The Acting Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. The Committee of Supply has before it for our consideration the motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I would like to ask a series of questions to the Minister of Energy and Mines. I would like to begin with obtaining some more information as to the recent document that I received pertaining to the locations of mine sites in Manitoba. The letter is dated July 12. First of all, I would like to ask the minister if he believes this is a comprehensive list of all mine sites in Manitoba?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Chair, the list and the map provided by the department was in response to questions asked during Estimates. If the honourable member for St. James is asking that I review it and double check with the department as to how comprehensive it is, I can only undertake to do so. They attempted, I would hope, using their sincere best efforts, to respond to the question that was posed during Estimates that they could not answer at that time, and if there are some specific questions that the honourable member for St. James has that she wants me to take back to validate, I would have no hesitation undertaking to do that.

Ms. Mihychuk: Thank you. One of the specific mines, for example, is Herb Lake, unless that mine had a different name that I am not aware of specifically, I do not see on the list, for example, and that is one that the minister knows that we talked about in Estimates and one that is actually being considered as a designated historic site.

So, in addition to Herb Lake, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) has indicated that he is also aware of numerous old mine sites, perhaps not huge in the scale of today's mining operations, but they were mine sites that are also not on the list, so I would ask the minister that perhaps more detail could be provided. The location of the mines is very, very vague. If you look at Chisel Lake, it says: in the Snow Lake area. Elora [phonetic] is at Rice Lake. Where precisely are those mine sites because, without that information, it would be very difficult to identify where those sites were, to ensure that they indeed were in an environmentally or a safety-issue condition for the public good, and so I would appreciate more detail and ensuring that that is a comprehensive list.

I would ask the minister if he has had an opportunity to look at the map that he provided me and would just like to comment that at this scale, it would seem to me to be fairly unreasonable to attempt to locate these old mines back from the thirties at a scale of one to a million, I believe this is, which was a whole provincial map and the dot is much bigger than a whole region when it comes to locating the mine, so it is not a very practical map.

* (1440)

It does show trends, and it shows the active mines clearly because they are also easier to spot, but, for instance, a very specific question, and I am sure that there is a logical reason, the nonoperational mines are in a gold colour and there is another category called nonoperational fenced. My eyesight as well as my hearing is not as good as it used to be, but this map I cannot differentiate between the two types of mines, which apparently is significant enough to have two categories. So this map is of little use. If we could have some greater detail and locations, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chair, I have no difficulty co-operating in an effort to satisfy her desire for more preciseness. Dealing with the first point, I think there is another name for the Herb Lake mine, but we will get that for you as well.

The issue about the size of the map, wanting it on a smaller scale map, I am sure that could be accommodated. It was probably done in anticipation that this is the kind of document you wanted for ready referral. But to the extent you want more precise locations and you want a more complete depiction of the history of mine sites, I will seek the co-operation of my department in doing that. I think it would be a useful document for a variety of different purposes, so I think it is a worthwhile use of departmental staff.

Ms. Mihychuk: I want to thank the minister for his co-operation.

I have one additional set of questions to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro who is the Minister of Energy and Mines. My question to the minister: is he aware that an individual known as Cubby Barrett has received three-phase service to his pig barn facility at Fisher Branch at no charge?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chair, I some time ago received information which was designed to respond to that rumour, and my recollection is that there was a corporation, no personal ownership by anyone, but there was a corporation involved in exercising its rights, like all Manitobans, in relation to the application of a policy of Manitoba Hydro.

I examined the report from Manitoba Hydro about that and was satisfied that what was done was entirely in accordance with a normal situation, a normal application of the policy in relation to a commercial enterprise by a corporation in the province.

Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister clarify, is it not the case that Manitoba Hydro will provide the service at no charge for facilities that are within two miles from the power source and, in fact, that this location exceeded five miles? Is that correct?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chair, I do not have the detail on this, so I am not able to respond to that very specific question. I can undertake to provide that information and, in fact, provide the briefing note that I received from Hydro to the member.

Ms. Mihychuk: Would the minister review the situation, and if, in fact, the information that an individual, Cubby Barrett, who is involved in a corporation that is involved with a piggery in Fisher Branch, received three-phase service which can be fairly expensive service, if this corporation received this type of service and if it exceeds two miles and if, in fact, it was five miles away from the power source, will the minister conduct an investigation as to whether policy and protocol were followed or was there a breach?

Mr. Newman: In response to the rumour, I undertook that inquiry and received a briefing note response which confirmed the dealings with this particular corporation was in accordance with policy. As I have said, I will share that briefing note with the honourable member.

If the honourable member has questions arising out of that, that she wants to have third-party validation of, then that can be done, but let her satisfy herself in that way. Then I will co-operate in ensuring that the integrity of the application policy was followed by Hydro, as it must be. If it is not, the board of directors is accountable for that, and if the board of directors does not do something appropriate about it, then it is up to me to do something about it.

Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister indicate whether it would be considered normal to overestimate the distance by approximately three miles?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chair, I will get the briefing note and the details to the honourable member for St. James. Then the supplementary kinds of questions that are now being asked, which I am incapable of answering, I could be properly informed about and we could be dealing with facts not speculation.

Ms. Mihychuk: Would the Minister responsible for Hydro indicate how much this type of service would cost to cover a customer if they were to cover the expenses of obtaining three-phase service? I understand that indeed in some circumstances where those facilities are under two miles and where they see the customer as being a heavy user, and most three-phase service customers are, that sometimes the charges are waived.

It is also my understanding that this facility was well beyond the two miles, in fact, was over five miles. It is very difficult to understand how that type of error could be made. Indeed, that is a lot of poles or line to run. I would ask the minister to investigate how such a mistake could have been made, or if, in fact, there have been any other applicants that have indeed received three-phase service that exceeded the four- or five-mile distance from the power source. I am not aware of that situation. It seems highly unusual that this individual who is involved with this corporation seems to have ties with the government and the government's party.

It does lead to the question, and I think the onus is on behalf of the minister, which he is assuring us to have the facts come out clearly because the integrity of the minister and Manitoba Hydro are somewhat in question when you look at what apparently has happened in this case in the Fisher Branch area. So my question is: will the minister provide this information, review whether this was an unusual circumstance? Were there other situations that received three-phase service at no charge at five miles? What would be the value of this type of service transaction?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chair, I am actually very pleased that the honourable member for St. James has brought a matter of rumour into this House so that her anxiety about whether there has been an impropriety or not can be dealt with. The approach that I will take is to very promptly share that information with the honourable member and invite her, if she has further questions or concerns to seek further additional information, we will co-operate fully in ensuring that the integrity of the policy process of Manitoba Hydro has been respected by Manitoba Hydro employees.

I thank the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) for bringing it into this forum, rather than contributing to rumours which caused some concern amongst the people who felt that they were being accused of an impropriety and wanted me to be in a position to deal with these malicious rumours in an appropriate, responsible way should the occasion arise.

So I am very pleased to co-operate in that way.

Mr. Chairperson: I am not sure if the member wants to be recognized or if she just wants to carry on a conversation. The honourable member for St. James, so we can have these words for the record.

* (1450)

Ms. Mihychuk: One final question, and this one I wanted to ask in my series of questions in the House today, but there were other individuals in our caucus so anxious to ask questions that I felt that I could present this to the minister at this time.

Can the minister update us as to what plans the government has to deal with the issue at Sherridon and the mine tailings which are leaching into the water system at Sherridon?

Mr. Newman: The up-to-date position on that, Mr. Chair, is, I said just stay tuned to the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) on this particular issue, because I know he did a personal visit up there, and that is in his constituency. He and the Mines critic, of course, are concerned to get some information before any election taking place. I am equally anxious to make sure that something is done about a situation that might have some potential environmental consequences and certainly economic consequences to tourism in the area, so I will give you the up-to-date report which is fairly fresh.

My department intends to seek approval for funding out of the Mining Reserve to advance with the necessary funding to prevent the kinds of risks which are the subject matter of the anxiety. We are dealing with this in an expeditious manner and seeking the views of the community itself as to whether or not they feel that would be an appropriate use of the Mining Reserve.

Since it has been done in the past and that has been the funding source in the past, we do not anticipate that being a difficulty. I would appreciate this being expedited by the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), endorsing that as a source of funding. If she does not, then it becomes a more problematical kind of issue. It would also be helpful if the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), through the honourable member for St. James, indicated his position on that particular matter, because if that is the position of the New Democratic Party through those representatives, I am sure that will make it easier to get the kind of timely support that is necessary for it. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Let me know when we get this out of our system and we will carry on.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I have just a couple of brief–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask honourable members to keep it down. There are some members who cannot hear quite clearly what is going on when there are different noises going on.

Mr. Sale: I just have a couple of questions for the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism in regard to questions that I have asked in Estimates and in the House on the Manitoba Capital Fund.

Would he simply confirm the existence of the agreement that the Province of Manitoba would underwrite the first $5 million of losses in the Manitoba Capital Fund, which was, I understand, part of the set-up agreement of Manitoba Capital Fund? At least, according to the Workers Compensation Board it was.

Hon. Mervin Tweed (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Chairman, I would refer the honourable member to the news release dated May 14, 1996, in which part of the release stated that, as an incentive to attract other capital, government funds will act as a loan loss reserve to help reduce the risk of other investors. It was announced that day, and certainly, as the opposite member implied yesterday, it was no secret that it was being done.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I have seen that. There was no statement in that press release, I believe, of the amount of the loan loss being $5 million. If the minister is confirming that it is up to $5 million or perhaps he would like to tell us if it is higher than that. Could he tell us what the loan loss ceiling was in the agreement?

Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, the risk pool capital was a $25-million fund in which the government entered into the agreement with a $5-million contribution. Again, I would suggest that is clear enough as far as what the statement says, that our investment would act as a loan loss reserve.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I understand the minister has confirmed that the loan loss provision was for the entire $5 million, about, as a presumable maximum.

Could the minister then tell us, tell the committee whether the province is entitled to recover that loan loss before the other partners are paid profits, or are the losses absolute and not recoverable by the province out of other profits, if there are any?

Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, as all capital risk funds, there are good investments and perhaps not-so-good investments, and at the end of the day, when the fund has run its course, the expectation is that the province will receive its full investment.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I do not believe the minister answered my question. I do not want to get into a debate with him. I am really seeking information at this point.

Is the province entitled to recover the losses that it suffered in Shamray and Rescom to the amount of $4.5 million out of the first gains to the fund, or are the profits distributed, the gains distributed according to a different formula in which all partners receive pro rata the gains but only one partner absorbs the first $5 million of losses. Could he simply clarify that?

Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, again, I would refer the honourable member to the news release quoted earlier, May 14, 1996. The third page states that the province expects to recover its initial investment at the end of the seven-year term through quarterly returns and a repayment formula at maturity.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I was unable to hear the last sentence the minister spoke. I just did not hear him. If he could repeat it, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Tweed: The announcement stated that the province expects to recover its initial investment at the end of the seven-year term through quarterly returns and a repayment formula at maturity.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I believe the minister has said then that the province is not entitled to recover losses up to $5 million but will share only in its pro rata share of any gains in the fund that take place. So the $5 million is an absolute loss. Would he confirm that?

Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, I will not confirm that. What I will confirm is at the end of the investment period, the seven-year period that the funding that is available at that time is scheduled to be repaid back to the province. It is set up on a formula of quarterly returns and a formula at maturity, and as I mentioned earlier yesterday, risk capital has the ability for tremendous growth and tremendous return, and when you look at a pool of money that is being used and being invested to entrepreneurs, the ability to overcome a loss in one area is made up in other investments in the fund. At the end of the fund we fully expect to be repaid.

* (1500)

Mr. Sale: The minister has the memo from the Workers Compensation Board. Are the percentages quoted in the Compensation Board's memo 6.6 percent to date and nine point something at maturity? Are these the figures that he is suggesting would be the formula that would result in a payout to the participants in the fund?

Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, although I do not have the exact details of what our return and what our payout is, he is correct in stating that the WCB has received a cash return at 6.29 on the investment, and all funds forecasted anticipate that the partners will receive a 9.67 target return on maturity date in 2003.

Mr. Sale: So, just then to conclude, Mr. Chairperson, I believe what the minister said is the following: that the province is liable for the first $5 million in losses and that these losses are not recoverable in any direct way before the gains of the fund are paid out pro rata to all of the partners; that, secondly, groups like the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce have been paid a 6.2 or thereabouts rate of return on their investment to date and expect to get a further return at the end of the day but have suffered no losses as a result of their participating in this Venture Capital Fund. I believe that is the essence of what he said.

Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, that is not exactly what I said. What I said was, when we entered into the risk capital fund the province's share of $5 million was to be set up so that it would be–and I will get the term right, the government funds will act as a loan loss reserve to help reduce the risk to other investors. What in general happens is that the other funds that have been invested in and the other businesses that have been invested in are showing a rate of return of which I expect the province to share in the annual rates of return on those investments and then receive its full return on its investment in the year 2003.

Mr. Sale: One question. Would the minister tell the House what the fair market value of Manitoba Capital Fund's investment portfolio was at the last audit or annual meeting date, the total portfolio invested to date? Could he give us that figure?

Mr. Tweed: I regret that I do not have that in front of me at this point in time, but I can tell you that capital funds vary basically from one day to the next as far as the value of the shares of the companies that it has invested in. It was recently told to me that as recently as about six weeks ago, the stocks in Bill Gates's company went from $30 million to $66 million in one day.

Mr. Sale: I am simply concluding again that the minister does not want to tell Manitobans what the fair value of the total investment in Manitoba Capital Fund is at the present time. I am not asking him to suggest that it does not change from day to day. I expect it would. I asked him for the fund value at the last audited statement, and he is refusing to give that information. One could only speculate that that might be because the information would be embarrassing in terms of the scale of the losses that the fund has sustained.

So I regret that lack of transparency, but I thank the minister for confirming that Manitobans lost $5 million as a result of the way in which this fund was set up.

Mr. Tweed: Disagreeing I guess with the comments of the member opposite, what I am hearing from Manitobans is that they are pleased that the province took the lead, went out and created the risk capital to enhance business opportunities and new business chances for our young people, jobs to keep people in Manitoba, to keep our families working at home.

I think if you go out and talk to any Manitoban, they would certainly agree that the province is doing very well economically and look forward to this government leading them into the future and the prosperity that goes with it. Thank you.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions of the Minister of Agriculture if I could.

One of the issues that I want to raise is the support that is being offered to farmers for unseeded acreage. I want to ask the minister whether there are any supports being offered to producers who have crop insurance, who seeded their crop because they were able to take part in the early seeding and then lost their crop because of rain. Are they entitled to any of that additional coverage that this government announced for unseeded acreage, or do they only get the coverage that was offered under the crop insurance that they purchased?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): In response to the honourable member for Swan River, I would have to indicate that those who did get their crops seeded are, of course, more fortunate than those who did not get their crops seeded, and they would be subject to only those benefits available to them from crop insurance. If the situation is where a farmer has unseeded acreage, those are the ones who are being contemplated for some special and specific support.

Ms. Wowchuk: I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to recognize that there is a group of farmers there who were able to seed, but because the weather changed to the extent that it did, their crops drowned out. So they will qualify for the crop insurance that they had, but they still have the same problems that the other farmers are having as far as cleaning up their land. So the other farmers are going to be able to get $50 an acre for crop that they did not seed, and it is much needed. I agree it is much needed, but there is a group of farmers who are caught in the middle. Because of their management plan, they took out crop insurance. Their crop drowned out, and they have not been able to seed again, but they are not going to be able to take advantage of the other programs.

I am wondering whether the minister recognizes this as a problem and whether Crop Insurance is looking at a way to deal with this in order to bring some fairness and equity to those people who are all suffering the same because of the heavy rainfall, but some took crop insurance and managed to seed but lost their crop anyway, and then I guess whether the same thing would apply to those who did not have crop insurance but seeded and lost their crop.

So they all still have the same problem of having to clean up those fields. Whether they seeded or they did not, if the crop got drowned out, they are basically in the same spot as those who did not seed, but they just happened to get some work done before the rain started but are now all caught in the same situation.

* (1510)

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the response to the honourable member has to be that we have a particular problem that involves, the exact number I do not know, but it could be as high as a million, a million-plus acres of unseeded land. On a lot of this land, those farmers have, I am told in 25-30 percent of the cases applied, maybe $15, $20, $30 worth of fertilizer on these same acres of land who now have no possibility, zero possibility, of getting any return. That is being recognized certainly by this government, by this minister, and to some extent by the federal government, although not to the full extent that I would appreciate. We are still working on that situation that needs to be addressed, the unseeded acres.

To the farmers who were able to seed within the seeding deadline date, and after all that is why we put in a special program to help that along with the $10 an acre custom seeding incentive, if you like, they then are eligible for crop insurance coverage. Depending on their coverage that they have selected, 60, 70, 80 percent will bring them up. I cannot be specific in a general cause, because each farmer has his own records but would bring them up into the area of anywhere from $120 to $160 an acre payout. Now that is still considerably different and better than the $50 that is being promised to those farmers who have unseeded acreage and cannot expect any returns. The short answer is I am aware that this year, because of the volatile weather situation she describes, it exists, but it is not being contemplated by myself or crop insurance to provide any special provision other than those who specifically will be eligible because of their unseeded acreage.

Ms. Wowchuk: I recognize what the minister is saying. I am just wanting the minister to be aware that there are a group of farmers in the southwest part of the province, some of whom were able to get some of their seeding done prior to the rain starting and now they are caught in the same situation and feel that there is a bit of unfairness. It will be something that will have to be addressed.

I guess, I would ask the minister whether there will be any long-term implications on the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation as a result of the programs that have been put in place for the unseeded acreage. Will there be any financial impact or will any of this money come from the Manitoba Crop Insurance or from the agriculture budgets? Are the funds that have been announced for unseeded acreage going to come from a different part of Treasury Board? Can the minister indicate where those funds are coming from?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I think the honourable member will concur, chosen the vehicle of the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation as being the appropriate agency that is best situated both in knowing the land that we are talking about, having over 12,000 clients, 85 percent of the land that we are talking about are clients of Manitoba Crop Insurance. So I am using Manitoba Crop Insurance as a vehicle to do the administration of any monies that were being paid out.

The seeded acreage reports are now in, which every farmer who has to file with Manitoba Crop Insurance. I expect very shortly, maybe, certainly by the middle of next week, to be able to for the first time put definitive numbers as to exactly how many unseeded acres there are. A farmer will fill out his report. If he normally farms 1,200 acres or 3,000 acres, and he will say: 500 I got seeded and 600 I did not get seeded. So we will get accurate data.

It is not contemplated to be using Manitoba Crop Insurance monies for these payouts. They will be the agency that will be handling it. The first $25 of the $50 that my government has committed to support, I am hoping, and that is still a little murky, to come out of the AIDA program, again, and without penalty to those who may or may not qualify for a payout under AIDA. If I may, just as an example, if a farmer has 600 acres that he could not seed, at $25 an acre would be a $15,000 payout. Let us assume, for a moment, that under the AIDA program, he would qualify for a $22,000 level of support. Well, he would get the $15,000 acreage payment, and then in the final configuration of his AIDA program application, he would get an additional $7,000 to bring him up to it. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I have permission to introduce a private member's bill. I just read one that was attempted in Georgia.

An Honourable Member: Pass.

Mr. Enns: Pardon?

An Honourable Member: Pass.

Mr. Enns: See, I am being–

Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Enns: Do I?

Mr. Chairperson: You might have to run it by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), though.

Mr. Enns: So the $25 will come through the AIDA program, and the other $25 is the one that I am in serious negotiations. We are hoping we can get it under the disaster national assistance act where we could get considerable federal sharing.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Mr. Chair, in just trying to manage critics' and ministerial responsibilities for this afternoon, because of a meeting that I know the Minister of Agriculture has, it is very important, in which I am also involved, and that the Attorney General has, I have spoken with critics, what we will do now with the kind permission of the committee is allow the Justice minister and the critic to have some time until 4 p.m., and the Minister of Agriculture will then return with the critic at 4 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, does that sound right? Did the minister want to conclude his answer?

An Honourable Member: He did.

Mr. Chairperson: The minister concluded his answer. Were you done, Harry?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Chairperson: I did not think so, see you at four o'clock. You can move your motion later.

An Honourable Member: I do have this little bill that I would like to introduce.

Mr. Chairperson: We will introduce that at four o'clock, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I have a series of questions for the minister in the area of Corrections. As the minister is aware, the previous minister had promised the immediate construction of an added building for inmates at Headingley in which the Honourable Ted Hughes emphasized should be opened at the earliest possible date and should get underway immediately. That promise was made almost three years ago, and with construction which I understand is just beginning now as an election is coming, can the minister explain the impact of this inexcusable delay on the record overcrowding that is now being experienced in Manitoba jails?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I think that is probably something better put to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura). The Minister of Government Services is responsible for the construction. I do have some very general information relating to a facility that is being built and the target date being open for the middle of July. So it should be any time now that a specific wing is being opened. But in respect of the larger increase in the beds, I understand that it is on schedule.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is not on schedule. It was promised for immediate construction in September three years ago, and then it was repromised in the subsequent budget. I asked the minister not about the delay per se, but rather what has been the impact of this delay on the overcrowding that is now being experienced in the jails?

Mr. Toews: I am not sure I heard the question. I think he indicated what has been the impact of the construction?

* (1520)

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns, to clarify the question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I asked what the impact of the delay in construction has had on this record overcrowding.

Mr. Toews: I guess there is a fundamental difference between the New Democrats, who want to see open-door prisons. The member for St. Johns has indicated to me a number of times he wants to see the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry implemented, which call for open-door jails in this province. I disagree with that. We have taken a very different approach to the whole area of corrections. Not only did we ensure that there are appropriate facilities being built but that there are medium-security facilities and high-security facilities being built in Headingley jail.

I know that, again, the member and his party oppose some of our policies in respect of bail. In respect of a particular incident, I know I read in the newspaper about one of his colleagues advocating for early parole for a convicted drug dealer and gang leader. I was very concerned that our Crown attorneys would spend time to convict an individual, to have the judge convict the individual, by working very rigorously, and members for his party advocating that these individuals should be released on early parole. So there is a fundamental difference between his party and our party in respect of issues of crime.

Now, we do understand that because of our policies in opposition to bail, that has, in fact, led to adjustments that have had to have been made in the facilities, including the construction of a facility that was targeted to be open at the middle of this month, on or about the middle of this month. I understand if it is not open yet, the opening is imminent. So we are working very diligently in order to ensure that we are meeting the needs that our policy, in fact, has dictated.

Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, if anyone should know about open-door policies at prisons, it has to be this government. As I recall, I think they waved goodbye to Robert Guiboche as he left the Remand Centre by mistake. As I recall, the findings of an independent party were that this government was responsible in no small way for the riot at Headingley. We all know about that.

Of course, recommendations made by the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in respect of facilities were made before this government allowed the rise of criminal street gangs in this province. Some of those recommendations are that, I think the one that the minister is trying to be cute about would of course no longer be applicable due to this government's negligence.

Now, of course, we also know about bail under this government. We know how this government has been so lax and dangerous in its bail policies, but what is happening at the Remand Centre attests to not how tough this government is on crime but how soft it is. The overcrowding attests to the fact that this government has been an absolute failure when it comes to dealing with gangs in particular and crime as it has worsened over the last number of years in this province.

My question is: can the minister, in any way, give any assurance, particularly to staff in Corrections, when there are reports that the Remand Centre, for example, we understand from reports, was holding as much as 348 or 349 inmates on Monday, which would be about 60 inmates too many, and considering such overcrowding that does not even count what I understand are about 100 inmates, and that was from a report back in February, that have been sentenced and are held at Stony Mountain, so what assurances can he give that this overcrowding is not going to endanger staff currently? Whether a new unit opens or not, my understanding is that unit is only designed to take 45 inmates, remand inmates, if there were 60 too many on Monday will not even be accommodated with the new facility.

Mr. Toews: I thank the member for the question. I note his concern. I want to assure him and the people of Manitoba that I am similarly concerned, first of all, that the safety of the public is assured. Again, as I indicate, there is a fundamental difference between our government and the opposition who want to see an open-door policy. The member has consistently asked me to implement those recommendations of the AJI and has consistently asked when those recommendations of the AJI will be implemented. I have indicated to him the open-door policy that he endorses and has endorsed in the past will not be implemented by this government.

We think that our bail policy is working. Now that the member sees that it is working, he says now we have too many people in our facilities. While I acknowledge that there are some additional concerns raised by the success of our policy in that respect, I know that the assistant deputy minister and his staff have been working very closely with staff and with the union to ensure that there are adequate levels of staffing and that our policy continues to be implemented. We certainly do not agree with the policy of the party opposite which would support the early release of convicted drug dealers and gang leaders to the extent that they would go to parole board hearings to support those kinds of things.

So, again, I note the concern raised. I share the concern in that we will work very diligently to ensure that the people of Manitoba are secure, and we will continue to oppose policies like the members opposite who think that people should get out on early parole, even though they are known drug dealers and indeed convicted drug dealers and gang leaders.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister's pathetic response, of course, is nothing but a figment of his imagination.

I think we have enough problems and concerns about public safety in this province without the minister being unable to not only come back with explanations but then to fabricate and make something up about a position of ours on open-door prisons, which is absolute nonsense of course and which he knows about.

I asked the minister what assurances can he give. What precautions are now in place to deal with the overcrowding, and how can the corrections system accommodate, for example, if there were any more sweeps in the next while or any large busts? The police have to continue to do their job. What precautions can he say he has put in place?

Mr. Toews: I will take that question as notice so that I can bring the relevant information to the House.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, you see, here is the minister going on with some political drivel, and then, when the question is posed, he cannot answer it. Surely he can tell Manitobans what precautions are now in place to ensure the safety, particularly of staff, given the current populations in our correctional facilities.

Mr. Toews: This is a member who basically slept through the Estimates and allowed the Liberals to ask all the questions when my staff was present beside me. When the assistant deputy minister was present beside me, he was asleep at the switch, and then was embarrassed because he wanted to bring a motion against my salary, and he missed it.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the minister has been caught with misleading statements in this House, and I think he should apologize for what he has just said. He knows that I think there were upwards of, what, 15-16 hours in Estimates, day after day, answers that he would not give, but he filibustered through the whole entire Estimates, making a mockery of that parliamentary institution and the value of it to Manitoba citizens.

I ask him to correct the record and not mislead the committee and Manitobans once again.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts.

An Honourable Member: On the same point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: No, the point of order has been dealt with, Mr. Minister. The honourable member, with his question. The member for St. Johns, you had a question?

Mr. Mackintosh: I asked the minister what precautions are now in place.

* (1530)

Mr. Chairperson: You were dealing with the point of order at the time. I said you did not have a point of order; it was a dispute over the facts. If you have a question for the minister, now would be the time to pose it.

Mr. Mackintosh: I said: what precautions are now in place to guard against threats to the safety, particularly of staff, given the current populations? It is a simple question. I think Manitobans, particularly staff, deserve an answer.

Mr. Toews: Well, the member knows that I do not have the information in front of me. He specifically waits until concurrence to ask very detailed, specific questions about an issue. He did not ask that question during the Estimates, when my assistant deputy minister for Corrections was beside me and could, in fact, have provided him with those answers.

But that is typical of his style of asking questions. He wants to only ask questions when he knows that the answers need to be taken as notice. So, therefore, Mr. Chair, I will take the question as notice, and I will respond to that in due course.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, since the minister confirmed he does not know the answer or cannot give any assurances, I will ask him a question that he did take as notice and, in fact, that was raised during Estimates and that he did not answer with all the staff sitting there. Would he tell the committee and Manitobans what is the amount of unpaid traffic fines in Manitoba?

Mr. Toews: I took that question as notice, and I have not had a response on that question. As soon as I have the exact information in front of me, I will provide it to the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is interesting to see the passage time since that question was asked. I think I last asked it actually when he had staff around him when he was introducing legislation to deal with unpaid fines. So there goes the minister's excuse about he needs staff around him to answer questions.

Is the minister aware of any concerns from staff in the correctional facilities about the lack of a career path, if you will, that is being assured for staff because of an increasing reliance on part-time correctional officers now?

Mr. Toews: I understand that, of course, we have hired many additional staff in order to ensure public safety, because I believe that if we have appropriate levels of staffing in our correctional institutions, not only is that better for the staff, but, indeed, it is better for public safety generally.

I know that from time to time there are always issues concerning advancement in the department, advancement in the career, and if there is any specific issue, rather than the general comment, perhaps I could address that.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I asked if the minister was aware of staff concerns about the proportion of part-time officers to full time. I also ask whether he has been briefed or is he aware of concerns from staff about any growing level or proportion of officers who are relatively new or relatively inexperienced, particularly at Headingley?

Mr. Toews: I know that my Assistant Deputy Minister Mr. Graceffo is a very hands-on assistant deputy minister. He deals with concerns as they arise from day to day. I know that he has raised a number of concerns with me that staff have expressed. After discussions or after being briefed on those matters, I am generally satisfied with the direction that the department is going in.

But if there are specific concerns where the member feels that we could do better, I would certainly be interested in listening to his suggestions in terms of ensuring that we have appropriate staff on duty at all times, that our staff are appropriately trained. I know, for example, the emergency response team is a matter that we have had some discussions on in terms of providing that specific training. [interjection] Well, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says he does not think that is the question.

The question, as I understood it, is: have there been any concerns in respect of training of staff and the experience of staff? I thought that by indicating that the training of the emergency response unit was something that I felt was important and is an issue that needs to be addressed, and so if the member for Burrows saw something different in the question than I answered, maybe he could elaborate on what he thinks the member for St. Johns meant.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister answer this question then: has he been made aware, or is he aware, as to whether or not there has been an increase in incidents or assaults against staff, particularly at Headingley, in the last year?

Mr. Toews: Again, the member will have to give me specific details. I know that from time to time assaults do occur in Headingley jail as well as in our other correctional institutions, and my concern always is that the staff take appropriate precautions, that it be properly trained, and that it respond in an appropriate fashion. I know that the various policies of our government, in respect of the management of the correctional institution, go a long way to address some of those specific concerns.

I would look at things not as directly as staffing for the moment, but let us look at the whole issue of the gang containment polices, the no contact visits that we maintain in Headingley Correctional Institution, where the presumption is that there is no contact rather than there being a presumed contact visit. The impact of something like that has, in fact, reduced, I would submit, the opportunities for drugs to come into the facility. As, I think, is well known, the presence of drugs and other intoxicating substances creates a situation that could lead to destabilization, so those types of general policies pass by regulation or simply under the direction of the superintendent, I think, go to ensuring that untoward incidents are minimized and that our staff are protected, and that they are clearly aware of what standards need to be met in order to ensure that the facility runs appropriately.

I know that for a number of years the Scurfield committee met. The Scurfield committee, as the member knows, is a direct result of the recommendations of the former Justice Hughes, who conducted the inquiry into the Headingley situation in 1996, I believe the year was. In that respect, both the union and management worked very closely together on a number of issues. This related not only to health and safety issues, which were appropriately identified, but also related to issues of the construction of the new facility.

The member indicated that there was somehow an inappropriate delay in the construction of the facilities at Headingley. What I do know and what I think is very important is that not only was management consulted on an ongoing basis with the development of that particular facility, but that the union was made aware and, I believe, received or provided substantive input into the development of that scheme for developing the new facility.

* (1540)

I know that when I became minister there was still a plan on the drawing boards to have a minimum security portion of the facility at Headingley, and that was changed to a medium and a maximum. So we had the original proposal for a maximum and the minimum, and that was changed to a medium and to a maximum. Well, all of those decisions take time in order to ensure that we are in fact meeting the needs of the population of Manitoba generally but also the very legitimate concerns of our guards, our correctional officers, in our facility. Those consultations, yes, they do add some time to the development of the plans, but I think if we are going to build a system that is going to meet the needs of the people of Manitoba on an ongoing basis, those are very necessary consultations.

So I am aware that the union and individual union members and guards have in fact raised issues from time to time. As far as I am aware, that is handled at the operational level. I do not have expertise in the area of how to run a correctional facility on a day-to-day basis, but I am very confident that my staff is very aware of some of the issues involved. As the member knows, Mr. Graceffo, who is the assistant deputy minister, has not only a broad range of experience in our facility here but indeed in the federal correctional system. I think some of that experience he has brought to bear here and I think implemented in a very practical and beneficial way.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee whether gang leaders who are sentenced under the Young Offenders Act are segregated from the general populations at either the youth centre or Agassiz, and I would include in that hard core members.

Mr. Toews: I know that there are certain policies with respect to the identification of gang members and gang leaders, and as a consequence of that identification including risk identification, certain institutional decisions are made regarding the handling of those individuals. Beyond that, I would prefer to obtain further information from my staff and take the rest of the question as notice.

Mr. Mackintosh: Earlier in the session, I asked the minister to confirm that monies were mistakenly paid out to certain plaintiffs, I believe, in an action following on the conduct of the Immigrant Investor Fund, and he had confirmed that either in the House or through the media. I am wondering now if the minister can tell the committee if any of those monies and what amount has been collected.

Mr. Toews: I do not have that information with me. It is a fairly technical issue. I know that the last time I had occasion to receive some information in that respect there were issues of whether or not there would be lawsuits flowing out of that. I do not know what the status today is in respect of decisions regarding lawsuits, and, if so, the status of those lawsuits.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I have some questions for the Minister of Family Services. I want to ask questions about some of the programs that are being set up. I know we have looked at some of these in the past in quite a bit of detail, so basically some of these questions will be sort of repeats from previous years but just sort of trying to get an update.

I know, for example, with the BabyFirst Program that last year there was a budget to spend $1,600,000. I just want to find out what the budget is for this year. Originally, there was a couple of sites that were targeted, too, I believe. So just to get some more information about the increase in the number of sites this year.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, it may take me a little while. I do not have staff here, but the increase for BabyFirst this year was about $1.662 million last year, and the increase is $1.098 million this year. My honourable friend has asked me for a list of the sites, and I can certainly get that listing provided for her.

Ms. Cerilli: Are there more than the two sites that were sort of the pilot or test sites?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, there certainly are, and I know that there are sites right throughout the province. The regional health authorities through the public health nurses, each regional health authority has hired additional public health nurses. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but we funded them specifically for public health nurses that would be the co-ordinators of the program in all of the regions, so there are sites right throughout the province.

Ms. Cerilli: I am just going back to the financing of this program. The material that the minister gave me from last year says that the budget for BabyFirst was $1,600,000, and this year she says it is $1.098 million.

Mrs. Mitchelson: No, Mr. Chairperson. The increase was $1.098 million for a total of $2.76 million.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, just to clarify then the staffing. Originally, there was a plan to have 10 nurses and 30 home visitors in place for that program. With the increase in the budget, is that now the number of staff that are working in the program, and can the minister tell us if those people are new staff that are doing other duties as well? That staff that have additional duties for BabyFirst added to their workload, how does it work in terms of staffing for the BabyFirst Program? We have done some phone calling on this and been told that the program is in concept positive, but what is actually happening on the ground is that staff do not have the time to devote that they require to the program, to the kind of assessment that the program requires, the follow-up.

* (1550)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do not have the detail in front of me, and I am not sure where to find it in the book I have in front of me. If I had staff here, I would be able to have that kind of information at my fingertips and provide it to my honourable friend. It is my understanding that the RHAs throughout the province are at different degrees of readiness in the full implementation of the program.

Some information that I can find is that with the additional funding there will be 17 more public health nurses employed throughout the province and 45 home visitors hired, and that is in addition to what–and I am not sure whether we had an opportunity to discuss that and discuss these numbers last year. I do not have last year's numbers in front of me. I have numbers that will indicate how many additional staff resources will be hired as a result of the increase in funding.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, can the minister tell us when the home visits started under that program under the first sites that were announced? The first two sites were in the city of Winnipeg, I believe, at the North End Community Ministry and Heritage Park.

Mrs. Mitchelson: The two research sites are the North End Community Ministry and Heritage Park which have been operating since April of 1998, employing two home visitors. That is the last information I have in this book. I am sure staff would have more if they were here to bring me up to speed.

As of January 18, 1999, 11 families out of an approved 30 families were receiving home visiting services. I do not have any more information than that. That is what is in my notes, and if staff were here who are involved with the program, I am sure they could give me more information.

Ms. Cerilli: So the program for BabyFirst was announced as part of the original ChildrenFirst strategy. It was announced in March of 1997. But the home visits for the program did not start until January 18 of 1999, if that is what the minister is confirming.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I will read again into the record. The sites have been operating since April of 1998, and as of January 18, 1999, to date 11 families were receiving home visiting services. It looks to me from this that another 19 families had been approved for service. So that was as of January, and I do not have any more detail or information.

Certainly, if my honourable friend would like, we could sit down with some staff from the Child and Youth Secretariat, and the details to her questions could be answered.

Ms. Cerilli: The question I am asking is a fairly straightforward one. The minister has stated that the program which was announced in 1997 began operating in April of 1998 but that the home visits did not start until January of 1999. So there was some operation between 1998 and January 1999. When we have talked to some people in the field, they have expressed concern and said that the home visits got started in January of this year.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do not want my honourable friend to put words in my mouth. Twice now I have given an answer, and twice now she has interpreted it differently. I have a note, an update, dated January 18, 1999, that is telling me what has happened until that date. It says in that note that the sites have been operating since April 1998, employing two home visitors. To date, not starting today, but from April 1998 until January 1999, 11 families were receiving home visiting services. So somewhere between April 1998 and January 18, 1999, those support services and home visits started. They did not start in January 1999. That is my note that is dated 1999, and it is saying what has taken place up to today.

Ms. Cerilli: But my question was when the home visitors started. I guess the minister is saying they started somewhere between April of 1998 and January of 1999. I am letting her know that, when we have talked to people in the community, they have told us the visits started in 1999, and that is the reason that I am asking the question. So the minister is, in some ways, confirming, by the information that she has, that there were 11 families on January 18, 1999, that were receiving home visitors. The reason that I am asking this is because I want to ask the minister: at what time did her government start collecting the funding from the National Child Benefit? At what time did her government start collecting the monies from the increase in the benefits that would have gone to families receiving social allowance under the National Child Benefit that are funding these programs? At what date?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, again, Mr. Chairperson, these are very detailed questions that my honourable friend should have taken the time through the Estimates process to ask when staff was available, so I could answer in detail these questions. [interjection] Oh, you know, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says bring your briefing book next time. For someone that, again, appears to be a Minister of Family Services-in-waiting, he seems to have no understanding or no sense or any idea of the kind of activity that is involved and expects that every minister should have every detailed number and date and figure at their finger tips. He is so out to lunch, Mr. Chairperson, that I am not sure there would ever be any confidence in his ability to provide the kind of leadership that might be needed in the Department of Family Services.

But, anyway, Mr. Chairperson, again, I believe the funding kicked in in June. It was halfway through the year, and so it would have possibly been June. I do not know whether it was–these are details–I believe it was June of 1998 that the money kicked in, and we had something like $10 million, if my figures are correct, I am not sure, in the first year. We did not have full-year funding the first year that the National Child Benefit kicked in.

* (1600)

So we calculated how much money we would have from the National Child Benefit, and we allocated X number of dollars to different programs. I cannot remember, off the top of my head, what the allocation was for each of the programs. My sense would be that it would have been the first number that I quoted to my honourable friend for last year's funding that would have been part-year funding to fund the research sites and to fund the RHAs to start the process of hiring people to deliver the BabyFirst program.

Now each RHA, because they have the authority for hiring the nurses and hiring the home visitors, would be at different stages. Some would not be as developed as others. But I want to indicate that the money that we allocated would have been spent in last year's budget. It did not lapse, it was spent on the BabyFirst program. So, you know, without having, again, staff here and detailed information, I cannot give actual dates or times, but I do know that the money that was allocated for BabyFirst and EarlyStart and all of our other programs was spent on those programs through the Children and Youth Secretariat.

Ms. Cerilli: I guess one of the things we would ask for is to maybe see a budget for that program. You know, I am interested in finding out how the money flowed. The $2.76 million this year for that program should be accounted for in a specific budget for that program. Does the minister have that in the Children and Youth Secretariat to show how much money is going to pay, for example, the salaries of the nurses and the home visitors, and how much money is going to the other aspects of the program?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, that is an Estimates question, and I will seek to get that information from staff of the Children and Youth Secretariat and provide it for my honourable friend.

Ms. Cerilli: Are you waiting for me to do a handspring or what? Yes, Mr. Chairperson. Hello-o!

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable member for Radisson, I believe, wishes to be recognized. I would remind all honourable members that there is a degree of respect that is owed to the Chair, and I would ask that that be provided, and ask the honourable member to pose her question now.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, with all due respect, I will let you know when I am going to wrap up or nearing the end, otherwise we can just sort of keep going back and forth with asking questions.

I am interested in knowing sort of the regional implementation of the program as well. I think the minister had said there were actually 17 nurses. Originally there was a target of 10 nurses. There are 17 nurses. Did she say that out of 17 nurses that have been hired or will be hired, because she said that there are different levels of readiness among the regional health authorities, so how many nurses are currently operating under the program?

I do not know if she addressed the issue I raised earlier in terms of the workload and the requirements on those nurses. Are they being hired by the regional health authorities just as regular nurses, and they are doing all sorts of other duties besides what is required of them under this program?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We gave money to the regional health authorities to hire nurses specifically for the BabyFirst program. So that is their job. It is additional resources. It is not taking resources away from other activities of public health nurses through the regional health authorities.

But as to how many nurses are hired through each regional health authority and how many home visitors are hired through each, and where each regional health authority is at, I do not have that information here today, but I will get the answer and provide it.

Ms. Cerilli: I am wanting to ask specifically about the availability of programs like the BabyFirst program and the EarlyStart program, and some of the specific communities. We have expressed the concern that, while all Manitoba families on social allowance are losing the money from the National Child Benefit, that not all families are going to have access in their community to the kind of programs that are very much home-based related. They are not the kind of programs where you can sort of fly off and participate and then go home. They are programs that are designed to be sort of community based. I think the minister would agree. So I am wanting to see if there are programs in communities like Brochet, Sherridon, or South Indian Lake, for example, and where those families have to go if they are not in that community to get access to some of those programs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to make it clear on the record that no family, as a result of the National Child Benefit, is worse off. That was one of the principles. [interjection] No, that was one of the principles.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I have recognized the honourable Minister of Family Services to respond to a question. If there are other members that wish to ask a question, I would appreciate it if they would get the attention of the Chair, and I will respond accordingly. The honourable minister, to complete your response.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much. The two goals of the National Child Benefit were to reduce the depth of child poverty and to try to ensure that people were better off working than on welfare. So the focus of the National Child Benefit–and my honourable friend from Radisson sort of makes faces and noises. These were principles that were endorsed by all ministers of social services across the country including the New Democrats in British Columbia and the New Democrats in Saskatchewan. So this is not something that Manitoba dreamed up or goals or a vision or objectives that were set out by Manitoba. They were principles or goals that were set out by all provinces and territories and endorsed by the federal government.

So, you know, it is fine to be in opposition and to think that you would do things differently, but it is a different reality being in government and understanding what the issues are and regardless of political stripe having to come to some sense of what objectives should be nationally for some sort of national program. So I will go back to saying that British Columbia and Saskatchewan endorsed the goals and the principles, and one of the underlying statements was that no family would be worse off as a result.

The objective was not to increase welfare rates because welfare will always be a low income, last resort option, and that is reality because I know for a fact that in British Columbia they provide less per child through their welfare system than Manitoba does. Now you tell me whether a child in Vancouver living in a welfare family gets $103 per child is better off than a family on welfare living in Winnipeg where we provide minimum of $116 per child, and as children get older in Manitoba they get more money. British Columbia, Vancouver does not make any exception for older children. Every child gets $103.

So, I mean, when we talk about issues and we talk about a New Democratic philosophy versus a Conservative philosophy, we see that the New Democrats in British Columbia are more punitive than the Conservative government in Manitoba when it comes to providing support, through welfare, for children. So I think that needs to be on the record because I think my honourable friend needs to think twice before she makes faces and moans and groans when we talk about the principle of the National Child Benefit being that no family would be worse off, and welfare families are not worse off under the National Child Benefit, but they are not better off either.

* (1610)

That was one of the principles, and that is exactly the same in New Democratic British Columbia, and it is exactly the same in New Democratic Saskatchewan. So those were the principles that would underline the National Child Benefit that were endorsed right across the country, accepted by the federal government, and we have moved on to seeing lower income working families have more money in their pockets as a result of the National Child Benefit. That then is I think what most of us would have agreed at the time when we talked about and implemented the program, was to try to encourage families to think better than welfare as a career option or the only opportunity or the only hope.

We have put in place programs in Manitoba to work with single parents, to move them out of the cycle of poverty, off of welfare and into the workforce. As they move into the workforce, we want to ensure that if they are making a low income, they have additional support through the National Child Benefit for their children.

The federal government committed I think it was $850 million in the first year, and I think they have committee another $850 million in the next two years. The ultimate goal would be that there would be no child that would be supported through the welfare system because all children would be supported through a federal payment, the National Child Benefit. So the ultimate goal would be the federal government providing enough money so provinces would not have to support children on welfare. That payment would be coming directly from the federal government.

So dollar for dollar, as the federal government increased support to welfare families through the National Child Benefit, those dollars were reinvested into programs that would support families at risk, through programs like BabyFirst, EarlyStart, Stop FAS, the Women and Infant Nutrition Program, all of those programs that have been put in place and developed based on the research and the public consultation that the Children and Youth Secretariat had done over several years.

I know my honourable friend has been critical in the past of the Children and Youth Secretariat and how they seem to consult and consult and not do anything. Well, I think we have seen the results of the consultation and the research that the secretariat did in order for us to develop programs that national institutions like the C.D. Howe Institute are saying other provinces should follow our lead in the development of early intervention programs like we have developed, like putting the extra money into child daycare that we have put in so that the child care services and supports are there, the services are there for mentorship and support for families on welfare and ultimately, hopefully less need for services from our health care system, our Child and Family Services system, special needs in the education system or ultimately additional supports from the justice system.

So I think that we have moved in the right direction, and there is a lot more to do. We want to ensure that as more resources become available and as we have the opportunity to reinvest more, we will continue to build upon the programs that we have put in place to date, recognizing and realizing again that we have to evaluate them all and ensure that they are having the desired effect.

Now my honourable friend is saying that she has heard some comments in the community that they are not having the desired effect. I would certainly be interested in hearing some specifics around that because ultimately I do not want to be endorsing or supporting or using taxpayers' dollars to support programs that are not working. So if there is some information that she might have that might lead me to believe that they are not the right programs, we are not moving in the right direction, that there are some problems with them, I think that would be a good discussion for us to have because it then would allow me to follow up and see whether in fact the programs are moving in the right direction. If not, then I guess we have to reassess them, but my understanding right now is that we are getting the programs up and running, that public health nurses are being trained, home visitors are being trained in the BabyFirst program, and we are expanding and adding more public health nurses and more home visitors with the additional money that has been provided this year.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, that was a very long answer, but the minister did not address my question. The whole basis also behind the way they have approached the national child tax benefit was the families that are on social allowance that would not be receiving those benefits would have access to programs, so our question and our concern is there are regions of the province and communities in the province where there are not programs. My question specifically was to her: are there programs in communities like Brochet, Sherridon, South Indian Lake, Granville Lake, Gods Lake Narrows, Red Sucker Lake, Princess Harbour, Pine Dock, Matheson Island, Manigotagan, Little Grand Rapids, Island Lake, Berens River?

Some of these communities, granted, are quite small, but they all have children. They all have children who are living in poverty. They all have children that need to benefit from any advantage that they can. We are concerned that the strategy the government is employing is not going to reach those families, and that they are–I think the minister used the words–not going to be any worse off, but they are not any better off. Unfortunately, they also do not have access to the kinds of programs that are being created to benefit families and children across the province, so it is a straightforward question.

If the minister has some explanation of how those communities are going to be accessing services that have been created through the funding through the national child tax benefit, that is what I am looking for in terms of an answer. If the regional health authorities have a strategy for how to reach those communities with services through outreach with their home visitors, through other ways that the public health nurses can be involved, through other ways–I understand there are 15 sites with the EarlyStart program. So there are other programs that perhaps are going to be put in place because there are regional considerations or geographical considerations for those communities. There are all sorts of other communities that I have not listed that are spread out across the province that have children that are in need of support and are in need of services.

In terms of the other question that the minister raised in response to my question, the information I have is that the programs that the government has announced are not as extensive in the community as the minister and the government have led us to believe, and now she has announced that there are going to be additional staff resources. There is additional funding in this budget. I would have to look at the date for when we contacted some of these organizations. When we were talking to people in the community, that was the information, that the announcements for the programs were not being met in reality, that the home visitors were not as far along in undertaking the kind of home visits that were hoped for in the community, the kind of public health nurse services were not forthcoming.

Perhaps what the minister is saying is that the program was a little slower in getting off the ground than they had hoped. If that is what she wants to provide as an answer, or if what she has tried to explain, that is, I guess, what has happened with the program. That is why I was raising the question, because the way the minister and the government had announced the program and led us to believe was going to be the extent to the program, that that was not actually what was happening in the community, that the home visitors seem to have been a little slower in getting going and slower in getting hired, that there were not the numbers.

The real point that I wanted to make and the question I wanted to ask is for the minister to provide some explanation of what those communities that I put on the record, those kinds of communities, aboriginal communities, for the most part, are going to receive in terms of services that are going to be funded by the national child tax benefit, that are part of the ChildrenFirst strategy that is being put forward by this government, that is going to be incorporated into the regional health authorities in a number of ways, perhaps Family Services involved and other programs, Education and other programs, but our concern is that there are families that are not benefiting from the national child tax benefit and are also not receiving any program access because of the jurisdiction in which they live.

* (1620)

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will have to take note, as I read Hansard, of all the communities that she has asked about, determine which regional health authorities they are in, and get some answers back on what the strategy might be for each regional health authority. I would indicate again that my staff may have that information in the Child and Youth Secretariat. If it is there and available, it will be shortly forthcoming; otherwise, we will get that information from the regional health authorities.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I just have a few questions for the Minister of Family Services. In the Estimates process, we got into a bit of an argument about something, and the minister did not really get a chance to clarify herself. So I would like to give her another chance either now or take it as notice, and that has to do with the clawback of the National Child Benefit. I was suggesting to the minister in Estimates that even families who are working or have a member working and are getting partial assistance from Employment and Income Assistance are having the National Child Benefit money clawed back.

The minister at that time indicated that was not accurate, and so I would like to have a clarification of that because some individuals that we had talked to, including one individual who has been working full time as a teaching assistant at a school and who has three or four children, said that the money was clawed back. So I am wondering if the minister could clarify that for me or take it as notice.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will take that as notice and get back. There is a whole issue around it. I know and I am thinking back to now when the National Child Benefit was implemented. The federal government indicated they were going to pay, but they had forgotten about those that were working part time. There is a working income supplement that I think the federal government paid. I just do not have the detail at the tip of my fingers, but, anyway, there were a significant number of people that were going to be losers as a result. One of the principles was that no one would lose anything; no one would be worse off. So we had to go back as provinces and negotiate with the federal government a sum which probably did not cover all of what it should have from the federal government, but provinces made up the difference through reinvestment in the National Child Benefit to ensure that families were not penalized in any way. That may be part of the answer for my honourable friend, but I will try to get more detail.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions about Taking Charge! Some time ago I had asked for a copy of the evaluation, and I believe I may have talked to the assistant deputy minister for Employment and Income Assistance. I also asked questions about this in Estimates, and I am just going from memory here. I think what I was originally told was that the evaluation had to go to the board first, which is entirely reasonable, but my recollection is that I may have inquired either months ago or possibly even up to a year ago about the evaluation, and I know that I asked again about it in Estimates this year.

I am wondering if the minister can tell me what the holdup is for passing on that evaluation and when I can expect to get it.

Mrs. Mitchelson: It is my understanding that there is a project review committee, because it was a federal-provincial initiative. It was a project review committee that does include Taking Charge! and both levels of government. That report has to go to the project review committee, and they have to accept it. At that point in time, once that has been signed off by the project review committee, it will be available for public release.

My understanding is that the federal-provincial joint management committee has not yet seen the report and met to endorse it or whatever, and they would have been the committee that commissioned the review. My sense is that that should be happening anytime in the very near future. I mean, I do not know whether it is this week or next week or two weeks from now. I could try and get that date for my honourable friend, but once they have reviewed and signed off on the report, it will be available. I will ensure that my honourable friend gets one as soon as it can be made public.

Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that answer. Switching now to the topic of not-for-profit adoption agencies, I believe I asked the minister questions in the past about Adoption Options, and it would be my understanding of the way the new legislation works that not-for-profit adoption agencies can charge fees on a basis that really has to do with cost recovery, that there is a fee for home visits, and that covers the cost of the home visits, home assessments, that sort of thing.

As we know, the fees are quite substantial for individuals who are going through this private, nonprofit agency and other agencies. I am wondering if the minister can tell me if there are any grants going to Adoption Options, especially in light of the fact that, you know, the rules have changed since Bill 48, The Adoption Act.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am not aware of any money that has gone to Adoption Options. I do know that we did indicate we would work with them, and if in fact there was a family in circumstances where they could not pay–I mean I think there was a sliding scale. I do not want to put anything on the record that I am not absolutely certain of, but we are not giving them grants as such, grants to an external agency to deliver a service.

My sense was that we would work with them if in fact there were some financial difficulties surrounding any specific individual adoption case and see whether, in fact, we could help support that family through that process. But I would rather check on that before that is used. It seems to me those kinds of discussions were held. But as far as giving them a grant, an outright grant or an annual grant, no.

Mr. Martindale: Can the minister also find out for me if there is any taxpayers' money going to Adoption Options and get back to me?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Sure.

Mr. Martindale: Switching to a different topic, and if this is more appropriate for the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. McCrae), I am sure the Minister of Family Services will tell me. There used to be a phone number that people could call who were looking for jobs, and it was some sort of a, what shall we say, electronic voice mail, and you pressed different numbers and you got different categories. It had listings of available jobs and how to follow up.

My understanding is that currently this phone service no longer exists. Now people can go to employment centres and there are kiosks in malls and libraries, but I am wondering why this phone number and this phone service was discontinued.

Mrs. Mitchelson: There used to be employment or training programming as part of the Department of Family Services. That was moved over to Education and Training when it became training, and all of the training functions moved over to the Department of Education.

* (1630)

So I would not be aware of us, in the Department of Family Services, having a phone line that would provide lists of jobs. I would presume that if it were a provincial government line, it would be with the training part of Education and Training. So I will undertake to ask my colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) for some information on that.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister for that answer.

I would like to ask the minister again if she has any information about when the baby Schmidt inquest report might be out.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, no, I do not. Due to judicial independence, we just have to await the finalization of that report by Judge Conner.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, going on to another question regarding Child and Family Services, I have the minister's news release of June 25 about new board appointments to Winnipeg Child and Family Services. I am wondering if the new board will be undergoing some sort of orientation, and if the minister can tell me what sort of expectations she has or the agency has about any changes in direction or the philosophy behind these appointments, which I think we are very interested in. I put a suggestion on the record in Estimates that this is the kind of thing the government should be doing or should consider doing, and a day or two later the news release came out. I am sure it was in the works for a long time before I suggested it. I am wondering if there is an expectation that the direction of the agency may change or the mandate may change or the philosophy may change. I would be interested in hearing the minister's thoughts on that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I think we look very seriously at the composition and the board makeup and the composition and the makeup of the children who are involved with the Winnipeg agency. The statistics that come forward from the agency tell us that 70 percent of the children are aboriginal in origin. We had one aboriginal representative on the board and several recommendations that we should change the mix of representation on the board to reflect more the nature of the families that Winnipeg Child and Family deals with.

That recommendation came forward from a committee that was pulled together of status treaty Indians through our mandated native child welfare agencies. We certainly had urban aboriginal representation–the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Winnipeg agency, and of course my department involved. A report came forward, and there was a little bit of turf protection from time to time. The native agencies sometimes think that they should have sole jurisdiction or responsibility for every status child whether they live in Winnipeg or out of Winnipeg. You know, the Metis community would like to have their own child and family services agency.

There have been reports that have recommended a native agency in the city of Winnipeg. I guess for me it is not an us-and-them issue. I think that we all need to be around the table and we all need to put the child first in any decisions that are made around the best interests of that child. So we should not be fighting with each other, because sometimes our fights with each other get in the way of providing the best service for the child. I try to say that in every meeting that I have. I do not think it matters who owns the agency. I think it matters how we deal and how we support children and families who need our support.

So I think we have tried to bring together at the board level people who seem to have that belief and want to work together. So you will see reflected in there those who are status, those who are Metis, urban, mostly urban, but someone with a connection to the reserve, Sydney Garrioch, who I think would have a lot of respect from members on all sides, all three parties in this House. I think he does really care and wants to get beyond the politics of the issues. He has had a good track record of dealing in a very, I think, sensitive and positive way with families that he has been involved with.

So I am hopeful that we will be able to get a better sense of how we deal–I have often said that you cannot deal with aboriginal families and children without having aboriginal people involved in the decisions, and I am hopeful that the new board will be able to look at what is happening today. I mean, I have heard some concerns raised in the past by Ma Mawi, for instance, that have said, you know, we have gone out and we have recruited families in our community to be foster parents and take children in, but the agency does not necessarily place children in those foster homes when we recruit them and we train them. So I am hoping that some of those issues will get addressed as a result of the new board taking a serious look at what is happening today and how we can better try to serve children.

I know very often that when you move a child into a suburb who may have grown up or have been located and going to school in the core area, and you remove them from their community, from their family, from their school, that sometimes we are not serving them any better even in a caring foster home in another community. So, you know, these are all things that I am hopeful that the new board–yes, they are going to do an orientation and have an orientation and a bit of board development, get to know each other, and then try to determine how they can best serve the needs of children through the agency. So I am pretty hopeful. I am very impressed with the people who have made the commitment to want to be there and be part of the team.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, we know that we faced real challenges in the farming community this spring, particularly in the southwest part of the province, but the heavy rainfall only added to the many other problems that farmers have been facing, with low commodity prices, high input costs, high transportation costs.

The minister attended the ministers' conference just a couple of weeks ago in Prince Albert, and I wonder whether the minister and the ministers from other provinces had any discussion as to how we can address the whole issue of getting the farm community back on its feet and addressing the low commodity prices and high input. Are there any suggestions as to how we are going to help the farm community?

I guess it also involves international subsidies that other countries are prepared to provide for their farming community, but here in Canada our federal government has very much pulled away from agriculture, and although we are focusing this year on the issue of the people of the southwest part of the province with serious flooding problems, it is an ongoing challenge that we have of low commodity prices.

I would ask the minister whether there was any discussion on that and any proposals as to how we can have a long-term solution for this whole situation that is facing the farming community.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I do thank the honourable member for that question. That is a very important question, and she is absolutely right, that while the focus has tended to be on the immediate urgency of those flood-strickened farmers, the bigger question that she raises is there. Commodity prices are not improving. In fact, a crop that was helpful to many farmers in staying on the black side of the ledger, our big canola crop, this year is going nowhere. So that has caused a lot of us great concern.

I am not going to give an overlengthy argument, but simply to indicate that there was a lot of discussion about how we can fashion a better support safety system for our farmers across Canada. We have, Mr. Chairman, as you know, three major programs that have come into being over the last 30-40 years beginning with our Crop Insurance Program that was introduced in the early '60s. Then my colleague introduced the NISA program in the early '90s, an income stabilization program. The present minister and Minister Lyle Vanclief and provincial ministers introduced the AIDA program.

We have three major programs, and part of the difficulty is they are kind of rubbing shoulders on occasion, overlapping on occasion. There is some concern about, you know, if we are pursuing the AIDA-type course, strictly a farm receipt course, is that impinging on crop insurance and taking away from the value of crop insurance. Now on top of that, these programs all have their own administration costs, and they are substantial. The crop insurance administration costs are in the 70 millions of dollars. That, quite frankly, is not acceptable to me. More of that money should be going into enhancing the program.

We also have the NISA administration which is now about eight years old, I would say, '91. That is another administration, and we are in the process of developing an AIDA administration. I have made the suggestion to my colleagues and to the federal minister, let us challenge all of us, our national safety net people, advisers from the different farm sectors. Is it not possible to put all those programs into a box and fashion out a program that carries the best features of all three and some income support, because I see that looming as particularly important as these commodity prices stay where they are at.

* (1640)

The basic Crop Insurance Program insures against yield, particularly important to the Prairies here where we can have, through drought or flood or other things, very basic deficiencies on yield, and a combination of NISA and AIDA as an income support-based program. That would depend on the will of the governments, both provincial and federal, to what extent we put money into that program.

I know deep down in my heart that I think to begin with we could probably save a hundred million dollars in administration costs if we put them all into one administration. It would make it much less frustrating for the farmer who currently complains about filling out his NISA form, filling out his AIDA form, filling out his crop insurance form. It is an awful lot of paperwork that is involved here, and it is keeping a lot of bureaucrats busy, both provincially and federally.

So to answer the honourable member's question, I really think we ought to be challenged, and I invite her to keep challenging me in that respect, that we use this whole discussion, this whole focus on safety nets not just to tinker with the individual programs but maybe actually to come up with an innovative solution that would bring efficiencies to the program and provide the maximum benefits under these programs to our farmers who regrettably, I have to acknowledge–as I hear reports from different parts of the world and certainly here in North America, it looks like a substantial crop is coming off both in the United States and in Canada, despite our troubled areas, these other areas in Alberta, the western part of Saskatchewan and our own Manitoba, as the member knows. There are some very excellent cross-crop prospects right now. All of that does not auger well for any future serious improvement in these commodity prices.

I toyed with it at the time we exited GRIP, for instance, which was a very successful income support program. Many of the farmers are now reminding me of that fact as I know they were then. I challenged the crop insurance board of directors in the organization to see whether we could not build an element of GRIP into our Crop Insurance Program, maybe not quite as rich as the GRIP program was but at least build into, on top of the yield insurance that we provide in crop insurance, build some measure.

That could change, as I say, with the will of governments. If we have a responsive federal government that would put some of the money back that they took away from western agriculture, $750 million in the Crow, before the Paul Martin budget that did that, the safety net envelope, all the years that my colleague was administering, was running at about $860 million, the federal share that was arbitrarily capped at $600 million. I am not saying maybe claw it all back, but if we move that up to, say, $700 million, look for $50 million, $60 million, $70 million in efficiencies in the administration of these programs, we might be able to put together a package that could respond to what I believe to be a very legitimate and a very serious issue that farmers are facing not just in Manitoba but throughout Canada.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that the minister did not address that has become a real burden for farmers is the increased transportation costs. Recently, we saw a study that indicated that railways are not passing on their savings. There were supposed to be substantial savings with rail line abandonment, and those were supposed to be passed on to producers. It had been raised before, but a recent study by the Wheat Board indicates that in fact somewhere in the range of $224 million annually is going to the railways in excess profits that should be shared with the producers, but it is not being shared. That is a lot of money that could come back into the farming community.

We are now in the process where we have had the Estey report tabled and we have Mr. Kruger, who is working to implement the Estey report. If we are going to have that report, we have to ensure that the savings are passed onto the producers. There is some way that those savings have to be passed on to the producers and that the railways are co-operative with short lines to ensure that we do have joint running rights, revenue sharing, so short lines can operate and someway, again, offer the producers a better service.

I would like to ask the minister then if he has had any discussion with his colleague the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Praznik) and had input into how we can ensure that the savings that are supposed to be realized from rationalization of the railways will be passed on to producers. Can he indicate if his government is prepared to pull away from the table on these negotiations, if the railways are not prepared to share their revenues and offer joint running rights for those? We cannot have the producers sacrifice their freight rate caps and all of the other things that are detrimental to the producers if the railways on the other hand are not going to share some of the benefits that they have and continue to provide service. We know that the excess profits now are somewhere over $200 million. If more lines are abandoned, there is going to be more savings to them. What is this government prepared to do to ensure that our farmers are not cheated again and have to pay additional costs, which they really cannot afford in this time of low-commodity prices?

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, our province was a full participant in the extensive review that was done on this whole question of transportation by former Justice Estey. I am satisfied that the mechanics of an implementation process of some of the recommendations is now in place. My response to the member would be simply that we would have to allow that process to demonstrate what many in the industry believe can achieve the kind of efficiencies, the kind of fundamental changes, and bring into transportation what has been so sadly lacking, an element of competition that will discipline the kind of changes that need to be taken into consideration.

What I do know with certainty, Mr. Chairman, is that additional regulation in an already overregulated transportation system will not work. That is what we have today. For me to for one moment take seriously her suggestion, will we pull away from the table, no, because that implies that we are satisfied with what we have today. We are not satisfied with what we have today. We are not satisfied at all with what we have today. So I believe that Mr. Kruger and the players involved know that if grain is to be moved in today's new freight regime without the benefit of the Crow that those efficiencies have to be found.

Now, there are of course other things that will be taking place in the meantime. In many respects, the drive for greater livestock, greater utilization of feed within the province, particularly a province like Manitoba, will continue to take place. There has been a slight hiccup in that process with respect to hogs because of the, you know, pricing problems.

* (1650)

I am concerned, I might just throw in right now, I am deeply concerned about the American action with respect to beef cattle. Just as we were beginning in a very positive way to encourage more feeding of our own livestock, our feeder animals, feeder calves instead of shipping them to Alberta or south or elsewhere, and we see nice developments as we saw in the Hamiota area with a major feedlot, our other feedlots are filling up and encouraging, this is going to work directly against that process. In fact, the animals that should be consuming the grain here in Manitoba and thus avoiding those freight costs and those shipping charges are now going to be shipped elsewhere so that the Americans can feed their surplus grain to those cattle. That is the kind of a double whammy that we are facing.

So there are very serious policy issues on this front that will keep me busy this summer. I might indicate to the honourable members and to the House that I am leaving at 5:30 in the morning for Salt Lake City in Utah. I want to assure all members that when this little Mennonite goes there I will not be returning as a Mormon, but nonetheless I will be discussing agricultural policies there with American secretaries of Agriculture and Mexican secretaries of Agriculture in what has become, this is about the fifth annual meeting of this group that works toward trying to resolve some of the agricultural trade problems and issues between our three countries.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): During the course of the Estimates debate, the minister took under notice a number of questions and information that he would provide to me. I wonder if the minister has any timetable as to when we would be receiving that detailed information.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I do not have anything here this afternoon. I know I do have some of the information compiled. I expect I can get it to the member very shortly. It is partly driven by a staff issue. The assistant deputy minister of the financial administration side, Susan Murphy has actually been on holidays. It is really her area that compiles the majority of the information that the member was asking for. As I did undertake to him, I am not going to wait until I have all the information and send him one batch, at whatever point in time that would be. I think I do have a reasonable amount of it that I can get to him certainly within the next very short period of time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chomiak: What I intend to do during the course of the discussion, we have concurrence, is just touch back on a few issues for follow-up related to the minister.

Just with relation to the question that I raised in the House on several occasions with respect to the Pan American Games, the minister I thought gave the impression certainly that there was no effect, if I understand the minister correctly, he can correct me if I am wrong, from the Pan Am Games on the acute care sector, on the health care system. I do not think that is in fact true.

Now, the minister might have meant something else, but there is no doubt that people in the system, many, many people in the system, have communicated to me special arrangements, special changes and special provisions that are being made for the purposes of the Pan American Games. So I wonder if the minister might comment on–[interjection] Did you want to ask a question now? [interjection] Our leader just wanted to ask another quick question. Perhaps we will come back to my question.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I thank the member for Kildonan. I just have one question. An individual, Menard Canada, is a person who has come to me and apparently has been in touch with the Department of Health over a long period of time about a concern he had that the Health Sciences Centre dental clinic had people that both worked for the public sector and were having a private practice. Now, I do not know whether this issue is–apparently it has been asked before in the Estimates. I promised the individual I would raise it with you. Apparently the Department of Health has investigated it or it has come to their attention, and I would like to know whether the minister has the results of this investigation. Was this against policy? Is it against policy? What follow-up has happened with the individual who made the complaint, and what is the status of the situation with a citizen who feels–the individual feels it is an abuse of a public asset by a private person.

Mr. Stefanson: The Leader of the Opposition is right that this issue did come up in Estimates. I believe it was the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who raised it. He did not indicate what his source of it was or the individual. He did not name an individual or provide any source of it, but he did raise the same issue. I had the department check into it, and I am going now from memory, but basically the result of it was that there was no substantiation to it. There were no problems. I am certainly prepared to get a more full briefing, again, from the department and provide that to the Leader of the Opposition.

As I would have put on the record at that time, the checking done by the department into the issue could not substantiate any problems in this area, recognizing, again, as I am repeating myself, that was on the basis of not being provided with any source, nobody to turn to to say: what is your source of this? What can you point to that shows there is some problem here? Now the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, did name an individual, and I am more than prepared to have the department look into this issue again, contact that individual, follow up with that individual on this issue and get back to the member.

Mr. Doer: There may be a file, then, on this individual or a member of his family that would be knowledgeable of this issue, and it does look like it goes back to the early '90s. He is not that easy to contact because he does not have a phone. I guess what he wants to know is whether the Department of Health has ever investigated. Do dentists have the right or have they had the right to use the dental clinic at the Health Sciences Centre and also have a practice of private patients that they bill out of a public facility? That is the question, the specific question, as I recall it, and I would look forward to a response from the minister on it. Any information he can give me, I will pass on to the individual when he drops into our offices as he is wont to do. Thank you.

Mr. Chomiak: Concluding my question, Mr. Chairperson, certainly the information provided to me is that there are contingencies being made, and there clearly has to be a plan because there are going to be 5,000-plus athletes and numerous thousands of visitors here. It is quite clear that contingencies are being made. I wonder if the minister can enlighten me as to what the plan is or who is providing the plan, and I will contact the individual or individuals just to acquaint myself with what the circumstances are.

Mr. Stefanson: I will certainly provide the member with more detailed information and potentially a contact person either within the department or within one of the organizations like the Winnipeg Hospital Authority. But certainly the information that I have been provided consistently is that the Pan Am Games are not in any way taking away services from Manitobans, that the issue of some beds in some of our hospital facilities is being dealt with on beds that were impacted by the summer closure anyway, that would have been impacted by the summer closure, irrespective of whether the Pan Am Games were here or not. If there is a need for additional beds as a result of the Pan Am Games, the option is, then, there to go after the summer-scheduled beds. That really is the contingency plan that is in place to deal with the Pan Am Games. So the information I have consistently received is that there are no beds being taken out of circulation specifically to address the Pan Am Games, and therefore these Pan Am Games are not in any way removing some services available to Manitobans. So the opportunity is there to provide beds based on the summer schedule of beds, and that would be addressed if something happened that beds were required. But I can certainly provide a more detailed summary to the member, and I am sure I could probably put him in contact with somebody who could provide a further explanation of the entire issue, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, we have also discussed in Question Period the issue of the summer closures, and we have also discussed on previous occasions the minister indicating that the minister is contemplating, as part of the new policy of providing information to Manitobans, to provide some form of regular reporting. We know the minister receives weekly stats on beds in the system or certainly the system has a means of accounting for weekly bed status.

Can the minister provide us with that information? Will he table the information with respect to the bed counts and the status of that on a weekly basis that is occurring?

* (1700)

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, well, the member is right that we did discuss the benefits of doing something like a quarterly report on health, not unlike we see in the Department of Finance. It does a quarterly report on the finances. That still is an initiative that I am currently working on with the department to do just that, to put out a quarterly report on a number of indicators, a number of statistics on the current status of health care issues in the province of Manitoba. The member is also right that I do receive regular briefings on issues like bed status, bed utilizations.

So again, I would expect that some of that information would form the basis of a quarterly report in terms of issues like our bed status and so on. We are still pursuing that issue. It is something that I intend to implement, that I support. Obviously, our first quarter of this fiscal year ended at the end of June, so we are currently working on that entire issue of potentially doing a quarterly report for the first quarter of 1999-2000.

So there will be an opportunity to provide some of the information the member is referring to at that time, and I will take the rest of his question as notice and certainly provide him what information I can on beds. I know one of the issues I think that is still outstanding, and I expect that we can respond to, as part of the information I said that we should have available shortly I think, is the whole issue of the bed listing that the member gets every year.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, also in Question Period I raised the issue of Sara Riel closure. In conjunction with that the minister, like most MLAs, has met with an organization of mental health advocates–I guess would be the best way to term it–who are, frankly–and I encourage it–meeting with all MLAs to acquaint them with the issues concerning the mental health community, largely on the basis that most individuals do not know enough, even elected officials, about what is happening in the mental health field and the pain and suffering that people go through and that frankly this, without doubt, has been basically a nonpartisan issue in this Chamber. The mental health issue has been nonpartisan in this Chamber certainly as long as I have been here.

On that basis, I wonder if the minister can outline what his commitment was or what his commitment is for putting in place adequate community-based resources, keeping in mind that the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority has made some requests from the provincial government with respect to funding requirements and needs.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, well, the member is right. I did meet with the community mental health group which I believe were meeting with some MLAs, and I know they met with the member for Kildonan. They left me a presentation. We obviously went through that presentation. I would describe our meeting as a very good meeting in terms of an opportunity for them to bring these issues certainly to my attention. On the one hand, they were very complimentary of what could be described as the first phase of mental health reform back in the early 90s, the shift to community-based mental health reform. But they did express some concern about the further implementation of what we described as phase two, and that is some of the additional service adjustments in the community in terms of counselling, in terms of preventative measures and so on, in terms of monitoring and those kinds of issues which were raised both in their submission and in the discussion I had with them.

I undertook to obviously review all of the issues that they raised with me, including the issue of funding and to report back after I have had an opportunity to review all of the issues, with a view as to which ones we are able to implement and over what kind of a time frame. So, I obviously take the information they provided to me very seriously and will be responding to all of those issues in the very near future.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, with the issue of Sara Riel's temporary closing and with the discussion about psychiatric beds, what is the status of the issue of additional facilities to be provided in a short term?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the member for Kildonan knows, the Sara Riel temporarily closed their crisis stabilization unit and that will reopen on Monday, July 19. During that period of time, services have continued to be available at and with facilities and organizations like Salvation Army, Seneca House and others. I have continued to ask the department whether or not there have been any problems, any issues during this period of time, these two weeks, and none of them have been brought to my attention. But, again, in terms of many of the other issues facing mental health, it is a matter of striking the right balance between beds and bed requirements in our health care facilities and the supports out there in the community. That was certainly a major part of the discussion I had with the Community Mental Health group and will form part of our review of the recommendations that they left with me.

Mr. Chomiak: I think we can probably generally conclude that the community supports are not sufficiently in place, and, consequently, the closure of the community-based facility like Sara Riel must, by logical extension, have an impact on community resources. The minister has indicated that he is going to be reviewing the proposals, and I accept that. I think that we can all agree that without placing blame, there has to be a major initiative and a major step with respect to community-based services. We accepted that when we dealt with the amendments to The Mental Health Act last year. The question is: what is the time frame that we are looking at? The minister has indicated he is looking at those proposals. Frankly, I would change some of the structure of the Department of Health as it affects mental health in order to affect the changes, but that is an administrative decision the minister is going to have to make. I do not think you can make the changes without a change in some of that administrative emphasis.

But having said that and given that gratuitous advice, did the minister put a time line in terms of when he is going to reach a decision or when he is going to get back to this group? I think we can all agree that generally, without going into political rhetoric, the services require additional supports.

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would want to reaffirm our commitment regarding the mental health services. As I said, the group was very complimentary of the first phase of changes to community mental health services back in the early '90s. They have raised several issues, of which funding certainly was one of them, and from the organizations that met with me and on behalf of the various groups, it is certainly an important issue. As the member knows, the WCA has also been working on this issue.

So I am looking at all of the issues they raised with a view to, again, I guess I am being repetitive, but to which ones we can implement and over what time frame, recognizing that the groups would like to hear back from me and from government fairly shortly. I am sensitive to that, so it is certainly my objective and our objective to attempt to respond to these issues raised in the very near future. Obviously, when one of the issues has a financial impact, it is a matter of looking at the year we are currently in as well as looking forward to the next budget cycle. That is part of the review I am undertaking.

* (1710)

Mr. Chomiak: With respect to META [phonetic], the minister has acknowledged that Phase 2, as it has been suggested, has not gone well. There really does need to be a new orientation and a new initiative and a new drive, similar to what was undertaken in Phase 1 to implement the changes required for Phase 2. Does the minister agree with that?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, I am not sure that I would describe it that way. Again, the group that I met with representing many of the mental health groups really raised some specific issues that can be dealt with within our existing structure, I believe. But, as I have indicated, I am reviewing all of them, and if some structural changes are required to better provide the services in this area, I am not rigid on that at all. Our objective throughout this review will be to provide the community services that are needed in the most efficient and effective fashion. So structure was not raised necessarily as one of the more important issues. I am going in part by recollection, and I do have some of the information here with me now.

Again, I am certainly prepared to look at structure, and if structure is an impediment to providing the services required, I am more than prepared to look at structure. If the member has any specific suggestions or recommendations in that area, I am certainly prepared to look at them.

Mr. Chomiak: I do have specific recommendations, but what I will probably do is reduce them to writing and forward them to the minister. The fact is that if there was not an impediment, those changes would have been made, because there are needs and requirements in the community that have not been met, admittedly by all. I am saying this without political slant, because quite publicly I say generally I admit that the Phase 1 went very well, and in fact Phase 2 is now stalled, and it has been sort of a mantra that has been repeated by all, those within and without the system. I am talking about discussions I have had with people who are presently in the system. But I will reduce that to writing and provide some comments from the minister, with respect.

What I meant by structural is not just structural in form, but there has to be a reorientation toward a commitment to the community-based mental health system. I think a mindset has to be moved along and pushed along in order for those changes to take place.

I am going to go on to a new question, unless the minister has a comment.

Mr. Stefanson: I appreciate that clarification. I think in part what has happened in Manitoba and right across Canada over the last few years is that there has been an awful lot of focus and attention on our acute care services in our health care system, on some of our other community support areas like personal care homes and home care, and so on. So, if the member is saying that there is a need for some additional focus brought to the importance of this service and the whole issue of the levels of service and so on, I would not disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. Certainly that has been part of what has happened from my meeting, his meeting, and I am sure others that the group is meeting with. That is exactly why we are going to be reviewing these recommendations in detail, and I expect to be able to respond to some, if not all, of them, fairly shortly.

Mr. Chomiak: The minister will know that, from the numerous letters he receives from my and our offices, generally, with specific individual claims, those go directly to the minister for dealing with with the department. We generally do not bring individual matters to the Chamber. I have brought a couple of matters to the Chamber under exceptional circumstances, and I want to raise one today because I want to get a perspective because this individual is literally sitting on tenterhooks. The minister will recall I raised this situation of a woman named Bonnie Ferguson. She has been diagnosed with breast cancer; she requires heart surgery; she is diabetic. She is one of, she has been told, 60 people on a waiting list for heart surgery. Since the matter was raised here, on two occasions she has had to call an ambulance in order to deal with her severe angina. The minister's office has contacted her twice, and one occasion she was not that pleased with the contact and the other occasion she was very pleased with the contact. The point is that she is still sitting at home suffering from severe angina; she contacted the hospital today; and we are told that, unless she is in the hospital, she is not going to get her surgery moved up despite her physical condition.

Now, speaking frankly, we all know what doctors and what patients do when they have severe problems and need surgery, they go into the hospital in order to be bumped up, which, for better or for worse, has been the procedure and the practice. But the point is: what direction can I give to this individual in order to deal–and the minister has indicated that numerous cardiac surgeries are done–but what does an individual, without trying to leapfrog in the system, which is the only recourse open to her–she is sitting at home alone suffering daily with angina, has twice been taken in by an ambulance, has been told she may as well stay in hospital because if she stays in hospital she will get her heart surgery but is unwilling to jump the queue. What advice does the minister have in this particular instance? I just spoke with her several hours ago.

Mr. Stefanson: The member is right, when he or anybody else in this Chamber or any individual situation is brought to our attention, we do attempt to follow up on it immediately. In fact, I was a little disturbed when I had a chance to follow up on an issue that his Leader raised about one individual that he claimed had phoned my office three times and had not been responded to. We went back into our files, and we had responded to that individual the same day in all three cases. It just happened that the individual did not have an answering machine and was not available themselves. So we do take that very seriously either when it is brought to our attention or when somebody phones because when that does happen, obviously the people themselves are concerned and certainly deserve to be responded to on a very timely basis.

Again, I am more than prepared to have our department and my officials look into this individual's situation, but the best thing that they can normally do–and I am sure this individual is doing that, based on what the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has just outlined–is to deal with their own doctor, their own surgeon in this case and/or with the family doctor as well, because they are the ones that certainly have the expertise, the knowledge of whether or not a situation is emergent or urgent or what is called elective. Again, I know the member for Kildonan is well aware that emergency cases are dealt with in very short order and urgent cases are dealt with in very short order. When it comes to our waiting lists for the elective processes, we compare quite well right across Canada. In this area we compare quite well. As the member himself indicated, we are now doing approximately 1,100 cardiac surgeries a year. That is up significantly from what we were doing just a few years ago.

So my advice for this individual would be to be following up with his or her surgeon and doctors, but I am also more than prepared to have my staff follow up and determine what the status of this person is and what can be done to deal with their situation.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, this is going so well, I almost hesitate to proceed down this next path, but given the general enthusiasm here in the House, I do want to comment. We had an interesting discussion in Question Period today. It was very interesting. I have to admit in my years as critic, this was the first time I have gone to an announcement where, I mean, I went to the Health Sciences Centre fully expecting a model or an actual program announcement, and there I was, subjected to the unveiling of a floor plan, quite literally of a floor plan.

* (1720)

Now, one does not criticize the fact that finally the glacial movement of the step-down unit has achieved fruition or, to use a better metaphor, there has been a meltdown, and the minister made comments to the effect that, well, you know, it was an announcement of the approval of the program. I have had my share of announcements and reannouncements under the government. I mean, I have gone to the Cancer Treatment Foundation announcements, have been to at least four announcements of the same project, from approval to the Premier providing–[interjection] Pardon me?

An Honourable Member: I did not see you there today.

Mr. Chomiak: I was there today at the back of the room when the minister unveiled the floor plan. I guess the point is, I mean, we are at the point where we are making announcements of approval of programs.

Now, there is no criticism certainly of the step-down unit. Good heavens, particularly with the ICU beds being cut down this year, there is a need for the step-down unit, as there was the need for a step-down unit at Children's that we advocated for some time.

I know that we are in different political circumstances, given that events I think are fast approaching where there is going to be some accountability required, but this was the first time I have actually seen an announcement–well, there have been announcements of approval. I was surprised by the minister, but the reality was you were announcing the approval of a program that is not going to be ready for a year. It just seemed to me that today's announcement looked to me like, you know, we are moving more towards that big event that we have been anticipating in this province since about April 25.

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the spirit, I do not want the member to read too much into today's announcement relative to other events. But as I was saying to him during Question Period, the key issue here for Health Sciences Centre and for this very important unit is the commitment of the government, and that is what took place today, is that the Health Sciences Centre has a commitment for this step-down unit.

It is going to cost $1.4 million, and it is not uncommon, particularly when it comes to capital improvements, that announcements are made at the time of commitment, because that is at the stage when the facility–and in this particular case, this particular area of services can go into the detailed design and start to order whatever equipment and work towards the redevelopment that has to take place. If the member was there, I did not see him, otherwise I would have acknowledged that he was there, as I usually do. But if he was there, then he would have heard the comments, not necessarily from me, although I know he usually believes what I say. I think he usually applauds when I am through, but, more importantly, he would have heard from people like Dr. Bill Lindsay, the head of the cardiac sciences program. He would have heard from Carol Ringer, the vice-president of Health Sciences Centre. [interjection]

Well, the member chooses to zero in on one comment out of about 20 minutes of comments that were basically nothing but compliments and accolades and excitement amongst all of the people involved with this project. I had a chance which he also–[interjection] That is a reference, my Icelandic heritage. I had a chance also to go and look at the existing unit and developed an even greater appreciation for the value and the need for this particular unit. So we have been working with the Health Sciences Centre. I have met with some of the people in this area, some of the surgeons and people involved in providing the service. They have been very anxious to get the commitment, to get the announcement so that they know with absolute certainty that this is moving forward. It can have further input from the doctors, the nurses and so on.

So everybody was extremely excited today, very pleased with this announcement. I am assuming that the member himself was pleased, and, as he has done on other occasions, if he has a criticism, his only criticism is, well, maybe we should have done it a little bit earlier. The reality is we are doing it. It is well supported and it is going to be state of the art. It is an area that Manitoba really has been a leader in terms of the whole utilization of the step-down unit, where after about six hours in post-operative recovery, individuals go into a step-down unit. They then do not utilize an intensive care bed, and it ends up being better for the patient, better for the entire system and so on.

So I am pleased that the member was there to participate in this very important announcement for Health Sciences Centre and for the patients of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chomiak: Also following up on a matter that was raised this week, I had occasion to pursue further the issue of the possible transport of patients out of province as a result of shortages for radiology and radiology-related services. In terms of the course of my discussion, I was advised that, yes, it is one of the options being considered in a plan. Prior to that occurring, two other options are going to be undertaken, one of them being additional hours of operation and longer working overtimes, et cetera. That raises a very fundamental question. I am wondering if the minister can undertake to provide us with information with respect to the amount of hours worked overtime and related hours of individuals, certainly in Winnipeg, or some kind of appreciation as to how much expenditure of provincial revenue has gone towards additional overtime hours in related matters. I am sure the minister has those figures. Can he undertake to table them in the Chamber?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am aware the member has been contacting individuals, I gather, with the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. I think he was mostly correct with what he put on the record. It is not in any way inconsistent with what I have said that the immediate focus of that organization is to take all of the steps that they possibly can to improve the services in Manitoba. They are looking at a number of initiatives that will free up additional time in terms of some improved efficiencies having to do with accessing some of the staff hours and so on. They are also looking at the issue of additional treatment slots that can be achieved through overtime.

So those are the steps that they are currently following. As well, they are aggressively pursuing attempting to attract more radiation therapists. The member is right that as an option on a go-forward basis, depending on how successful all of this is, one option that was just put forward was to consider having some patients go outside of Manitoba to the United States, primarily in the area of prostate cancer. I believe that is currently happening, if I am correct, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, I believe. But at this particular point in time, it is merely that. It is merely one of many options that were put forward as a way of addressing patient services and waiting times. It is not an option that has in any way been accepted. What has been accepted are the options that we have discussed in terms of improving efficiencies, creating more services here in the province of Manitoba.

I will certainly undertake to pursue providing information on levels of overtime and so on in the whole area of radiation therapy, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chomiak: The minister publicly stated that in fact the government was going to expand the number of medical students graduating and enrolled at the University of Manitoba. I have written to the minister on this, and I wonder if the minister can outline for me whether or not the class enrolling this year will be expanded.

Mr. Stefanson: Again, the member is right. He has written me, and we discussed this somewhat during the Estimates process. Right now, the Deputy Minister of Health is in the midst of discussions with the Faculty of Medicine and with the university about that issue in terms of the timing of expansion of enrollment in the Faculty of Medicine.

Again, as I said to the member during Estimates, our view is no later than the next academic year, in the year 2000, but we also believe there may well be an opportunity to enhance enrollment in the upcoming academic year starting this September. So that is still the direction that the Deputy Minister of Health is working on, and I will be more than pleased to report back to the member as we make progress on that issue.

Mr. Chomiak: Have the funds been approved for a class in this particular year?

Mr. Stefanson: We have a little bit of flexibility if there is an opportunity to expand enrollment in the upcoming year. That is obviously one issue. Within a budget of $2.1 billion, we do have some flexibility if there is an opportunity in the upcoming academic year to increase the enrollment. So that is certainly one of the issues that has to be addressed, but, Mr. Chairman, there are other issues that have to be addressed in terms of the logistics, the ability to do all of this and so on.

So if all of the other parts can be put together to expand enrollment in the upcoming academic year, 1999, I do not see the financial resources necessarily being an impediment to that.

* (1730)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a couple of questions with regard to services that people from my part of the province get from out of the province, out-of-province services.

Many people from Swan River are transferred, go to Hudson Bay or the majority of times to Yorkton for services. For people that are seriously ill, they end up being medivacked to Regina or Saskatoon, using Saskatchewan medical services, air ambulances, and they are then required to pay.

So I would like to ask the minister if he could get this information and get it back to me in writing, because I know we are a bit short of time here, but whether there are reciprocal agreements between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where those people who have to be transferred from one Saskatchewan hospital to another by medivac, by air ambulance, whether their costs are covered as they are in Manitoba.

The second question that I would like to ask the minister, if he could provide me in writing, is whether there have been any reductions in services or changes in agreements that we have with other provinces. We all know that there are waiting lists in our hospitals for hip replacements and many types of surgeries. So Swan River people are sent to Saskatchewan, but we find that there is a reduction, that they are being held very long on waiting lists in Saskatchewan–whether there are any changes in the agreement that Manitoba has with Saskatchewan in providing services to people who live in border communities.

I realize the minister may not have that, but if he could provide that in writing for me, that would be very helpful.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will undertake to do that, to respond to both of those issues in writing, and I do not see that taking a long time to do that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Shall the motion pass?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): The motion is accordingly passed.