings having to be rescheduled or in the two cases of Elmwood and Orioles, they had to hold two meetings because they could not achieve quorum. Many of the community centres that we see in our core and in the city are actually closed in the evening and in the later parts of the night and are closed many times when the community would actually like to access them.
So I would suggest that the minister actually take a tour and visit the reality out there that in fact these are front line centres that in fact have the doors closed. The taxpayers of Manitoba have built the facilities and are calling upon volunteers who are trying to operate and maintain a system which is woefully underfunded. The province has gained substantially from its policy of Lotteries, taken money completely, taken money directly out of communities into general revenues and is refusing to return the money into community centres, meaning that front line services and those facilities that Manitobans invested in are in many places not operational because there is insufficient funding for community centres.
So when the minister suggests that community centres are continuing as they were back in the old days, I would have him take a tour of the community centres in my riding, in Elmwood, in the core of Winnipeg, and I am assuming even in his riding, and see if operations have not been affected by this government's Lotteries policy.
Mr. Stefanson: I guess we could debate this for quite some time. Community centres, like all kinds of organizations, have been changing, have been adapting. Even within Winnipeg different community centres have been changing and adapting in different ways to the needs within their communities.
As I have already indicated, we provide reasonable levels of support. We just concluded a three-year agreement with the greater Winnipeg community centres council that increases that level of support. It has been well received by them, well received by community centres. I guess I just go back to the overall issue that the member seems to forget is that budgets on an overall basis are about priorities.
This is the same member who on occasion is asking for more money for education, the next day asking for more money for health, and the next day asking for more money somewhere else. The solution always seems to be more money, but I think the reality today is governments that functioned that way in the '80s ran up deficits, ran up debt, and if we did not have the $520 million that we pay today on interest on debt that was mostly accumulated from 1981 to 1988, we could do an awful lot of things in this province. We could reduce taxes, we could provide more support for community centres. We could provide more support for health care. We could do an awful lot of things with that money that primarily pays debt, over $4 billion of debt accumulated in seven short years under an irresponsible administration. So that is the real root of an issue if you want to look at freeing up resources, to either put more money in the pockets of taxpayers to meet the needs that they deem are appropriate or required, or to allow governments more flexibility for other decisions, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Mihychuk: Well, Mr. Chairman, the suggestion that I sit on this side demanding money is somewhat true. I have asked for more money for education, and I am asking for more money for community centres. I would suggest that those two programs are indeed a priority of mine.
What is not a priority of mine, which is a priority of this government, is the sweetheart deal with private schools, other investments, the Jets deal which promised to be $10 million that turned out to be, I believe, over $40 million. The litany of programs that this government believes is a priority is indeed, in my opinion, quite scandalous. What we are talking about here are the fundamental basics, the structure of our community which we built around community centres and schools. This government is full of rhetoric about supporting communities, parents, community centres, youth in the community so that we can deal with the issues of youth crime and recreation and education at the front line. However, when it comes down to where the dollar goes, we can see that their commitment is elsewhere.
So, yes, it is a matter of priority and, yes, I have been in the position where I have had to make those decisions, some very tough decisions as a member of a local government that did see a reduction in funding to an organization, and I had to make the choices. So I can understand the minister's role. I am not in it now. I am going to argue very strongly for what I believe is a wise investment.
Mr. Chairman, we know, for example, that investing in the front-end of education in the early years that each dollar invested saves $7 in the future, yet this government chooses to turn its back on nursery schools and early childhood education programs. We know that front-end support to community centres, as the former Minister of Justice will know, is an important investment to dealing with youth crime and the gang situation that we see here in Winnipeg. Yes, those are choices that the government makes. I believe, in this case, that we are seeing a program here that is well run, and I have confidence in the umbrella organizations that distribute the funds. In this case, I am talking again, about the Manitoba Services Council that they are worthy and deserve more attention by this government, that indeed they are exactly what this government trumpets to be supporting. They are front-line community people that are trying to put forward the services to our community. So the support that it receives is a matter of priorities, and I think that my record shows that I am not one to stand up and ask for exorbitant amount of monies for every program.
I want the record to be clear. I believe in sound fiscal management and my record stands for that. In this case, I believe that the government is being shortsighted and in the long run will cost Manitobans money if we do not invest in our communities.
So I urge the minister to review the line item. The Manitoba Services Council is a very worthwhile umbrella agency and request that perhaps next year we will see a substantial increase in this line. That concludes my line of questioning in this area.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will not rise to debate.
* (1630)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Item 33.1.(a) Administration and Grants (1) Salary and Employee Benefits $112,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $27,700--pass; (3) Grants $276,100--pass.
1.(b) Festival du Voyageur $319,800--pass.
1.(c) Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg $301,000--pass.
1.(d) United Way $2,216,300--pass.
1.(e) Valley Agricultural Society $50,000--pass.
1.(f) Harness and Quarterhorse Racing support $466,100--pass.
1.(g) Manitoba Community Services Council $1,980,000--pass.
1.(h) Winnipeg Football Club $346,500--pass.
Resolution 33.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6,096,100 for Community Support Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
This now concludes the Estimates of Community Support Programs.