The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Ben Sveinson): This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

We are on Resolution 14.2 Culture, Heritage and Recreation Programs (f) Public Library Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $761,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $676,600--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $4,107,200--pass.

14.2.(g) Historic Resources (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,117,100.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Chair, last year in Estimates the then minister announced a review of The Heritage Resources Act. I think as this minister can see by reading Hansard, I was quite surprised and taken aback by this announcement because I had understood that everything was functioning well and achieving its purposes.

The former minister said that the review would include public consultations regarding--and I believe I am quoting him here--the challenges and opportunities inherent in the stewardship and management of heritage resources in Manitoba. I have been following quite carefully I think, and I do not believe that this review has taken place or perhaps I have missed it.

* (1440)

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Chair, I understand that following last year's Estimates my department undertook an intensive strategic planning review. The review clarified that there is a need to promote the results of our heritage work but that a full review of the legislation did not appear to be required at this time. I understand also that The Heritage Resources Act continues to be a successful means of encouraging the preservation of heritage sites and monitoring or minimizing potential impacts on heritage resources in areas of underdevelopment. So I am pleased to say that The Heritage Resources Act is working as it is intended to do.

Ms. McGifford: I am pleased to hear that The Heritage Resources Act is working, too. Then, I take it that the minister is saying the plans announced by the former minister to have public consultations regarding challenges and opportunities inherent in the stewardship, et cetera, in fact did not come to fruition, that there were no public consultations, and that other decisions have been made within the department that override that announcement in--I believe it was on the record last year.

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand and I am informed that the summary of the situation by the former minister--and I have this in quotes. I do not have a page number, but I understand what he said was, and this is a quote: I know that senior staff in their strategic planning will follow up on that--meaning a possible review--and decide whether there is some new direction we need in heritage or whether we just need a more public focus on some of the things that we are doing.

I am informed that in following up, as the minister stated in Hansard last year, the department undertook an intensive strategic planning review which I spoke about in my last answer. Through that review there appeared to become clarified that the focus really needed to be on the promotion of the results of our work, and that a full review of the legislative side was not necessary at this time. So the focusing on the decision to promote both cultural and heritage product is part of the goal.

I also understand that we do have an ongoing liaison with the heritage community and that liaison communications is a source of strength for developing new initiatives to make Manitoba's heritage much better known, and that there is a commitment to continue discussions with the Manitoba Heritage Council on how we can build on past achievements and identify new strategic partnerships and actually make our message more widely known that Manitoba's heritage is worth keeping and worth sharing.

Now as the next year unfolds, based on the decisions and the work that was done last year, I will have to determine whether or not there then needs to be any changes at this time. I understand that the Heritage Council has requested a meeting, and I believe that meeting is set up, and so I will be meeting with them fairly soon.

Ms. McGifford: Last year under Activity Identification, I read in the Estimates book that Historic Resources administers The Heritage Resources Act. This year the language, the rubric sets standards and delivers programs in accordance with The Heritage Resources Act. I want to know if this is just a change in language or if there is--I should not say just a change in language, that does not really do justice to language--is it a change in language? If not, if it is a very substantive change, I wonder what that change is.

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly there still is an administration of The Heritage Resources Act, the need to implement the act and the need to enforce the act, but the changes that the member notes in terms of the Activity Identification in this year's Estimates book show a focus on working with communities and working with community development and assisting communities as they set up their own heritage group.

I am informed that there are 42 community heritage groups at the moment. So the change in wording reflects the focus, no diminution of responsibility, but an additional focus now on working with communities.

Ms. McGifford: Does the department of Historic Resources continue to provide technical advice to the owners of provincial and municipally designated buildings?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes. I am informed the answer is yes.

Ms. McGifford: I cannot see that in the Activity Identification or is it--maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand the intention, when we put this Estimates book forward, was to have the last statement under Activity Identification, which reads, "Fosters the stewardship of Manitoba's heritage treasures by present and future generations," reflect that activity.

Ms. McGifford: So the minister does not think it is important or necessary to be more specific and definitely, say, use the term "technical restoration." I realize there has been quite a revamping of the whole description of what the department does, so perhaps this is in an attempt to generally focus more and be briefer and perhaps clearer for that reason. Maybe the minister would like to respond.

* (1450)

Mrs. Vodrey: I probably should have just waited another moment in answering the last question to also point the member to the third statement under Expected Results, which may be a little bit more specific to her original question, of assisting heritage building or site owners, organizations and communities to take responsibility for stewardship of their heritage resources, that reflecting the assistance provided by the department.

Ms. McGifford: Thank you for pointing that out to me. Now, I have a question under Grant Assistance, because in this current Estimates book, the blue one, the 1997-98 Departmental Expenditure Estimates, under Grant Assistance it says that in 1996-97, $247,400 went to Museum Grants and $465,000 to Community Heritage Grants, but when I checked with my book from last year, in fact I saw different figures, although I believe they tally up to the same. It had in last year's book, Museum Grants in my book, last year's book, were $225,800 and Community Heritage Grants $486,600. I do not quite understand the discrepancy.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that in the past in the print the grant to the Dugald Museum used to be reflected in the Community Heritage Grants line. That dollar amount is now reflected in the Museums Grants line. There is no change in the amount of funding, so that would explain the difference in the lines.

Ms. McGifford: Yes, I noticed that there was no change and I just wondered what had happened there.

I wonder if I could have a list of grants given to community museums and the Community Heritage Grants for whatever year we are up to. I guess we have not made decisions for '97-98 yet or have those decisions been made?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that we have the grants to March '97, and I am prepared to provide that to the member.

Ms. McGifford: I understand that The Heritage Resources Act created the Manitoba Heritage Council and that the Historic Resources branch provides administrative assistance to the Manitoba Heritage Council. Is that correct?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, Donna Dul, who is currently the director of the Historic Resources branch, acts as secretary to the Heritage Council. In addition, we have approximately $6,000 of expenses which are drawn from our operating line.

Ms. McGifford: I am assuming that heritage councillors are appointed by the minister and the chair is appointed by the minister. Is that true?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, that is correct.

Ms. McGifford: I am assuming then the minister takes into consideration the expertise that is required to do that work, and that is the way in which councillors are ultimately determined or is there any public input into the process or how is it done?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, the minister does make the appointments and in looking at what is required, I understand the need for heritage expertise. Ministers have acknowledged that. I understand, as well, many of the current council members have community volunteer experience. They also are trained or have academic background and expertise in areas of history, archeology, architecture, in particular, and there is an effort made to balance the membership on the committee recognizing its function.

Ms. McGifford: Could the minister tell me how long councillors are appointed for and how many councillors there are? Could I also have a list of the names of council members?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, a full-working council would be comprised of 22 members. There are some members which need to be appointed to the council, so I am looking to do that and have that accomplished.

In terms of the length of time of each of the appointments, I am aware that it is two or three years, and I will just have to confirm. Perhaps we can move into the next question, and I will confirm whether it is a two- or a three-year appointment.

Ms. McGifford: Well, the question was: Could I have a list of the current membership?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, there is no problem with that.

Ms. McGifford: I wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Manitoba Heritage Council for the forthcoming Manitoba Day heritage event which unfortunately was supposed to take place today, but it was cancelled due to the flood. I know members of our caucus look forward to participating in the event, and I think it is a wonderful idea so I wanted to just make that comment.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

14.2. Culture, Heritage and Recreation Programs (g) Historic Resources (l) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,117,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $339,700--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $692,400--pass.

14.2.(h) Recreation and Wellness Promotion (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $415,000.

Ms. McGifford: Last year there was a subdepartment entitled "Fitness" and this year it seems to have vanished. At least in my book, it has vanished. It must have vanished. Am I correct in my assumption that Fitness has been amalgamated then with Recreation and Wellness Promotion?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, this still exists as the Fitness Directorate, but contained within the budget lines of Recreation and Wellness Promotion.

Ms. McGifford: I guess I want to ask one more question about Fitness. Is this the program that did the evaluations of the MLAs' health and whatnot, if we chose to be so evaluated?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, that is correct.

Ms. McGifford: In 1995-96, the line for Northern Recreation Directors Project was $125,000; in 1996-97, the amount fell to $90,000; and this year the project has totally disappeared. I have a couple of questions here. First of all, if the Estimates in 1995-96 was $125,000, I wonder what was actually spent.

* (1500)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that all of the dollar amount was spent and now the training program has been devolved to Keewatin Community College, and they are now able to offer a certificate course for recreation directors as part of their regular curriculum.

Ms. McGifford: So it was a project more than a program that has been passed over to Keewatin Community College?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that it was a pilot project with the intention of devolving it and now that devolution is complete.

Ms. McGifford: When it was in the former stage, when it was a project, did individuals need to pay tuition fees to access that project? I am assuming they would need to with the community college.

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that in the pilot program phase individuals were not paying a tuition fee. I am informed now that often it is the sponsoring organization who will pay a tuition fee for the person's participation in the certificate program.

Ms. McGifford: So a sponsoring individual--could the minister explain to me what she means by that phrase?

Mrs. Vodrey: I was wondering if we had an example, but I think in a general way it might be the Northern Affairs community or it might be a specific band who would be sponsoring an individual to go through the certification process.

Ms. McGifford: The minister seems to be implying--and maybe I am putting words in her mouth--that, despite the fact that the project has been moved into Keewatin Community College where a tuition is paid, accessibility is not an issue.

Mrs. Vodrey: I can provide for the member the information that I have received which suggests that it does not appear to be an issue. In fact, as the program was set up, it has now moved in the direction that it was understood to be moving.

Ms. McGifford: It would seem to me that training recreation directors in the North is extremely important work because of the fact that we hear over and over again that there is not much to do in some of the northern communities and directing energy into recreation seems to be a very healthy way to direct energies. It seems to be a very proactive kind of project, so I certainly hope that the inclusion of a tuition fee is not decreasing accessibility to the work of that project. I wonder if there is any information on numbers. I do not know how many persons would formally graduate from the project in a year as compared to what has happened since the program has been transferred.

Mrs. Vodrey: While we are attempting to find the numbers, I will just make a couple of comments to the member's comments about northern recreation. I would also say that it, I think, is a very important part of community functioning in all areas, but there are certainly some very important effects that have been shown in terms of recreation in northern communities. I understand that the number of graduates who will be graduating this spring is five. I am also informed that there is a full intake for this September '97. I understand that the number is in the range of 12 or more, and now that it is being administered by Keewatin Community College, people actually come out with college certification.

Ms. McGifford: I still wonder how many students graduated before this program became part of Keewatin Community College.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that at the previous graduation there were 19 who graduated. I understand that in this case there was an intake of approximately 12 with a graduation of five, so there is an attrition rate while people become settled with the program. I certainly would be hopeful that in the next intake, which is this September, that there will be a very low attrition rate, but sometimes it is always hard to tell with family matters and other issues that pull people away from the completion of a course in a sequential manner. However, I will certainly be watching that program.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, with a fall from 19 graduates to five, it is pretty hard for me to believe that the implementation of a fee has not made the program less attractive than it formerly was. I mean, this is a decrease of some 400 percent. It just seems to me it has to have made a difference.

Mrs. Vodrey: I would not want to oversimplify the number of graduates by simply reflecting on a fee, a tuition fee which is required to receive certification in most areas, and this one is no different from others if this is to be viewed in such a professional way.

Now, the member draws a comparison between the 19 who graduated and the five, but the intake was smaller. The intake was 12 or so, which I gave her in my previous answer. The intake being smaller does not necessarily reflect the fees either. The member could draw a simple conclusion that that might be one of the reasons, but there could be many others in terms of interest in the community. There are varying numbers of people who apply for entry in a number of areas, and we will be talking about other programs, I believe, in the Status of Women in terms of where the numbers of entrants vary. It is not necessarily because there is a fee charged in terms of the numbers who actually graduate. I know the member knows that there is also an attrition rate which occurs, to my knowledge as a former Minister of Education, in most faculties in most areas of study.

* (1510)

I believe the point that she is making is to say that this program is an important one and needs to be monitored for its effectiveness. I understand that we, as a department, have kept the research and evaluation functions of the program. So, in keeping the research and evaluation of the program, then I think it will be very important for us to watch and see--does this program have a reasonable uptake, is the attrition rate similar to other programs or is it higher for some reason--and therefore to evaluate. So, to the member, in our discussion, I want her to know that the point is not lost. However, I do not think that we can simply draw the line between whether or not the pilot project versus the program which was always intended, to my knowledge, to become a part of the regular program offering of Keewatin Community College, that the imposition of a fee is in fact the reason for a lower intake because I think that is a very simplistic way to look at it.

I understand as well that there were communities who were involved in the pilot project. Those communities have been served very well, and so now communities have to decide what further uptake they will have. Other communities have to decide. So we have a group of communities who are part of a pilot project from which there were some graduates, 19 graduates, I understand. Other communities now have to make a determination as to whether or not this is a priority for their communities as well.

So I would, in our discussion, say that I think it is very important that we maintain a watchful eye on the evaluation of the program, because I do think that the service rendered by graduates is important.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could tell me what the fee is to take the program at Keewatin Community College.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am sorry. I do not have that information. I will be happy to get it for the member.

Ms. McGifford: I think I disagree with the minister. The minister commented that this situation was no different from any other situation and that most programs, nearly all programs, required a student to pay tuition and undertake a course of study and then graduate. But I think that it is different in that, just in the way that northern Manitoba is different from many other Manitoba communities in that the resources in northern Manitoba are often extremely limited. So I do not think that I am being simplistic. I think it only makes good sense to consider that a tuition fee may well discourage students from enrolling or even bands from being able to enroll.

I know the minister also deprecated my observation that 19 graduated previously, and in the spring of 1997 there will be five graduates, by talking about attrition. But I am assuming that the year 19 graduated there was also an attrition rate and some students were lost. So, if we are going to be logical, we have to apply the same arguments to the same years. It seems to me that the simple truth is levying this tuition fee--and I am not even arguing that it should not be there. I am saying that it has made a difference in the number of persons who graduate from that program.

Mrs. Vodrey: I think the member is perhaps a little sensitive in her use of deprecation. We are discussing an issue, and it is obvious that we have differing opinions on the issue. I think the member is aware of test groups, when people begin something and all attention is focused on them, that perhaps the attrition rate is not necessarily as great when you are the first or you are the focus. When the program then moved into a regular program methodology, there has been some attrition, and I think the attrition rate is important to discuss because there is a fact. I am informed that there was also quite a high attrition rate in the New Careers program when that was offered through Keewatin Community College. So this is an issue.

You know, Mr. Chair, I want to say that I do not minimize the issue of attrition, because I do know for Keewatin Community College that when people attend there they do have to leave their home communities. That is one of the major issues of educational issues in the North, and I remember considering it very carefully in terms of how to assist people within their communities. I am also not attempting to rely on it. I use it as one explanation in terms of the numbers. But, when we have an intake of approximately the same again this fall as that class, then I think that part of our role in terms of evaluation is, one, to look at it, and if there is some way that we can improve an attrition rate, then I think we need to try and do that as well.

If we have a low uptake, then I think we need to look at that also to say, has there been some kind of a deterrent? But I do not think that we are at that point yet, although I think our discussion today has been one which certainly points out an important issue, because we think that the graduates are important to the communities.

Ms. McGifford: Far from being sensitive, I am merely looking for logical and intellectual consistency in what works in one situation also applies to another. So if there was attrition in one situation, then presumably there was in another. However, I think I have made my point, so perhaps we could move on.

I understand that Recreation is the branch that is involved in the Child and Youth Secretariat.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Chairperson, in the Chair)

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could tell me then how Recreation has worked with the Child and Youth Secretariat. Have there been financial commitments? Does the department have staffing commitments, and specifically, what work has been done?

Mrs. Vodrey: From the Recreation side, we have had a commitment to the Child and Youth Secretariat. I am informed of one-half a staff year. We have not committed financially. We have not put in a contribution financially towards projects to this time. However, there, I believe, will be some projects announced in the near future in which we will be making a financial contribution.

The staffperson has concentrated most efforts in the area of concerns around juvenile prostitution, emotional behavioural disorders, juvenile sex offenders, and youth street gangs. So youth at risk has been an area of concentration for the Recreation side.

Ms. McGifford: Actually I do not have any more questions on this.

* (1520)

Mr. Chairperson: 14.2. Culture, Heritage and Recreation Programs (h) Recreation and Wellness Promotion (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $415,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $217,500--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $665,700--pass.

14.2. (j) Regional Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $921,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $303,300--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $35,100--pass.

Resolution 14.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $29,838,700 for Culture, Heritage and Recreation Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Mrs. Vodrey: In the organization of the Estimates book I know that we move on to 14.3 Information Resources, but I wondered if my colleague would be willing to consider instead line 14.5 next and then revert to 14.3. If we could move to 14.5 now which is the line dealing with capital appropriations, I currently have the staff with me who may be able to assist in providing information. So I wondered if there would be agreement to do that.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there agreement of the committee to move over to line 14.5? [agreed]

So we will move now on to 14.5.

14.5. Expenditures Related to Capital - Grant Assistance (a) Cultural Organizations $3,752,800.

Ms. McGifford: I have a few questions here, and perhaps I will just start asking them.

Could the minister tell me why the grants to cultural organizations have increased? Is there a particular project which accounts for the increase? Is there are particular project?

Mrs. Vodrey: The increase, I understand, is the $525,700, which is included in the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote under the General Agreement on the Promotion of Official Languages. In short, it is for the Centre du Patrimoine.

Ms. McGifford: Then I misread that, because I thought that sum was to be added to what was already in there. So the minister has cleared that matter up for me.

I notice the Heritage Buildings grants have decreased by 16.5 percent. I wonder how it has been determined, or if it has been determined, that heritage buildings are 16.5 percent less important than they were last year.

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that over the years this fund has made really considerable progress towards the restoration of historically designated properties, and the reduced level will sustain the initiatives. Clients also can reapply for phase stages of restoration at this point as well.

Ms. McGifford: So the minister is saying most of our heritage buildings are in very good shape and we do not really need the same kind of money as was available last year or perhaps the year before even.

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I did not say that everything was complete, and it would be wrong to think that was what I had intended as well. What I did say was, over the years the fund has made some considerable progress. There will always be requests. There will always be, I am sure, even more requests than the dollar amounts could actually meet in each year. However, I do understand that the level that has been put forward this year will sustain a number of initiatives which have been put forward, initiatives which may be seen by the community in fact as priority initiatives, and that there is still a commitment by this government in this area to assist heritage buildings

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many requests were received last year and, if any, how many were turned down.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, we do not have that list with us, but the point is one in which I made in my last answer. I believe, though I could be corrected, that in fact there were probably more requests even than the dollar amount that has been available, but the decisions are made based on the priorities which are put forward, and there has been a recognition of some work being done. So as this government has looked at developing priorities, I am very pleased at how they have been able to maintain this grants program, and I understand that in maintaining it, we look to be able to assist in the heritage buildings area, relating to capital, the priority requests that will come again.

Ms. McGifford: Is it the Heritage Grants Advisory Council that makes decisions about these grants, who gets them and who does not?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the answer is, no, they are not recommendations that come from that group. They are, instead, recommendations which come through the department, and the applications are evaluated according to a point system and then recommendations are received through the department.

Ms. McGifford: Could the minister explain to me what branch or division or part of the department she was referring to?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, it is the Historic Resources branch.

Ms. McGifford: In one of her answers the minister said that priorities were created. So it is the Historic Resources branch that creates the priorities.

* (1530)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand that there are eligibility criteria, and the eligibility criteria are that the building must be a provincially or municipally designated heritage building of a particular architectural or engineering merit and of historical significance. The applicant must be the owner of the building, or the applicant must be the holder of a long-term lease--that being at least a minimum of 10 years beyond the date of the application to this program--and the applicant must provide long-term maintenance to the designated historical site. Then with that eligibility criteria, I am informed that there is a point system, and through that point system, the priorities are recommended.

Ms. McGifford: Well, clearly then, the priorities do not change from year to year. It is not as though one year the priority is saving or providing funds for urban houses and the next year it is for something else. There seem to be some quite fixed criteria.

I understand then that the Historic Resources branch, if I might ask this question at this point, makes decisions about community museums grants, community heritage grants and heritage buildings. I am wondering why the Heritage Buildings line is here then and not in the Historic Resources. I realize this is kind of a housekeeping question, but sometimes I find the Estimates books quite confusing, and this is one of them.

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that it is the provincial accounting policy to show capital in a separate area.

Ms. McGifford: If a place like Eaton's store were looking for money to restore it, would this be the area or be the place that it would apply for a grant? I am not doing this work on behalf of Eaton's. I am just curious.

Mrs. Vodrey: The building would need to apply for a heritage designation, either under the city or the province. Then, depending on which it received its designation from, they would be eligible then to apply for a grant. I understand that the grant is a little bit more if it is a provincially designated building than if it is a municipally designated building.

Ms. McGifford: Can a building be both provincially and municipally designated and be eligible for funds from both?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, it cannot.

Ms. McGifford: I have a few questions about the Community Places Program, which of course is a program near and dear to the hearts of New Democrats, since I believe it was first announced by a New Democratic government in the 1986 throne speech.

Are there one or two intakes for applications for this program?

Mrs. Vodrey: There is one intake for this program.

Ms. McGifford: So all decisions about monies are made at the same time, and could the minister tell me when that intake is, please?

Mrs. Vodrey: The deadline for the application submissions was May 2, but for areas where they were affected by the flood or where community members were busy fighting the flood and were unable to get the application complete in terms of certain details, then there has been an extension for those applications on a case-by-case basis depending upon the needs in their community.

Ms. McGifford: I understand that formerly the maximum grant was $75,000 and that the maximum grant at sometime fell to $50,000. Is my understanding correct, and if it is, when did it change, and I suppose, why did it change? Indeed, why did it change?

Mrs. Vodrey: The member is correct that there has been a change in the maximum level. The maximum level now for a grant is $50,000. I am informed that the change occurred approximately four years ago, and I understand that it was in an effort to provide perhaps more opportunities for people. If the grant was slightly less, there may be in fact some additional applications which might be funded.

Ms. McGifford: So the minister was striving for more equitable distribution, or this may have been one of the reasons behind the decision, I gather. This is a matching grant program.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it is a matching program.

Ms. McGifford: From some analysis that our caucus staff did, we found that from the 1995-96 list of recipients that 70 percent of the grants went to constituencies held by Conservative members and that 75 percent of the money granted went to constituencies in which Conservatives were the MLAs. I find these numbers very interesting. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on it or indeed if she would like to account for it.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am sure that the NDP staff did their best in terms of trying to determine what the allocations are. My understanding is that, first of all, members and community groups need to know about the Community Places grant, and so it does require members in particular, all of us as members, to make sure that our communities know about the grants and also what may qualify. I understand as well that the department certainly works very hard with all applicants in terms of trying to assist them in developing their applications wherever they need assistance.

So in the first instance, I would say that communities need to be made aware, and members. If the member has a concern about it, members on the other side, if there is any information that can be provided to them that would be helpful to them, I would be more than happy to make sure that they receive it. But that seems to be the first step.

Ms. McGifford: Well, last year when I asked the then minister about this matter, he said that there was an attempt to spread grant money around the province and he said, and I am quoting him here: The folks that work in this area work with our regional offices throughout. I think it is the seven regions of the province evaluate and look at the needs.

Then he says later on: The staff and the Community Places offices go out and evaluate each and every application that comes in. They like to look at all the projects and see what community funding is available and whether the project meets the criteria. Of course, they like to do that.

He certainly gave the impression that there was an effort to distribute monies equally throughout the province. It would seem to me that he also gave the impression and took responsibility for his ministry to inform people about the availability of Community Places grants. After all, he was the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship for the entire province, not just for the 31 Tory ridings, and so it of course would be his duty to keep everybody informed, and yet the statistics show 75 percent of Community Places grants, 75 percent of the total dollars went to Conservative constituencies.

* (1540)

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, first of all, I would say that the member does seem to have a very good idea of what my department can do to assist communities, and I believe that they do that, that our regional services do provide assistance, that there is the effort to go out and assist and assess communities. But, when the member brings a political question to this Chamber, such as more went to Conservative ridings, in her estimation, than others, then the answer is also one which says then perhaps there needs to be some effort on the part of local members or those who are assisting to also make sure that, if there is a program or project or an initiative in their community that they would like to have assessed, then there be some effort to help the community put that forward.

That is in no way diminishing the responsibility of the department to assist. The department is available to assist and will; and, to my knowledge, in the short time that I have been in this portfolio, it certainly does. But, when the question is a political one, suggesting political, then I think that we cannot avoid, on the other hand, the need and the effort of all of us in this Chamber as well to assist in our communities.

Ms. McGifford: Last year when I phoned the Community Places office to get an application for my community centre I was told the application was changing, and I have never heard back from Community Places until this day. I mean, I have not still heard on this day. So my effort to find out things certainly did not work.

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I have to say that is a first that I have heard of that difficulty the member had, so I am glad she raised it. I wish she had raised it before now even. There are many opportunities for us to talk on these matters, and if there is an operational matter that I should be made aware of, then I am always glad to know and will make every effort to see what the member needs or any person, if I received a concern about the department, to make sure that in fact that was passed along and corrected. So, for the member opposite, I will make sure that she does receive a phone call with applications or whatever she would like to have, and I will endeavour to have an explanation provided as well.

The only way you can do things better is if somebody tells you what you need to do. So, if you had a concern about that, I certainly would have been glad to have known about it even before today, because the problem is today, the deadline has passed.

Ms. McGifford: I have my individual concern, but the concern that has led to the questions that I have been asking was not peculiar to me, it was the statistics that I quoted .

I wonder if the minister could tell me exactly who makes decisions on who gets grants, and if there is an appeal process.

Mrs. Vodrey: The decisions are made by government on recommendation of the staff, and in looking at the applications, staff for Community Places make a determination based on merit. They look at the need for the facility within the community or the assistance to the facility. They look at the degree to which funding is in place, or if there is something still outstanding that is required. They look to provide technical assistance which may be required.

For instance, the example that I have been informed of is a day care example in which case we will ask for assistance from the day care people to provide technical assessment. Also the staff look at the ability of the community to actually sustain the operating of the facility. Our regional staff provide the assistance, particularly with the assessment of the projects.

In terms of an appeal, I understand that there is not a formal appeal process. However, where there is an appeal, they are certainly considered one by one, or one at a time, for appeal.

Ms. McGifford: Last year I asked the minister for a list of grants approved for '95-96, that is to say, in '96-97, for the Estimates for '96-97, I asked him for a list of the previous year's grants. I did receive a list on May 14.

Now on a list dated May 14, 1996, I got a list of the '95-96 grants. Now the budget estimate for '95-96 for Community Places I understand was $3.5 million, and I understand from the annual report that the actual money in grants was $2,707,000 and a little bit, and yet the grant that the minister sent me lists the total grants as $1,755,081. So I am confused by the disparity between these three figures.

Mrs. Vodrey: The staff and I were having a little difficulty attempting to help the member in terms of the reconciliation of those three figures. However, I can tell her that in the Estimates, the Estimates reflect what is cash paid out from projects of previous years plus our estimate of what will be required to be flowed this year.

So, if the member would like, we would be more than happy to sit down with her and look at that really quite technical question. It is a little bit hard across the floor for us. We do not all have the same books that she is referring to, so I make that offer and I will see if it is suitable to the member.

* (1550)

Ms. McGifford: I would certainly like to accept the minister's offer.

I understand that Community Places is a lottery-funded program, and we know that lottery funds have increased dramatically since 1988, and we notice that grants to Community Places have not. I think that at one point the Community Places Program gave away as much as $10 million. It is now down to $2.5 million, and I wonder if the minister expects this program to continue to decline. Is there a plan to phase it out? Is there a policy?

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand now and would tell the member that all the Lotteries revenue generated flows now into the general revenue of the department, so that this program is not directly funded from a Lotteries funding line, and that then those dollars have to be weighed against all the priorities of government including priorities of health care and education and services to families.

In terms of our commitment to the program, the member asks if it is being phased out. To my knowledge there is not a plan to do that, certainly at this point.

Ms. McGifford: I have no more questions.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay. 14.5. Expenditures Related to Capital - Grant Assistance (a) Cultural Organization $3,752,800--pass; (b) Heritage Buildings $300,000--pass; (c) Community Places Program $2,525,000--pass.

Resolution 14.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6,577,800 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Expenditures Related to Capital - Grant Assistance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day March, 1998.

We shall now revert to Resolution 14.3. Information Resources (a) Client Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,965,800.

Is the minister bringing in some new staff? We will just take a couple of minutes for the new staff to get here.

Mrs. Vodrey: I would just like to take a moment to introduce the staff who have joined me at the table. I would like to introduce Cindy Stevens, who is the acting executive director of the Information Resources Division; and Mr. Mike Baudic, who is the business manager, Information Resources Division.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I just have a very few questions on this division, time being of the essence. I wanted to ask the minister if it would be accurate to say that more than other branches of Information Resources, Client Services works more exclusively for the government in power.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I do not think that would be an accurate characterization. Client Services works for all of the departments of government in an effort to provide information to the people of Manitoba about those services.

Ms. McGifford: But Client Services, my understanding is that Client Services does a lot of specific work for the government in power as far as writing speeches, news releases, et cetera. Is that true?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, well, I think we really need to draw the distinction between a political speech and a speech which is written about the department, about the initiative. The press releases are departmental press releases. They are not political press releases. It is information which is developed for the department, being the client, regarding services or initiatives which is then delivered to the people of Manitoba.

Ms. McGifford: So then I understand the minister to say that Client Services provides informational and descriptive kinds of materials and speeches, et cetera, but these speeches are not political in nature at all. Having said that, I think that all speeches are ultimately political, so maybe I should say overtly political.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, they are not the political speeches.

Ms. McGifford: Are all employees in Client Services hired through the Civil Service Commission?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the answer is yes.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I see from the chart on page 5 in the Estimates book, that the acting head of the Information Resources Division is, indeed, Cindy Stevens, who is with us, and that her immediate superior is the deputy minister. I wonder if Cindy Stevens reports to anyone else other than the deputy minister; that is to say, does she, or indeed does anyone from Client Services, have a regular reporting relationship with any of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) personal advisors or staff, for example?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there is not a reporting relationship to the Premier's staff.

Ms. McGifford: Is there a regular relationship?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there would be a working relationship where the Client Services is working setting up a news conference, for instance.

Ms. McGifford: Sorry, Mr. Chair, because of the information aspect that we have already discussed.

Mrs. Vodrey: The answer is yes.

Ms. McGifford: Are news releases, advertising materials or public information initiatives vetted through the Premier's Office ever?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand only news releases which are involving a ministerial announcement.

Ms. McGifford: So that the relationship between the Premier's Office or indeed the office of any minister and Client Services is an exchange of information and not an overseeing or reporting kind of relationship?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the answer is yes.

* (1600)

Ms. McGifford: Is there any relationship between Client Services and Barbara Biggar?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that her business is one of approximately 400 registered suppliers on a registered suppliers' list.

Ms. McGifford: Could the minister tell me, please, what a registered supplier is?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that it is any business registered to do consulting. It might involve printers, graphic designers, writers, a range of skills.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, can I ask how much money was paid to Ms. Biggar's company last year by Client Services?

Mrs. Vodrey: There was none paid by Client Services. So the member would have to go through other departments if she was looking for that.

Ms. McGifford: Could the minister tell me, please, who is responsible for the accuracy of news releases? Is it the minister who releases a document or Client Services who might write it?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that it is a joint process between Client Services and the departments to ensure that the information is accurate and correct.

Ms. McGifford: So nobody is ultimately responsible for the accuracy. It is neither Client Services nor the minister's office.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, this is a question that, I think in an effort to be fair with an answer that is going to be in Hansard, I am trying to find the correct way to talk about, because obviously a department would be responsible for providing the correct information for Client Services being able to communicate that. The question is, ultimately, who would be responsible. Well, it is difficult. It would be a department. However, Client Services also would have to take some responsibility for something which was in any way incorrect.

Ms. McGifford: I wanted to take this opportunity to both thank and congratulate the Legislative Library and their staff. I think both the reading room staff here and the staff on Vaughan Street are excellent people and provide excellent services. I certainly found them to be committed above and beyond the call of duty and to have remarkable skills in chasing down materials and getting these to the various MLAs, usually very expeditiously, often under great pressure. So I wanted to thank them on the record for the fine work they are doing, and the assistance they provide us in understanding our work and in adopting positions on various issues. So thank you.

Mrs. Vodrey: I appreciate those comments on behalf of the staff. Certainly that has been my experience, too, and now, as minister, I am very pleased to pass on those comments.

Mr. Chairperson: 14.3. Information Resources (a) Client Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,965,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $301,000--pass; (3) Public Sector Advertising $2,384,100--pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($2,768,500)--pass.

14.3. (b) Business Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $919,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $882,000--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($260,300)--pass.

14.3.(c) Translation Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $962,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $396,600--pass.

14.3.(d) Provincial Archives (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,692,900.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, earlier, much earlier I asked the minister about measures to enhance and co-ordinate services and training with regard to FOI work as was set out, I believe, in a letter from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to deputy ministers. The minister at that time asked me to ask under Section 14.3.(d), and so I want to bring that matter up again.

Mrs. Vodrey: I would like to take a moment to introduce Sue Bishop, who is the executive director of the Provincial Services Division. In answer to the member's question, I understand that responding to requests for advice on FOI and records management practices with support access certainly is a normal part of the work of this unit. There is a steady demand for consultation, and I am informed that in 1996-97 government records staff responded to 2,549 calls for advice or information.

In addition to this normal service, the staff held two informational sessions for access co-ordinators and officers. On June 25, approximately 35 government staff gathered to share experiences and learning relating to their FOI duties. In addition, government records staff used the opportunity to brief participants on the discussion paper Access to Information and Privacy Protection for Manitoba, which had been circulated to departments. There was a brief discussion of fair information practices, which are the fundamental basis of the modern privacy legislation. A further session was held on October 2 attended by approximately 50 staff. At this time oral presentations were made, which provided historical and international context for privacy legislation, also reviewed again fair information practices, discussed features of recent legislation from other provinces, and also assisted or alerted participants to the future need to be able to identify the types of personal information which are held in departments.

Ms. McGifford: So then, Mr. Chair, it would seem to me that these workshops were held in the spirit of professional development and education.

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that could be a fair characterization.

Ms. McGifford: Will similar workshops be conducted in the future? Is this going to be an annual sort of event ?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand that it will certainly be annual and as needed if more is needed, particularly in relation to the new legislation, which will be introduced in the House this session.

Ms. McGifford: I have no more questions. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for her co-operation. I look forward to meeting with her and her staff regarding the matter that we discussed earlier and, well, I look forward to our next Estimates.

Mrs. Vodrey: I will just take one moment as well, Mr. Chair. As I said at the outset, there are many issues which relate to policy and so on which I will be working on over the next year, and I have appreciated the member's co-operation in terms of some of the detail which we have had to retrieve. I will certainly follow up on that meeting in which I made the offer to deal with the rationalization of the three lines, and thank her for her patience in this Estimates process.

* (1610)

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass--pass; 3.Information Resources (d) Provincial Archives (2) Other Expenditures $1,451,400--pass.

14.3.(e) Legislative Library (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $680,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $598,100--pass.

This concludes this aspect of it. We will now revert to resolution--oh no, I am sorry.

Resolution 14.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $9,205,900 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Information Resources, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

We will now revert to 14.1 (a) Minister's Salary $25,700--pass.

Resolution 14.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,284,700 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

This concludes the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess or go directly into the next department?

The committee recessed at 4:11 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:21 p.m.