Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 28B (35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-28b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Sess ion -'Ibirty-Fd'tb Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the •uthority of The Honoii1Yible Denis C. Rocan SpHicer Vol. XLm No. 288 • 8 p.m., Monday, May 16,1994 ISSN OS42-S492

NAME ASHTON, Steve BARRE'IT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI. Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY,Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR. Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIED GER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul BNNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, ftm, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen , Hon.

FRIESEN, Jean MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and PoUtical AlftUatlon CONSTII'UENCY Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.Rose Seine River Roblin-RusseU Selkilk Concordia Arthur- Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley GAUDRY, Neil GllLESHAMMER, Harold. Hon. GRAY, Avis St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli HELWER, Edward R. IUCKES, George KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATinJN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Man:el MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY,ftm MANNESS, Clayton, Hon.

MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCORMICK, Nonna McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. P ALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St.

Johns Elmwood Morris Bwrow s Sturgeon Creek Osborne Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage la Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonn et Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Rossmere K.i.rldield Park FlinFlon La Verendrye Fort Garry Swan River PARTY. NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal Liberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Liberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

1742 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, May 16, 1994 The House met at 8 p.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (continued) COMMI'ITEE OF SUPPLY (Co llCUJTellt Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau ): Good evening. W'ill the Committee of Supply please come to onler. The committee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(a)( 1) on page 41 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Pass. 4.(aX2) Other Expenditures $31 2,200. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolsele y): Mr.

Deputy Chaitperson, I do notice there is a decrease in Communications again. I wonder if the minister could just explain to us what has been reduced there. Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): This is the trimming process that has been in place in government for several years now. A lower expectation of distance telephone and also on some other operating expenditu res, $8,000 worth of-last year in this area we spent $8,000 less than we had pl anned for, so we just re flected that this yea r across the whole miscellaneous, Other Expenditures line .

So, in other words , we were reflecting more accurately last ye ar's experience. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass. 4.(a)(3 ) Advanced Education and Training Assistance $1, 716,300-pass. 4.(

b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to begin the discussion here by moving a motion. I move that this committee censure the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manne ss) for failing to protect the interests of disadvantaged students by cutting ACCESS Program funding while continuing to provide Workforce 2000 grants to businesses fo r questionable pro jects, despite obvious program abuses in a program where hundreds and thousands of taxpayer dollars are paid in private training grants to businesses which are not being held publicly accountabl e.

I move that, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I will get back to the committee in just a fe w minutes on this. I am just going to take it under advisement. An Ho nourable Member : Are you taking representation, Mr. Deputy Olairperson, as to the admissibility of this motion? Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I will rule on the motion, and we can make the decisions then. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think this motion is- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: You cannot speak to the motion. It is not before the commi ttee. •

(2005) Mr. Manness: I am not speaking to the motion. I am speaking to the admissibility of the motion. Mr. De puty Chairperson : Order, please. I would like to advise the honourable minister that the motion at this time is not before the committee. I have taken it under advisement. When I come back with my ruling , I will be more than willing to listen to the members ' opinions on the motion.

1743 LEGISLA1lVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 We will now move on to the next item which would be (cHintetjection] item 4.(

b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leade r): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to make some comments in terms of the ACCESS Program, while you are taking the motion under advisement, that are related to this particular line item. As soon as you are ready to make your ruling, I will defer to other members of the committee who may wish to comment on the motion. I was at a very special event on Friday, the graduation of the social work grads in Thompson, faculty of social work, University of Manitoba -an ACCESS Program. The ACCESS Program has been in place for 10 years.

There are 57 graduates cunently; there are a further 11 with this graduating class. It is a tremendous success story, and it was partly the mood of the graduation. There wer e 11 students, many of whom I know personally, who have put in a tremendous amount of effort to be able to graduate as social workers. Many of them now-many, of course, are from the North, who will be remaining in no rthern Manitoba.

There was also a great deal of concern expressed by many people at that graduation, including many of the graduates .and including many of the former graduates, about the cuts that have taken place to this particular program and the particular philosophy that this Minister of Education seems to be now applying to the ACCESS Programs. Mr.

Depu ty Ch airperson, we have raised questions in the House on this particular issue because it goes to the fundamental basis of the ACC ESS Pro grams, which is to provide accessibility for those, and in the case of northern Manitoba, particularly aboriginal people, who have not had the opportunity for social, economic, educational and pers ona l reason s to attend post-secondary institutions. That is why we have the ACCESS Programs.

That is why we have had the particular programs in place, not just in tenns of a physical building or staff or program that is offered in the North, but particular funding that makes allowance in particular for the financial difficulties that people are faced with. I have known many of the ACCESS graduates. I knew many of the ACCESS graduates from this past Friday.

I can tell you, if you only knew the personal stories of the individuals, it is just unbelievable that many of the graduates have been able to go through a program, many of them coming from remote communities, coming from communities which did n ot even have a high school, people who did not have the opportunity even to go to high school, who were able to work through the program, support each other and graduate as fully fledged social workers in this case, and in the case of BUNTBP, as teachers and the other ACCESS Programs. (Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chaitperson, in the Clair) Mr.

Acting Deputy Chaitperson, you just cannot believe the stories. The first thing that I asked when I was at the graduation and people expressed concern about the cuts is, what was likely to happen to the people in the program because they are affected by the cuts? People who are cunently in the program were not grandparented by this minister. They wil l be subjected to this new student-loan type of system.

The bottom line is there is a real concern that many will drop out of the program; many will drop out That is of tremendous concern to me because if people are placed in the kinds of circumstances this minister and this government will be placing ACCESS students under, it will lead eventually to having an ACCESS Program in name only. The bottom line is that the program was set up to account for particu lar hardships, inc luding financial. We are dealing here-and I will just talk in a general sense of many of the stories that the individuals have gone through in this program. I have known, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, people who with a Grade 7, Grade 8 education have upgraded their educational skills, they have had two, three children, have gone from being on income security, single parent with several

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1744 children, Grade 7, Grade 8 education, and have completed the program. I have had the unique experience of see ing it from both sides because, also, I have had the privilege to be an insttuctor for IUN, and having had students in the course from the social work program, I can tell you they are second to none and would match up with any students at the Fort Gany campus. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is what is at stake. And you know what I find makes people particularly bitter in the North, people who support the ACCESS Programs?

They look at other items in the budget and the y see private schools getting 8 percent more, where they see Workforce 2000 and cotparations like IBM getting $50,000 a year for co rporate training and many of the other cotpOrations. • (2010) (Mr. Deputy Chaitperson in the Clair) This is the bottom line here . There are choices that have to be made, and this government, by insisting on moving to the full student-loan system of eliminating student allowances is going to be destroying the ACCESS Program.

Because I ask you to put yourself in the position of someone who is a single parent on welfare in York Landing, one of my communities in my constituency, looking at having to face upwards of $8,500 a year in loans. I will tell you, York Landing, there are no banks. I doubt there is anybody in my community of York Landing that even has a loan, whether it be a consumer loan, let alone a student loan. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you will effectively be stopping people like that from continuing the program.

Not only that, I have talked to people in the programs and one of the items that is going to be aff ected by the cuts is the ability to bring in students from remote communities. So that in itself would inhibit people from remote communities. It goes even beyond thal Because of the changes -whereas before, the program administered the student allowance programs, the bottom line was they were able to have flexibility, and when students hit a financial crisis, when they hit a personal crisis, there was some fle xibility.

Students were able to be loaned the money from their student allowance and would pay it bade at a later point in time, and it was critical in getting people through the program. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what do you say to somebody-and I will give you one example, without mentioning names, of the kind of situation people are faced with. A student in the program curre ntly whose former husband was incarcerated, then came out of jail and started to appear bade on the scene and put a tremendous amount of personal pressure on that individual.

How can you equate that with a minister who then turns around and says, I do not want to bear the stories, there are so many stories out there, who then equates the ACCESS Programs with the standard programs at the universities? You know, I went to school in Thompson, I graduated from high school. When I went to the University of Manitoba the toughest thing I had to deal with was homesickness. It was not that easy at times. It was not easy for many rural and northern students. Can you imagine the personal pressures these people are under?

So I want to just finish, because I am sure you have a ruling on this particular motion. We can deal with it in a more substantive way by saying that I am here today, I was at the graduation on Friday, I promised I would raise the concerns of the ACCESS Program, as a strong supporter of the ACCESS Program that I am, and I will be doing that throughout these Estimates and throughout this session. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable mem ber for Wolseley (Ms.

Friesen) that this committee ce nsure the Minister of Education and Training for failing to protect the interests of disadvantaged students by cutting ACCESS Program funding whilst continuing to provide Workforce 2000 grants to businesses for ques tionable projects despite obvious program abuses in a program where hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars are paid in private training grants to businesses which are not being held publicly accountab le. The motion is in order.

1745 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I feel badly that the member for Wolseley bad to bring forward this motion, and it is not in keeping with the fact. It is beyond the answ ers I have given on several occasions within the Chamber in response to questions put forward by members opposite. As I indicated before, all government programs, not exc luding ACCESS, are not in any way trying to diminish the remarks made by the member, particularly, for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who talked about some of the glowing success stories under this program, which I have no difficulty believing or acce pting. •

(2015) Notwithstanding any of the commentary to this point, the fact is that this program, no diff erent from any other educational program, deserved to have and has bad close scrotiny and a review done, and there are some telling aspects that have come to light. I wish at this time I could table that analysis, but it is not complete. It will be, and the promise has been made to make it public, but there are some telling aspects of that in-depth analysis.

For instance, the exam ples cited by the members opposite when they talk about individuals obviously in nee d, individuals who in many cases are single parents and who are trying to improve their lot through education, I honestly sense that happens in the progr am. But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we are beginning to find is that there is no rhyme or reason to how the individuals are selected to be a part of this program. We are finding that in many cases the inst itutions themselves, the hosting institutions, are going out and making decisions as to who gains entry into this wonderful program.

We are be ginning to find that there are even individuals that come from, believe it or not, homes and families with significant financial resources, certainly not the majority and maybe not even a large minority, but certainly more than a few. The member turns up his nose; he cann ot believe it But the fact is, we have looked at that. This is what happens when you do an analysis, you find things out You find out that 75 percent of the costs, or not quite, I think two-thirds as I used in the House the other day, do not go directly to the client but go to the institutions.

The membe r makes the point that there are some tremendous results in the area of social work, and I do not deny that, but you also find out that there are incredible job opportunities.

So why, today, regardless of what your calling is, from where you come-the members have to give me a rational argument-is it that if you are guaranteed virtually employment at the end, and indeed the government puts up to, in some cases , $1 38, 000 into the training of one person, particularly those who attend university and/or $60,0 00 for any body going through post secondary education, somebody has to tell me in the name of equity why those individuals should not be expected to be subject to the same criteria as put into place for every other citizen in the province of Manitoba, and that is you present your case to the Student Financial Assistance Appeal Board and you be judged in that same way.

Indeed, if you are found in need, then, not through three levels but through one level, at least · you are expected to take out a Canada Student Loan because, after all, when the state puts $1 38, 000 into your training, the expectation should be there that if there is a job at the end, then you should be expected to pay some of that back. I will argue that at any time, any place wi th anybody. An Honourable Member : And you will lose. Mr. Man ness: I say to the member for Dauphin, I will not lose. I will win, and that is what is behind it So what we have said is two things; I have said two things.

I have said that firstly, if there are administrative cost savings, and the report will point that out, and they can be equivalent to several hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe over $1 million, administratively, then let us take them. If the members are saying opposite, then they are saying that they have no prob lem with bureaucra cy, overlap, du plication, and high administrative costs, and I have said that. Now the members may say, well, we will not take your word for it. Fme. But again I am restating for the

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1746 record, the biggest portion of the write-down is wher e we think we can find administrative savings. Secondly, we are saying that in cases where, if you come from a family of means like more and more of the ACCESS students are because there is no criteria in place for the selection, can the member today tell me bow it is one needy person is selected to be in this program over another? No, be- An Honourable Member: They have a whole series of criteria. Mr. Maoness: The institutioDS have criteria. That is right.

Are they in keeping with what social justice would indicate? No, the evaluation proved that that is not the case . An Honourable Member: We ll, table it. Mr. Manness: Well, I will . I will when it is ready. I have said that. So, Mr. De puty Chairperson, these are all important dimensioDS, but the biggest question is, is there going to be a reduction in the number of people who are eligible to come under this program ?

Absolutely not, and to the extent that somebody who wants to come under this program fits the criteria and, thirdly, is prepared to go through the same criteria eligibility as any other citizen of this province , be will make it in. •

(2020) Of course, what the citizens of this province are saying is, my goodness, if you have good chances of employment at the end of the day, you should be expected to have some level of indebte dness, I mean, given that there are no end of Manitobans who today upon graduating from university have personal debts in the area of, what, $40,000 and more . And what is the argument? Are there two classes of people in this country? De finitely not. When you call upon the state to support your education, you are treated the same as all. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are talking about access to post-secondary education.

That is what we are talking about, and I am saying to the member and I will say to anybody who cares to listen, the reduction, as printed, for the most part reflects administrative savings and the fact that now part of the responsibi lity, the funding liability, now will shift to the individual by a loan. I say, that is the fairer system and I will stand up anywhere and say so. There may be other comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with respect to this motion. Bon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Developmen t): Mr. Deputy Olairperson, I would like to make a few comments with respect to this particular topic. Mr.

Deputy Chairpers on: Could I ask you to bring your mike up so that Hansard will pick you up . Mr. Derkach : I wou ld like to make a few comments with respect to this particular motion and also with respect to the particular top ic. I guess I go back a long way in dealing with this kind of subject and so therefore I would like to share with members of this committee some of the things which we found when we took over gove rnment in 1988 with respect to programs that were being off ered by not only the Department of Education at that time but by other departments as well. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, one of the issues that seems to be cree ping up is a criticism of Workforce 2000 and perhaps the opposition not wanting people who are worlcing in industry to be retrained and trained properly. From time to time we have seen the argument come back and a criticism that we are spending money for big comp anies, which is not true. Actually, Workforce 2000 is meant to train the worker or retrain the worker so that he or she can equip him or herself with a better set of skills to perfonn the tasks at which be or she is employed. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I go back to 1988 when we took government.

At that time we bad a program operating called the Limestone Training Agency, and when I bear the New Democrats criticizing Workforce 2000, all one has to do is look back at Limestone Training. If you want to

1747 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 see a horrible abuse all you have to look at is that program. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will never forget when I was introduced to Limestone Training, I said, what kind of money did we spend on Limestone Training over the period of time that the program was running, and I think when the figures were all tallie d up, it was something in the neighbourhood of $42 million, and I think the budget that was set for it was somewhere around $20 million.

Now, when you start looking at some of the projects that had taken place and some of the training that had happe ned, I said, well, for $42 million we should have had a tremendous amount of training that had taken place. We should have had graduates and people with certificates and curriculums all over the place because I know the NDP have asked about curriculum for various programs in Workforce 2000. •

(2025) Well, I can tell you that in Limestone Training I could not find specific curriculums. I could not find graduates in the program. I think there were 15 or 17 graduates in total out of the program. Now there were people who had taken programs. [inte rjection] Now, the member for Thompson- Mr. Deputy Chairpers on: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members to carry on their conversation a little quietly, and we will have a little bit more decorum. The honourable minister to continue. Mr.

Derkach: -says that there were over 2,000 people trained Now he makes the point about the value of Workforce 2000 because you do not need to have a specific curriculum. Indeed, if you are training people for a skilled task, then you simply train them for it, and then you let them get on with life. So, therefore, I found only 17 or 18 people who had actually graduated from programs that had certificates in them at that time. [interjection] The member for Thompson now raises the issue of equipment. Let me tell you about equ ipment.

When we sold Manfor to Repap, I was invited by Repap to come and look at a building in The Pas because he said it belonged to the Department of Education. So I took the time and effort to go and look at this particular building, and when I did, I found equipment lying strewn all over the property of Manfo r-equ ipment , heavy constructio n equipment that was identified as that belonging to the Limestone Training Agency.

We started gathering up this equipment because we had lists and lists of serial numb ers of equipment that we knew was around the province somewhere that had been bought by taxpayer dollars, and we were supposed to be putting this to effective use . Well, we found it all over the place, all over the North. As a matter of fact, we had to bring it back evenmally, put it together and assemble some kind of a sale. I have to tell you that in the back of Keewatin Community College there has to be a lot that is five to seven acres in size, and that lot was literally filled with equipment when we finally gathered it up.

Some of this equipment had been so badly abused that people who wanted to buy it-this was eq uip ment that was costing hundreds and thousands of dollars. I know one particular piece of equipment was in the neighbo urhood of $250,000. It had been left in a swamp over winter and had just become a valueless piece of junk. We found that all over the North, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

So when the NDP talk to us and want to chastise us about using dollars for training effectively, let them not criticize Workforce 2000 because, indeed, if we want to take a look at an abuse of a program, all we have to do is look at Limestone Training. I have never seen such a massive abuse of taxpayer dollars as had happened in Limestone Training. Today we have a motion before us that wants to censure the Minister of Education and Training. I have to say that we have a minister here who has really identified what some of the abuses are in taxpayer dollars with education.

Indeed, he has to bring some order into this.

May 16, 1994 LEGISLA11VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1748 The member for Dauphin keeps talking about used car salesperson training. Let me tell you, even that training would be leagues above what was happening with Limestone Training. Of course, the member for Dauphin would not be interested, and be was not aware of what was going on up north, I am sure, or else be would have spoken out against it in his own cabinet, in his own caucus. I am sure that no one can be so irresponsible as to stand by and watch that kind of thing happen in northern Manitoba. Who gained by it? Nobody. •

(2030) Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have to tell you another instance whex;e we had someone who was in charge of Limestone Training, who should have been living in Thompson, was living in Winn ipeg, and any time he or she wanted to go up there, hopped on a plane at taxpayers' expense and out to Thompson. But it was more convenient to live in Winnipeg and have an office at the comer of Portage and Main. Now this was an office for Limestone Training.

Now folks, let me tell you that if we want taxpayers to get angry about how dollars are spent for education, they should have taken a very close look at what happened in Limestone Training. There is no excuse. There are no re asons why something like that should continue or should have continued. What we have here today is a minister who understands the importance of equality in training, so that people from all across this province can get a me anin gful opportunity at educa tion and training. Yes, they have to invest some dollars. We all need to invest some dollars in ourselves.

There is nothing wrong with a student who bas a guarantee of employment after be or she has graduated to invest some of his or her own money that they may earn in the future into that training. It is not denying them training at all. It is simply saying that you are in vesting in yourself. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): We are living in a different world. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chair pers on, the member for Dauphin says we are living in a different world. You bet, we are living in a different world. Maybe the member for Dauphin had better come to grips with reality because up until now be has not. Mr.

Deputy Cha irperson, I belie ve in Manitobans getting access to opportun ities of education and training. I also understand that when someone invests in his or her own training, they are going to be much better for it. As the Minister of Education and Training says, a lot of the adjustments are not being made at the individual student's level. Many of those adjustments are made in the administrative aspects of the programs. I have been involved in that area, and I have seen some of the changes that have nee ded to be made.

Yes, we are making them, and we are making them for the benefit of students who are going to be entering these programs in the fut ure. If we continue to waste the money, if we continue to simply keep throwing good money after bad, students in the future are not going to have the opportunity that they deserve to get meaningful training, to get meaningful education so they can contribute meaningfully to this society. I say that the member for Thompson has made an error. I believe the motion was made by the member for Thompson, was it not? An Ho nou rable Member: Wolseley. Mr.

Derkach: Oh, I am sorry. 1be member for Wolseley (Mr. Friesen) makes an error, because I believe that indeed if she bad thought about it, if she had taken a look at the history of what has gone on in education and training, she would understand that what the minister is doing here is actually giving those Manitobans right across this province equal access, equal opportunity, allowing them to invest in themselves. Yes, allowing them to take on a little bit of debt, but indeed it does put students on a level playing field. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I think that I would like to conclude by, if I could, asking the Minister of Education whether he feels that the rates that students who enter our institutions are on a level playing field and indeed whether it does provide for them an equal opportunity to AC CESS Programs regardless of the types of programs that they want to enter into.

1749 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Mr. Mann ess: I have enjoyed listening to the commemary provided by my colleague because be brings forward ve:ry, ve:ry important history with respect to what we found in the field of training and bow taxpayer dollars bad been so severely abused by the government before us. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want members to know that, of course, one can define fairness and equality in bow many different ways, I guess, it depends bow many people are prepared to try and give a definition to the word.

What do we say to the public, to those people who want to maimain the status quo and keep the numbers, given the budget restraints, given the fact that federal government bas been pulling, pulling, pulling out of this, given the fact that under the old regime the total numbers being able to access ACCESS would continue to fall maintaining the status quo. Yet what we are proposing here in terms of the change will allow for increased entry. What do we say?

How do the members opposite-when I come out with the numbers, in 1993-94, 744 people were part of the ACCESS Program, and in 1994-95, with the change in regime that we are proposing that now 832, 11.8 percent, additional people will be able to be part of the ACCESS Program, what do the members say publicly? How do they defend their actions? Well, they cannot. They cannot possibly defend their actions. What are we asking? Based upon need, because not everybody that is in this program requi res financial support.

But based upon need -and the criteria eligi bility put into place by the Canada Student Loan program, regular students now, all other Manitoba students, first of all, have to borrow $165 a week from Canada and $110 a week after that from Manitoba alone, even though the province bas to pick up 40 percent from dollar one. Then after that, for those that have need, there is a study assistance, a bursary, nonrepayable of $40. Ye t ACC ESS students, Mr.

De puty Chairperson, we are asking them at Level 1, the $165 per week , to provide for their own requirements by way of loan, of which we guarantee to pay 40 percent, guarantee 40 percent, and members somehow are saying that that is unfair. Again, the cost of setting up these programs -any where from $60,000 per student fo r attending colle ge, $130,000-plus for attending un iversity. And we are ask ing so mebody -guaranteed employment, to use the words of my friends in the opposition-asking them basically to have at the time of graduation a loan, an indebtedness, in the area of $16,000 to $20,000.

And that is based on a 34-week program. An Honou rable Member: It is not a 34-week program. Mr. Manness: Per year. An Honou rable Memb er: It is not a 34-week program. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some are 34-week programs. So the member says-what is the member saying? It is a 50-week program? Some are longer than 34. I understand. BUNTEP and others are longer. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the point still stands. That is why, taking imo account the longer year and obviously some of the other areas, we did not request that ACCESS students have to flow or make requirement for the second and third levels .

So I say to the member opposite it is certainly fai rness that is in place. But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what else are we doing with this savings? Well, just recently the new centre-the member would know this, that BUNTEP opened the new centre in Thompson. The member knows that It opened at the end of April, just this summer. Oh no, we did not bear anything about the- An Hon ourable Member: Well, you did nothing. You bad no thing to do with that. It was KCC that provided the service. Mr. Mann ess: Ah, we did not hing. We did nothing-[ interjection] Mr. De puty Chairpe rson: Order, please.

"I would ask the honourable members to please refrain from ruining the decorum within my committee. I am really having a bard time hearing the minister and I am sitting next to him.

/ May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1750 Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, what a foolish statement � member for Thompson says: It was not you, it was KCC. Who funds KCC? The taxpayers of the province of Manitoba [interj ection] Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please . Could I ask the honourable m ember one more time to just refrain a little bit while the minister-every one will have an opp ortunity. Order, please. Everyone will have an opportunity to put their wolds on the record, but this time it is the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) on a point of order. Po int of Order Mr.

Ashton: On a· point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we did not say anything when the minister was in itially recognized, although we are debating the motion. The minister who spoke previously, the member for Roblin-R ossell (Mr. Dedcach) had, when we were debating a motion, asked a question to the minister. You then recognized the min ister. •

(2040) I would ask, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if perhaps we cann ot have some alternation in debate . We are quite willing to hear the Minister of Education's debate on this particular matte r, but I believe that the nonn al procedure is when we are dealing with a motion, we are debating the motion. We are not in the nonnal process of asking questions to the minister and dealing with a line item. So if I am a little bit anxious about the minister speaking for the se cond time on what was a question from the member for Roblin- Rossell (Mr.

Detkach), I would perhaps ask that we have some alternation between members, because I know some of our members in particular have a lot of points they want to put on the debate on this motion, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order, but I would like to infonn the committee that I will not be keeping a fonnal list, but I have had hands coming up all over the place. I will get to each and every one of you as soon as I possibly can. At this time the honoumble minister has the floor. ••• Mr. Mannes s: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I was reacting to the statement when I thought I heard the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) say that it was not in essence taxpayers. He did not use the word, but in the sense he said KCC funded this, I say well from where did KCC get-{interjection] Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, all I know is that federal government has been backing out of ACCESS since we took office. The former Minister of Northern and Native Affairs, he made several trips down to Ottaw a to fight on behalf of ACCESS. The Minister of Education went to Ottawa to fight on behalf of ACCESS.

I think there were a couple of other ministers long before I came along . Mr. Deputy Chairperson , the member does not have to give me a history lesson on ACCESS funding.

Our government has fought and fought and fought and picked up more and more of the cost every year, and yet when we try to make a change in pro gmm which is going to be fairer to everybody, every post-se condary student in the province , which is also going to allow for greater opportunity of entry by the client group that the member is supposedly speaking on behalf of today, and when we try to allow some of the saving to flow over-and who knows where, there could be another post-se condary institution hosted location or event or progmm in the North-the members opposite say no, keep the status quo.

Keep the existing progmm but put more money at it, because what they are saying is that the progmm that we have in place now has been in place for 10 years and it has worked perfect ly. No change s. And I am saying to the member, non sense , there is not a progmm in government that should not be studied, No. 1, and No. 2, reflected upon, and certainly if the evaluations point out that there should be changes, let the changes flow. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the members, after they see the report, will stand and applaud the action of this government. An Ho nourable Member: Table it.

1751 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Mr. Manness: The member says table it I have full intention of tabling it when it is in a fonn ready to be tabled. I have had it for a long time, but the consultants still are not done. I have had a draft copy for a long time. I again point this out for the record. The members can make all of the commentaries they want, but the fact is most of the saving, the printed saving, will be in the areas of administration and also in asking some of the students to take on some indebtedness. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I cann ot believe that members opposite would not want a program that was fairer and allowing greater entry into it. It makes no sense to me. I cann ot believe that they would not want us, be encouraging us to make the changes that would allow for greater access to the program, but the members do not see that.

They see it purely as a cost-cutting move because it prints from 99 down to 79, and they figure they can make an awful lot of political hay on this, that they can go and beat the bushes and try and have people convinced we are throwing them out of the program, and, of cour se, nothing is further from the truth. So, Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, I will not even move into the Worlcforce 2000 program aspect of the motion because I know we are coming up to that line and the member for Wolseley particularly will want to spend a lot of time on that issue .

So it is probably not in keeping with the desire of many of the other people at this table to want to speak to move into Worldorce 2000 at this time. But let me reiterate for the final time, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this program change was made purely on the basis of fairness to all of those people who want to access post-sec ondary education institutions within our pro vince. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster ): I have just a couple of questions for the minister, and then a couple of questions also for the mover of the mot ion. It is an attempt to try to get so me clarification on the whole issue.

What I would like to be able to do is to first ask just a couple of very brief questions with reference to the ACCESS. The minister indicated that in the '93-94 year there were 744 students that went through ACCESS, for '94-95, 832 stude nts. I just want to confinn those numbers, and if, in fact, the minister can indicate would there be any change or level of funding to those individuals year over year. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please . At this time I would like to remind the honourable members that we are debating a motion that was brought forward by the member for Wolseley.

We will have an opportunity to ask the minister a number of questions once we get into the direct line, which is ACCESS Program s, but at this time I would like to remind the honourable member for Inkster that we are debating the motion that is before us. Mr. Lamoureux: Just to speak on that, we have the NDP critic indicating that there has been a significant cut in funding to the program.

I think it is important that we understand as a committee in tenns of the real impact of that particular cut, and that is the reason why I had asked the question in terms of, in real tenns, bow many individuals or the number of students will this actually have an impact on. So I would ask the minister if he could just clarify those numbers for me. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that I believe if there are any questions within your debate that you are putting forward on this motion, I am sure the minister will have plenty of opportunity when he comes back again to answ er those questions. At this time, I do believe the proper way to handle this is for the members to move into the debate, unless it is the will of the com mittee that the minister be allowed to answer questions during this de bate. What is the will of the committ ee? Point of Order Mr.

La mo ure ux: On a point of order, I think that it is most approp riate to be able to ask a question of the minister to find out, in fact, the real impact this motion is going to have . So it is stric tly relative to the motion at hand, and we would not want to have individuals voting, not having the necessa ry infonnation for us.

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1752 Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley on the issue of [inter jec tion] The honourable member for Thomps on, on another- ••• Mr. Ashton: On a matter of procedure really . It is not essentially on a matter of order. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: This is on a matter of procedure be cause at this time I am just getting to see if the committee is willing to allow the minister to answer some questions during the debate. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I realize that the Liberals may have some difficulty making up their minds on the resolution.

I just want some ass urance that if it is going to require questions, there will be a limit to the number of questions, that we are not going to be here for God knows bow many days while the member for Inkster decides which way be is going to vote on this particular motion. So we are willing to all ow leave for one question, well, perhaps one or two questions, but pl ease, so long as the record can indicate that it is not unlimited leave here to proceed into questions. •

(2050) Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1ben, with leave, we will allow the honourable member for Inkster the opportunity to ask a number of short questions just to get clarification. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not entirely convin ced that one should not be able to ask questions prior to being able to vote on the motion. But the question has already been put.

I would ask the minister whether or not be can respond to the actual number of individuals that this will have an impact on in terms of future students and the type of reso urces in particular in terms of forgi veness of the indi viduals appl ying for this particular program. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said before , right today , enrolled in all the programs, in terms of this school year, '93-94, there are presently, or at least to start off with, 7 44 individuals.

The expectation, the inf ormation that we have been receiving, is that in terms of '94-95, the number will grow by 11 .8 percent to 832 in all of the ACCESS Programs . Now, obvi ously, some number of the 832 then are going to have some level of indebtedness associated with their studies . Mr. Lamoureux: But the figure that we see is in fa ct to facilitate the 832. Mr. Manness: Yes. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chair person, I guess this would be a question for the mover of the motion, in trying again to get a better- Mr. Deputy Chairper son: Order, please.

The honourable member canno t put fo rward questions to the mover, but if the mover so chooses, when she takes the floor- Point of Order Mr. Lamoureux: Point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have been inside committee before where motions have been moved and questions have been put. I would ask maybe that the Deputy Chairperson take it under advisement before we start ruling out any questio ning of a motion. I think it is ridiculous not to be able to ask some questions for clarification. In fact, I am not going to bide behind rules.

If in fact they do not want to provide inform ation, fine, we can have the question. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think the motion could be clearer. We are opposed to the cuts in ACCESS funding; the government fe els it is the appr opriate course of action, and we have pinpo inte d the fa ct that we would rather see the money in ACCESS than Workforce 2000. I do not think we have to spend much more time . It is a question of which side of the issue you are on. We know which side we are on. I know which side the government is on. I am n ot sure which side the Liberals are on.

If they need time to decide that, I would suggest they discuss it with in their caucus rather than waste the time of the committee back and forth in terms of questions. I mean, we cannot make up their mind for them. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I just have one minute while I do a little bit of research here?

1753 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Order, please. 1be honomable member did not have a point of older. If the bonomable member wants to put his question on the record, I am sure when the honourable member for Wolseley has her opportunity to speak to the motion she will answer the question directly. ••• Mr. Geo rge Dickes (Point Doug las): Mr. Deputy Cbaitperson, I just wanted to make a couple of points here. First of all, I found it interesting when I heanl the fann er Minister of Education speaking about Lim estone Training and the total negative impacts it has had on northern people .

I find that very surprising coming from a former minister. [int erjection] Well, you said it was a total waste of money. 1be other statement was what happe ned to the trainees, where are they now, and that there was only a few number that graduated. I think you used the wonl 16 graduates or 17 graduates. That really surprises me, but in a way it does not because it shows how so out of touch the fanner Minister of Education is pertaining to northern Manitoba.

When you deal with individuals that are going for certification in carpentry , in plumbing, in electrical [in terjection] No, I was not in carpentry. [int erjection] I used to be. To say now that only 17 gradua ted with their certificates, I think that is a great accomplishment. When we looked in Manitoba in 1986 we found three aboriginal people that had their carpenter papers, three in all of Mani toba, and we could not hire any of those people because they already bad good employment op portunities.

To say now after a program that was in place from 1986 to even today , it was started in '85 and it was finished in 1989, that is four years. If you know anything about app renticeship, anything about northe rn Manitoba, bow can you have a person graduate with a carpenter certificate or electrical certificate or any apprenticeable paper when you know the construction season in northern Manitoba is three months at the most, and it takes 1, 800 hours to accumula te one year of apprenticeship time? So the Mini ster of Education does not even understand that.

So how can you complete four years when you are only employed three months out of the year? That is the construction phase in northern Manitoba. So when you look at that-and if you want a true gauge, look at some of the peop le, do an assessment of bow many northern Manit obans received their carpenter papers from 1985 to 1994, where some of them have had the opportunity to accum ulate their required number of hours to write for their papers. Most individuals cannot even write their first-year papers until after at l e ast three or four years of job opportunity.

So bow can you say that they only graduated 17 when if you want a true assessment, if you wan t to lo ok at a true asse ssment, look at how many people gradua ted from Level I, how many graduated from Level IT, how many graduated from Level m, and then how many graduated from Level IV. How many are still working to try and accumulate their hours to get their papers? If you go to an y northern community in any northern reserve, who is building the houses today ? It is not the southern contractors. An Honourable Member: They are not Limestone students either. Mr. Dickes: You go up there and have a look.

Before the people that built those hou ses used -most of those houses were built by southern contractors, the employment opportu nities were from southern people that to ok the jobs from those communities, where it was 85, 90, 95 percent of the people unemployed, and today you go there it is the local people that are doing the work, and most of them are still on apprenticeship programs.

If you look at who is running the heavy equipm ent in those co mmun iti es, who is maintaining the roads , who is driving the trucks, if you look at who is drivin g the trucks, who is working for the bands , it is the people that got their training through Limestone Train ing. Most of them got their training through there . 1be other thing was what the minister had said, and I am re ally surprised that his staff never

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1754 educated him on this. He said he went to the Manfor site and there was a whole field of used and old equipment just sitting there. An Ho nourable Member: It is Keewatin. Mr. mckes: Yes, Keewatin Community College . Keewatin Community Coll ege was at Manfor. Do you know where that equipment came from? It nev er came from Limestone Training. [interj ection] Did not. I was right there when they moved it. It used to be in the backyard. [interjection] Dam right that was part of it. It was in the backyard of Keewatin Community Colle ge.

They used the old equipment to do heavy equipment training years and years ago. Most of that equipment is so rusted up and outdated. [interjection] A few pieces had LTA •

(2100) Mr. Deputy Chairpers on: Order, please. I am really having a bani time hearing the honourable member for Point Douglas. The honourable member for Point Douglas to continue, please. Mr. mckes: That is the other point I wanted to make, because a lot of that equipment that was sold off for nothing was very valuable equipment. There was a brand new CAT. It was brand new, it was runnin g, and it was the same CAT and the loader that they used at Limestone Training that we used for train ing, and the northe rn [inte rjection] There was nothing wrong with it.

The northern communities could have used that equipment, and what did they do? They auctioned it off and they got nothing for it Very, very little . Instead of looking at it and helping the northern communities-[inte rjection] It shows how little the fo rmer minister unde iStands. The other thing that Limestone Training did was it engineered, it helped to get aboriginal people into the engineering program. They did upgrading in the chemistry and the maths area for aboriginals to get into the engineering program, and those people that went into the engineering program, there were five that graduated this year.

If they had not got that opportunity to upgrade, there would not be five aboriginal engineers that graduated from that program. When you get into the ACCESS Progra ms, ACCESS was started 10 years ago. If you looked 10 years ago, how many aboriginal people did you see in Manitoba that were engineers, dentists, doctors, social woik ers, teachers? How many? There was very very fe w. That is why the ACCESS Program was brought into place, to try and help the aboriginal community to get the proper education to start delivering- An Ho nourable Member: It was mo re than aboriginals.

Mr. mckes : We ll, minorities came on, but most of your students are aboriginal. An Ho nourable Member: But there was more than that. Mr. mckes: Yes, I fully understand, but most of your students from the ACCESS Program were aboriginal, and the reason that ACCESS Program was brought in was to try and get more aboriginal people into the employment opportunities that we did not have access to. That was the whole purpose of it. An Ho nourable Member: It was not just for aboriginal peop le. Mr. mckes: No, I am not saying that, but I said most of your students were aboriginal people.

That is what I said I made that very clear. Most of them were. Most of the students that are ACCESS students are single parents . So when you talk about individuals that have to now take out loans or woik part time, where do the single parents get the time? Where? They are trying to raise a fa mily. They are trying to study. They are trying to take upgrading in order to try and succeed in their chosen caree rs, and a lot of them are in 11 -month progra ms. If you look at the Wm nipeg Education Centre , they are there for 11 months, and the same as most of your programs.

If you look back and you say, well, we want to be fair to everybody, and we want to make sure because they are going to get employment opportunities, loo k at how much money the government is saving. Most of the students that are in ACCESS Programs, they come from welfare . Did you know that? From welf are.

1755 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Do you want to continue paying welf are for- what?- 20, 30 more years? It costs you more to keep a person on welfare for 20, 30 years than to pay for education for-w hat?-four years, five years in some cases. It is a heclc of a lot cheaper. That is where most of the students come from, from the welfare rol ls. So why are you cutting it now? By cutting it, by changing the criteria, you cut 20 percent from the funding.

But anyway, when you reduce the funding or make it harder for individuals to succeed, like I said, most of them are single parents that are now trying to upgrade themselve s, trying to get an education, trying to raise their children, and now you are saying , now you have to work part time to by and make ends meet. Did you know most of these students that are ACCESS students alre ady have to take out additional loans and add itional dollars in order to succeed? 1he minister says it is because we want everyone to be the same, we want to be fair to everyone .

Wel l, ifthe minister would look back 10 years ago, there were very few aboriginal people going to university, and ask yourself why. The other thing was, who had access to university, who those people were, and you will see most of them came right out of high school or most of them were single people that had the opportunity to live with their parents or had parents that were well enough off, that could subsidize and help them to get through university. That is who the university students were.

Now we see aboriginal people that are now getting the opportunity to get educated and the opportunity to make a better lif e for their famil ies. Now we see the go vernment trying to cut that back. So that way, what you see is this government bringing undue hardship dire ctly, beca use the ma jority of your students are aboriginal , upon aboriginal people when we have the sa me government, an all-party agreement of supporting the inherent right to self -government. What? It is a simple question. What is the key to aboriginal self-government? It has to be education; it has to be education.

Without the aboriginal people having educa tion opportunitie s, self -government is doome d. Government, they must understand that. So how can you support the program ? How many students will be able to attend ACCESS with-[int elje ction] You believe it is really more? It is not more. [interjection] You would not have more. You know that, and I know that. I hope the aboriginal community will challenge the government in some form on this beca use it is so crucial for the wish of self -government to come about to have proper education. Just go back 10 years. [inte rjection] Well , go back 10 years.

I asked you a question. How many aboriginal people had university de grees 10 years ago, and then today, and now you know how many more have it because of the ACCESS Programs. You cann ot put more barri ers. You are just putting more barriers bade onto people . When we talk about training programs, the commun ity of Wabowden is asking for truck driver training programs . If Limestone was such a big failure, why are they asking for truck driver training programs now? Do you know?

I really believe that the government has to reassess this, and I hope they will in their wisdom choose not to penalize aboriginal people any further and to ensure that the aboriginal people-no more hoops , no more barri ers to leap through, because most of those have been eliminated, and to continue to help promote the wishes of aboriginal people for self-government. I was really amazed when I saw all of the ACCESS students in the gallery.

There was about 70 of them that were going to be directly hit by this, and most of them were single parents bying to raise famil ies, and they said, you know , we do take out loans and everything else. Then I saw the Liberal critic out in the ha llway, the great saviours of ACCESS, and I think the Liberals fo rget that in 1988 they campaigned to cut or eliminate the ACCESS Program, to eliminate it and campaigned on it. Then in the next breath, when there are 70 students out there, they are in the hallway, the saviours of ACCBSS-[ interjection] No, it was

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1756 not Kevin, it was their Education critic. I spoke to some of those students, and they said do not wony, the Liberals-and I kindly reminded them what their campaign promises were. This � such an important vote that we have , Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I move that the question be now put. Point of Order Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chaitpers on, just on a point of order, we would like to be able to continue to discuss this particular resolution, and I think it is important to note that the member from Point Douglas (Mr.

Hickes) is in fact limiting the debate, and we find that most inappropriate for the official opp osition party. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. Voice Vote Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in fa vour that the question now be put, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opp osed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opini on, the Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader) : I request a fo rmal vote. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: A form al vote has been requested. Order, please . I would like to inform the honourable member for Thompson that two members have to request the vote. We are going to adjourn for a few minut es. • (211 0) Members, rise to go to the House for a fo nnal vote , ple ase. The committee recessed at 9:10pm. After Recess The committee resumed at 9:34p.m. Mr. Deputy Chairpers on: Order, please. At this time we will still be debating the motion of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) . Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Deputy Chair person, indeed once again I am somewhat relieved that democracy has prevailed I know that this is not necessa rily the first time in which we have unfortunately had to entertain a motion of closure from the official oppositi on. In fact- Point of Order Mr. Ashton : A point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Liberal House leader should know somewhat better, know that we are now debating the motion I assum e by the decision that was just taken in the House that that is what his intention would be.

It is definitely not in order to revisit a decision of the House, and I would suggest you ask him to bring his comments to order, in particular to the motion that is before us. Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson: Order, please. The honourable member, I am sure, is getting close to dealing with the issue before us at this time, and the honourable member did not have a point of order. • •• Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, I can understand why the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) would be very sensitive .

After all, back at the beginning of June 1994 was the last time when he, in fa ct, had moved a motion of closure, and- An Ho nourable Member: We have not hit June '94. Mr. Lamoureux: June of '91. Somewhat scary -whenever I look at the member for Thompson, I guess it kind of brings it out on me. I recall the headline where it read the member for Thompson was in wonderland as NDP urges closure, and one could go on for quite awhi le. Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson: Order, ple ase. Could I remind the honourable member that we are dealing with the motion put forward by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.

Friesen) , and there are many members who would like to put their words of wisdom on the record.

1757 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the motion the New Democratic Party has brought in is something that we will in fact be supporting, but there are some concerns we do have with respect to this particular motion. The New Democ ratic Party has been very . hesita nt in terms of any form of support for Workforce 2000.

We share a number of the concerns that they have in terms of monitoring and accountability and how it is being implemented, but we recognize and acknowledge that there is a need for a program like Workforce 2000 and that both programs should, in fact, be working and complementing each other. With re fe rence to remarks that the member for Point Douglas (Mr.

Hickes) had put onto the record in terms of the Liberal Party's previous position on this particular issue, I would take exception to those remarks and would ask the member for Point Douglas to actually bring forward what it is that he is referring to when he says that the Liberal Party did not support the ACCESS Program. I will wait for those particular remarks. I would have liked to have seen a better explanation from the member for Wolseley (Ms.

Friesen) when she brought in the motion, because I think that there are some concerns, some questions that could have been answered, understanding that we could not ask specific questions . I guess had we had the opportunity to ask some questions, one could have sought clarification from the member for W olseley with respect to what is the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to the Workforce 2000 program as a whole. Hope fully , in somewhat of a

preamble to the motion, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) would have had the opportunity, because if the New Democratic Party's position is that they do not support the Workforce 2000 program in its entire ty, we would disagree with that. If it is just the grants that they are calling into question, it would be nice to receive a full list of the grants that they are calling into question. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I know in the past that they have been very critical of some -and no doubt for good reason, but I would challenge them to indicate in terms of what it is that they find about some of the occupations that they criticize. [interjection] No, we are speaking about the motion. The motion refers to Workforce 2000, for the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). He should have read the motion himself. Mr.

Deputy Chaiiperson, I do believe that it is appropriate to have given some fonn of a detailed explanation in tenns of the content of the motion, much like I thought it was appropriate to get some sort of an idea from the Minister of Education in terms of the number of students this is going to be having an impact on.

With those fe w words, I will indicate that we will be supporting the motion, but we do have some reservations with respect to why it is the New Democratic Party does not accept, at the very least, the concepL We share their concerns with respect to the monitoring of the Wotkforce 2000 program, but we do not share the thought that the program should be put to a complete halt. Mr. Deputy Chairpers on: Is the committee ready for the question? Some Ho nourable Members: Question. •

(2140) Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The question before the committee is the motion of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friese n). Voice Vote Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honou rable Members: Yea . Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Membe rs: Nay. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Steve Ashton (Oppo sitio n House Leader) : I would re quest a formal vot e , Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1758 Mr. Deputy Chairperson: And the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plobman) is here as well. Two members have requested a form al vote. We will now proceed to the Chamber for a form al vote. The committee recessed at 9:40p.m. After Recess The committee resumed at 10:33 p.m. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. When this commit tee last sat, we were dealing with 4.(

b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the motion that was canied in the Chamber speaks volumes in terms of what the general fe eling is with respect to the government 's treatment of the ACCESS Program which bas been concerns which have been expressed through Question Periods and so forth. Hope fully, the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) will give it reconsideration in terms of what it is be is doing with this particular program.

I would ask the Minister of Education what be is prepared to do with respect to the ACCESS Program, given the most recent vote inside the Chamber. Mr. Manness: Well, I am just absolutely delighted the member bas put that question. I have learned long ago that it is better to put your fate in the House of all the elected peo ple rather than committees. If the member is saying the fate of ACCESS is directly proportional to the way a committee of the House bas refle cted upon the issue, I would say no, let us go right to the House as the final authority.

The skirmishes that we have gone through tonight will not cause me to change my mind with respect to what bas been done in allowing greater entry for more people into a program that the gove rnm ent, obviousl y, bas supported over the years and found millions of dollars more when the federal government was backing out of this program and have been very supportive of the program. So I want the record, Mr. Deputy Cbailperson, to show very clearly a number of things, and some of them will be repetitive. First of all, the government supports the program.

The government bas made a commitment of millions of dollars of additional funding to the program over the course of seven budg ets. The change reflected in this budget is one where, first of all, we were trying to reduce the administrative costs in the institutions which are providing this service and in our sense, in some respects, have add itional costs built in which we really should not be paying for.

Thirdly and most importantly, in fairness to all of the post-secondary students in this province, many who have sizable loan portfolios upon leaving the post-secondaly school education system , that they be treated no diffe rently than any other citizen in the province . So we stand by the decision, Mr. Deputy Cbailperson, and I will again put the House 's faith into a decision as to whether or not I be censured. What I find kind of different is that, of course, the Liberal Party-I agree with the NDP in one sense -did not know where they were coming from on this one or where they are going.

They still do not even know what ACCESS does, let alone where they want to stand on the issue . The Liberals are going to have a lot of explaining to do over the course of the next number of months, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on. One thing I have learned about Manitoba Liberals, they are an awful lot different than Atlantic Canada Libera ls. Atlantic Canada Libera ls, they have some basis. They have some principle, and they have some focus. They know what direction they are going.

I have watched this party over the last six years under two Leaders , and I have never seen a party vacillate more, stand on one foot then to the other, shift. There is an old say ing, if you stand for noth ing, you will fall for everything, and the Liberals, of course, have shown that to me over and over and over again over the course of the last six or eight years. I will tell you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not troubled by this, because when we take this motion

1759 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 to the House like we will , the Liberals may very well stand and support the government because it is 24 hours hence and, you never know, there could be a mind shift again. So I am not going to lose a lot of sleep about it, and yet I have to point out that the Liberals fee l, of course , that they were duped bythe NDP. 1bey did not know this motion was coming so they are kind of angry at the NDP.

But when it came down to the 11 th hour, in this case the 12th hour, of course they showed their true colours, and that is, tty to take the political advantage while you can because tomorrow you may have changed your mind and missed the moment. I m ean-n o, I will not say that into the record, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I was going to relate it to real life experie nces when there are only two people involved. But let me-from diffe rent genders , too, I might add. Do you want me to stop? So I hope I have answered the member's question in totali ty. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I can understand why it is that the Minister of Education would now be somewhat emb arrasse d, or at least he should be. Mr. Manness: I may be a lot of things right now, but I am not emb arrasse d. Mr. Lamoureux: He says he is not emb arrasse d. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was there when the Minister of Education was then the Minister of Fina nce, and we were in a committee room when he decided, well, as minister responsible for Repap I am done answering questions and took the liberty to walk outside of the committee room and grind things to a halt.

I remember the research that was done on that particular case, in whicb-- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, ple ase. Could I ask the honourable members to please refer a little bit to (

b) ACCESS Programs $7 ,903,200? I believe the motion that we had in the House has already been taken care of, and at this time we are dealing with ACCESS. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was just drawing the similarities to that parti cular incident and the incident that we just finished having inside the Chamber, where once again this particular minister is breaking new grounds . I have only been here , albeit , somewhat six years.

I would tum to the dean of the Chamber, and I do not know if he might, in fact, be able to advise me on whether or not he is ever aware of a minister that has been actually censured before . So I do not think this is something that should be taken all that lightly . I know if I was in the minister 's situation it would be somewhat emb arras sing. •

(2240) Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again I would ask the Minister of Education-he has made reference to a number of individuals who have expressed an interest in '94-95, where he is anti cipating, I believe it was 832. I am wondering if he can comment in tenns of the general demand of the program. Is this something that is coming more so from-the increased demand, is it more so from rural Manitoba predominately or the city of Wmnipe g? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly still the largest demand is from northern Manit oba. . I mean, that is a given, given the history of the course.

But there is also a growing demand by those who of course see an incredible deal , I mean an incredible opportunity, people who may in some cases have sufficient means of their own, but they see this as an under writing of a total government program . Again, in some cases over $1 00,000, and of course, they are growingly interested also. So the question is then, what criteria are used and who should make these decisions? Who makes the decisions today with respect to who is eligible to be part of the ACCESS Program? Well, that is a question worth asking, and it is one wor th answering.

I dare say, once the report comes down, it will probably draw some attention to that question. So I say that geographic ally most of the grea ter demand comes from northern Manitoba. We understand that. That is why we con tinue to supp ort the program , and that is why, even though there will be a new regime of supp ort, it will be there to provide greater opportunities or an

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1760 opportunity for greater numbers, and that again speaks to our overall support of the program. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chailperson, I am wondering if the minister can indicate whether or not there has been any background work to subs tantiate that the ability or the me ans of individu als able to participate in this program have been enhanced through other programs that no longer require them to have the subsidization that is cwrently there? Mr. Deputy Chaiiperson, I will try and attempt to make it a bit more clear.

Can the minister indicate whether or not the financial capabilities of individuals that are applying for this particular program have in fact been that much greater? Are there individuals that have more money-as the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallist er) says -able to participate in this particular program? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you cannot make categorical statements.

What the review has indicated is that there are some people presently in the course who come from economic backgrounds-certainly not the ma jority, as I have said before , maybe not even a large minority-but there are some cases where we sense there are means in place that would dictate that individuals present that information by way of student loan application and let the same criteria that are in place for every other Manitoban be in place for them. Nothing more. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Chailperson, I want to ask about the report that has been done on the ACCESS Programs that the minister is refusing to release , either by free dom of information, which I requested many months ago and which the minister has said no to, and again in this session. The minister has refused to table that report, so that the very basis of the ministe r's observations, the leaps of faith that the minister is making in estimating the number of students who will be involved in ACCESS Programs under his new criteria, are simply not available to anyone else other than the minister.

I want to know how the minister defends that in front of the Legislature . Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaitpe rson, I fe el compelled to put some information on the record. I was hoping to see it released as part of the whole overall assessment in the evaluation document on the ACCESS Program. It should be noted that the ACCESS students were surveyed, and 26 percent of a very healthy , large base number that were surveyed. These results came forward in '93-94.

ACCESS students who applied for Canada Student Loan in their first year of study had access to more or comparable resources than other regular applicants in six of eight Canada Student Loan group types. . Secondly, in three marri ed, single , parent group types analyzed for '93-94, ACCESS students applying for a Canada Student Loan in their first year of study had, on average, more resources than regular students applying for Canada Student Loans in their first year of study. Mr. Deputy Olairperson, we do not make these decisions lightly.

We do not rush into a program which we have supported with millions of dol lars, put ministers on the road several times to convince Ottawa that it was not worthy for them to reduce their level of funding. We believe in this program. We always have . As I said to the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hicke s), and as I have said to other members, because a program has been around for 10 years does not allow it to be stamped as a sacred program.

This government has committed to itself, and indeed to the people of this province , that programs, when they are around for awhile , will be reviewed and analyze d, and if they are found wanting they will be changed. That is the hallmarlc of this government, and no program escapes, including ACCESS. So we brought outside people in to review it in a dispassionate and objective fas hion. The surveys were done.

The scientific techniques to analyze this program were put into place, and it was found wa nt ing in some respects when put into comparison with what is available for the vast number of individuals in our society who have to borrow mo ney for post-se condary education putpases, and we have made the change .

1761 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 But there are people across the way who say you cann ot change it, do not dare change it unless you put more money in to maintain the status quo. That is not acceptab le, and they can make all the political commentary they want. The Liberals can fall off any log they have ever stood on with respect to ob jectivity . It is a pretty narrow fence. It will hold a Liberal up on ob jectivity, I can tell you -or a pretty wide fe nce.

But the reality is tonight they have shown m e that they took the cheap political side , and that they do again, that they would use political expediency over common sense all the time . Now, Mr. Deputy Chair person, with that inform ation, which will be part of the larger report when it is released, I hope the members understand why it is that we hav e made some of the changes that are emerging, and that they realize that it is government's responsibility in support of the taxpayers to review all programs, and when they are fo und wanting in some respect, that changes have to be made.

Changes always cann ot call upon additional reso urces . Those days are gone. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair person, the minister is asking us to take a great deal on fa ith. The minister has specifically refused, thro ugh free dom of inf ormation, to allow us to have access to the same numbers that he has. The minister now quotes us one selected statistic from that report. He may or may not be right, but because he has specifically refused to allow us access to the same inform ation that be bas, we have no way of evaluating the selective numbers that he is giving us. •

(2250) In '93-94, if those were the people who were surveyed under the Hikel report. There had already been substantial changes to ACCESS Programs at that point as a result of the withdrawal of funds by the fe deral government. The nature of selection had already changed by '93-94, so the very students whom you are surveying in '93-94, those in the first year, are quite diffe rent than the ACCESS Program bad been over the ye ars. An Honourable Member: So? Ms. Friesen: We ll, the minis ter says so.

It is very difficult to get across to him that what he has done is changed the basis of selection in the ACCESS Program. Selection was one of the bases of success, of retention in the program. Those are the hallmarks of success of this pro gram, is the nature of the high rate of retenti on. I assume that the Hikel report also looks at that. I would like to have access to the same numbers that the minister does .

Why is he consistently refusing, in writing and again in front of this committee, to give the public access to a report for which they paid and for which the minister is now making substantial changes to a program? Mr. Mann ess: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, if these Esti mates were held in June , they may very well have that report ready for tabling at that time. I do not now. Now the member says, why do you not ma ke it available right now? Because it is not ready. [inte rjection] Yes, we made the decision, and we are held accountable for those decis ions. We are governing.

This party is governing, and we have made the decisi ons. You are right, we made it; but the member is right. She ref ers to Mr. Hike l. Well, what did we do? Did we reach the wrong person? Ms. Friesen: I have no idea. Mr. Manness: Well , but the point being, I mean, we reached to a fo rmer assistant deputy minister of Income Security under the NDP. That is who we asked to do this survey, some body who is knowledgeable in the whole program and the whole social program are a, and who formerly taught in the ACCESS Program.

No w, the members may call into question the method ology, and they are speculating on that too unless they know for sure, but the reality is now, Mr. Deputy Cha irperson, that when the report is complete and it is in a fonn that can be shared, it will be shared. The member talks about eligibili ty. I mean, can she tell me from the university perspec tive how students are chosen? Can she tell me how one disadvantaged, needy student is chosen over another? She does not have a clue, because there are no criteria in place today, no consistent,

May 16, 1994 LEGISLA11VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1762 objective criteria in place for selecting one student over another. So bow do you worlc a program that way? Who gets the benefit of the scarce number of posi tions? Who receives that? Who makes that decision? The institution? The band? Well, of cowse, nobody really knows, becau se you have a system today which conf eiS upon some individuals an incredible benefit, and yet there is no consistency of selection criteria.

Vis-l-vis other students in our provin ce, many who upon graduation have a student loan which they have to deal with for some number of yeaiS -so why do the m�mbeiS not at least have the courage to come out and say that post-secondary education should be a free good to everybody? Why do they not hav e the courage and the gall at least to do that, but they do not. They do not, because that is the ultimate in fairne ss to make it a free good to everybod y. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Olaiipe mon, well, the minister bas responded tiiSt of all by bringing into question the capabilities and the impartiality of the pemon who did the survey. I will remind the minister that be is the one who raised that. I am asking specifically for public inf onnation. I have done it in writing , asking for fre edom of inf ormation on this report so that we might be able to judge the kinds of decisions which the minister bas made and the kind of policy which the governmen t bas put into place . That bas been denied.

The issue is not at all the-[i nterjection] We ll, the minister is saying-but in fa ct I have aske � for freedom of inf ormation on this report, and tt bas been denied. Does the minister have an alternative explanation? Mr. Manness: The member bas been advise d that this inf ormation, this document will be provided within the 90 days that is eligible under the freedom of inf ormation legislation The member bas been advised. She knows fully well this document, this eval uation, this internal assessment done by Hikel of Peat Marwick will be made available to her. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Cbairpemon, I applied for this information well in advance of Estimates so that I would be in a po sition to discuss in a rational manne r, using the same inf ormation that the minister had available to him , the kind of policy decisions which be has been making. That inf ormation was denied. 1be issue is not the pemon who bas conducted thi s. The issue is the method o logy; the issue is the generation of students which has been surveyed and the kind of results which have been accumulated and which have been denied in preparation for these Estimates.

The minister has also s aid on other occasi ons that portions of that report may be made available , so I am int erested now, is he now committing himself to table fo rmally the entire report? Mr. Mann ess: No, Mr. Deputy Cbairpemon, as the member knows fully well, we indicated that the full report would be provided. (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy CbairpeiSon, in the Clair) . Mr. Ashton : Mr. Acting Deputy Cbairpemon, I must say to the minister, be should appreciate our frustration here .

The m inister has made a signifi cant decision in terms of the ACCESS Program, and the minister should realize, in going through the Estimates, that this is a significant decision, certainly in tenns of the percentage of funding that is aff ected, regardless of where that money comes from in terms of administra tion and other items or directly in terms of student allow ances. That is one of our major frustrations here . 1be minister has a study which the minis ter is quoting from partially, which, he says, has not been finished, and yet the government bas gone ahead and made the decision anyway.

I would ask what some member of the public would think of this. Why have this study in the fi.ISt place if it is not available at this point in time, when we have bad a situation where the government has made a decision, and this committee now is reviewing the decision, and by its own motion of a few minutes ago has indicated its strong opposition to the cuts that have taken place to ACCESS? That is, ind eed, one of the fimt concerns that I think should be placed clear ly on the record.

1763 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 The second point, I find it is quite interesting because the minister talked about administrative savings as being part of the area in which this money would com e from. We do have one document that has been released. It has been a public docum ent-the Roblin report. What did the Roblin report say in terms of post-sec ondary education in northern Manitoba?

It said what we on this side of the House, the New Democratic Party, had been saying for a considerable period of time, and that is, there is a need for a co-ordinating body in northern Manitoba to ensure that the best use of resources is made. In fact, we have repeatedly moved resolutions in the House calling for a northern university, a northern polytechnic , whatever framework you want to talk about, because we have said from Day One that a lot can be done in tenns of bringing res ources together.

I just want to add s omething to the record: It is obvious that the mini s ter and some of his colleagues are not aware of what is happening in tenns of ACCESS Programs, because there was some reference made to the BUNTEP centre in Thompson. I want to place this on the record, because I think it is indicative of the fact that this government has not moved whatsoever in tenn s of providing that co-ordination. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what happened essent ially is that the BUNTEP program in Thompson was unable to afford to pay for the rented spaces it had.

The BUNTEP program approached KCC for space-KCC indicated that space would be available, and this is KCC now under the current governance , et cetera-it did not go directly to the government But I did not let it rest at that point, I was contacted by people who were concerned about the future of the pr ogram, because if BUNTEP did not have a home in Thompson, there would be no B UNTEP in Thompson. It was very clearly stated. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, you know what I had to do?

I have raised it in the Legislature, I have raised it in corresponden ce, I have raised it repeatedly with the prev ious Minist er of Edu cation. I realize the minister has been subsequently app ointed and may not realize what the minister responded: The Minister of Education indicated that she had no control over this, that this would not be something that she would make any recommendation on, and that I should contact BUNTEP. Of course , we went around this circular argument, BUNTEP said they did not have the money, and we ended back at square one. •

(2300) Point of Order Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage Ia Prairie) : I realize that this infonnation, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, will look very nice. in the campaign literatu re in Thomps on, but I fail to see what relevance it has to what we are discussing here . An Honourable Member : Maybe you have not been following the Estimates . Mr. Pallist er: No, I have been fol lowing them, and I fail to see what relevance it has to the topic at hand. I think it would be very nice to get back to the point of the dis cussion in the interests of all committee members, exc ept the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): The honourable member did not have a point of order. • •• Mr. Ashton: I would just like to point out to the member for Portage that BUNTEP is an ACCESS Program. It was raised originally in discussion in the debate earlier tonight, and that is what I am responding to. But I want to point out what happened with the BUNTEP program, what it had to go through to be able to remain operational in Thomps on. Do you know what they had to do to get the capital renovations funding to be able to move into that building? They got nothing from the provincial government.

The former Ministe r of Northern Affairs was talking earlier as if, oh, somehow they were resp onsible for it. What happened was, I ran into the director of BUNTEP downtown in Thomp son, my wife and I, and we recommended that they look at using the

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1764 UI system. They got individuals under the UI system-this is under the UI system where you pay a small top-up on the wages-who then did the capital work in that facility. So it was under a federal government UIC top-up program that it was done �no co-ordination, no funding, no dire ction, no commitment, nothing at the provincial level. The previous Minister of Education was quite happy to sit back: and say, it is none of my business.

My point to the minister -and this is very relevant when you are talking about ACCESS -before you hack: the money out of ACCESS, I would suggest to this minis ter that he look at the · recommendations of the Roblin report and bring in that kind of co-ordination, which would not only provide those cost savings, because there are cost savings to be had by bringing together social work progra ms, BUNTEP and the other programs under a co-ordinating frameworlc, that money could be saved.

But then it could be put into place in expanding and improving northern education, aboriginal education, education here in the core area of the city of Winnipe g. That is what the minister should be doing, because what this governm ent has done, it has gone and cut back: funding to the ACCESS Programs, funding that could have been put into improving northern education in many other ways. But I want to ask the minister a number of questions because I am sure from the discussion tonight that he does not understand the ACCESS Programs.

He said earlier tonight, quoted figures indicating that there were 35 weeks-he was talking about student aid in terms of 35 -week programs. The minister probably went through a program of that sort. I believe he graduated from the University of Manitoba in agricultural economics. I went through a similar program, and you know what? You know how I was able to get through university? Like a lot of other people , I worked during the summer. I worked at lnco, as a matter of fact. I was able to do that because I was eight months at school; I was four months off during the summer. Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairpers on, the minister does not seem to be aware that many ACCESS students are not in that position. Most are not in that position. They simply cannot tum aroun d now with the cut in the student allowances and work in the s umm er, and that is going to be one of the questions I want to ask the minister, if he will recognize on the reconl that that is indeed the case . What he is doing is he is putting those students in a situation where if they do not have band funding, then they will be under the student loan system entirely with no opportunity whatsoever for any employment in the summer.

The second point I want to raise as well because if one talks to people , the students, et cetera, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, one of the major concerns with the cuts in ACCESS is in tenns of the ability of the programs to recruit in remote locations. The minister is wrong when he says the institutions do not have criteria for the selection of students . They do have criteria, a series of criteria. Now, if the minister is willing to admit, as the member for Wolseley (Ms.

Friesen) indicated earlier, that there have been changes to the program-because now one of the factors is the ability of students to find outside funding, in this case most nonnally band funding. What is happening is it is something like a self- fnJfimng prophecy. The minister runs around with figures saying, ah ha, there are all these students getting in the program who do not meet the financial need.

But it is this government that changed the criteria for the program, changed the funding for the program last year, which meant that those students who are able to access the program and those who are in the greatest financial need are less able to do it. It is an unbelievable lack oflogic on the minister 's part. But I am wondering if the minister is aware that one of the things that is going to happen is that the ability to bring in stu dents from a remote location is going to be hampered. The program is already saying, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is difficult to bring in s tudents from communities such as York Landi ng, Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei, llfonl, Brochet, Lac Brochet, South

1765 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Indian Lake. They are all communities that do not have roads, that have to rely on winter roads. They do not even get a chance to be brought in. Many of them cannot afford to come in. They are on welfare . They cannot afford to come in because the programs cannot afford to bring them in. So I would really appreciate the minister recognizing that fact. The third point, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is in terms of the impact within the students.

First of all, I want to say that I find it absolutely despicable that this government would make these changes that ako impact students who are in the system. Right now, there are students in the ACCESS Progiams who are having to scramble to get funding. They are having to scramble to get band funding, if they can, if they are treaty stude nts. And you know what is happening? Some of them are not going to be able to get it because many bands have already all ocated their funding. They have already all ocated the funding, and those students will be unable to access that funding.

I want to talk about the Metis and non-Status students as well, Mr. Acting Deputy Ch aiipe rson. They have nowhere to go. They cannot go to a band. They are not Status. They are not able to get that type of funding. The member across the way sitting from the prospective of Winnipeg says, can they not get student loans? This is not Tuxedo, River Heights . It is not the west end of W innipeg. I am talking about remote aboriginal communities.

I am talking about students who in many cases are single parents with three children, four children, and I can tell you the personal storie s, the tremendous sacrifice they have had to make to go into this program. You know what is most ironic, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairpers on, is that the minister talks about this, but what he does not do is, he does not point to what is really happening when someone goes into the ACCESS Program. He talks about the amount of money that is expended per student.

Well , the minister should know that if you take any of our post-secondary instituti ons, the amount that is expended is fairly significant whether it is at the Fort Garry campus or University of Winnipeg or Brandon University or in the ACCESS Program. You know I have seen people, largely women, who have gone from welfare, being single parents. The minister may wish to calculate what would be paid out in terms of welfare over one, over two, over three or a four-year period, and you know what happens when they enter the ACCESS Program?

The minister talked about the students as if they were in some privileged position. Do they get more than they would get on welfare ? Do they double or triple? Do they even hit the poverty line , Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson? No, they do not. Those students end up getting less than they were getting on welfare . That is right. They get less than going on welfare . It is not a great privilege that the students undertake . It is a lot of work, just like anybody else who enters a post-seco ndary program, and in this case, a lot of them face a lot more challenges.

Well, if the minister wants to talk about this, perhaps you should come to communities in northern Manitoba. Perhaps the minister should have come to the graduation on Friday and talked to the students and found out the situation they are in because I, quite frankly, have had enough of people sitting within the comforts of the city of Wmnipeg who have not talked to the students , who make ma jor cuts of 20 percent and now decide that they know all the answers affecting those students .

There are a lot of students in our society who face a lot of hardship to go through post-secondary institutions- The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose) : Order, please . Point of Order Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minist er of Urban Affairs): Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am considering a point of privilege , but I am debating which to put forward. I seek your advice . The member opposit e has just made some personal implications, innuendos and insinuations that are wrong and-[intetjection] I have never made comments to the member opposite about the

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1766 fact that be comes from the North and therefore does not understand the city. I do not appreciate comments being made that from the quote, comforts of Winnipeg, where I have lived since I was 19, that I know nothing about other areas that may be vastly different from the, quote, comforts of Winnipeg. •

(2310) Mr. Pl ohman : Why are you making all those remarks under your breath? Mrs. Mcinto sh: The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is also making comments under his breath across the table, which I do not appreciate. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Order, pl ease. Does the member have a matter of privilege that she wishes to raise? There is no point of order, and I rule that there is no matter of privile ge. ••• (Mr. Deputy Cbailperson in the Chair) Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Deputy Cbailpemon, I will say again that I was there on Friday at the graduation in the social wotk faculty and I would invite any of the government membem who think they know about that program-[inte rjection] How about talking to people? How about getting up north? How about talking to northern Manitobans before you cut them ? Mrs . Mcinto sh: You do not know that I have not. You make assumptions . Mr. Ashton: You were not there. You cut the program, your government. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please . Mrs. Mcintosh : You are an ignorant pemon. You are rude . Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson: Order, please. Mr.

Ashton: I am rude, Mr. Deputy Cbailpemon? And you are not. Great. Mrs. Mcintosh : I am reacting to your rudeness. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, pl ease. We will continue when the committee gets a bold of itself here . At this time we are here to bring forward infonnation and ask infonnation of the minister. We are dealing with 4.(

b) ACCESS Programs $7,903,200. Mr. Ashton : I make no apology for raising the concerns on behalf of the people I represent in this Legislature, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. This government has cut the ACCESS Programs. Mrs . Mcin tosh: Then stick to doing that and stop being rude . Mr. Ashton: I find it rather ironic that someone -Mr. Deputy Olairpemon, when I heckle I might consider that I might be accused of being somewhat rude, but I have the floor and somebody is accusing me of being rude. I think that is somewhat ironic.

So I want to say to that member that I make no apologies for spea king out on behalf of my constituents in northern Manitoba, speaking out on behalf of the ACCESS students that I do not believe are being treated fairly. Let us not forget that the ACCESS Program has been targeted for a 20 percent cut in this budget-a 20 percent cut. That is greater in proportion than virtually any other line item . The minister has said this and the minister bas said that, and I have said to the minister one thing. He has made decisions based on a report that has not even been tabled yet. But you know, Mr.

Deputy Cbailpemon, I am sure of one thing. He bas not made these decisions , nor has this government made this decision, based on talking to people in the program, in the communities of northern Manitoba, because as recently as Friday I talked to people and it is really sad to see the impact this government is having. You know, it was not a matter of anger. It was a matter of sadn ess.

I have found one thin g, rep resenting the North as I have these last few yeam, that one thing about the North is the amount of respect that is made towards governments, et cetera, even when northerneiS suffer the greatest in tenns of some of the decisions that are made. I talked to many people and they were saddened. You know, the first thing they did was they said it

1767 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 is unfortunate that some of the govermnent people who made this decision could not come and talk to us, not so much at a graduation, but talk to us in our communities, talk to us in the North to detennine exactly what is happening. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, if the minister thinks · that you can apply one idea, one philosophy, one great sweeping statement across the province, that what is good in Tuxedo is good in Thompson, that what is good in any area of the province is good in another-we are talking about northern aboriginal commun ities by and large, serviced by these programs, where unemployment is 80 percent to 90 percent, where people are desperate to get an education , desperate to get off welfare . Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister talks about the student loan program. In many of these communities there is no net worth.

There is not a banking system. There is not even any involvement in terms of loans. It is that great a level of poverty. You know, I have seen people bring themselves out of that when given a chance. That is why I am so passi onately a supporter of the ACCESS Programs . They work, and what more of a tradeoff can this minister ask. He talks about program analysis . Has the minister looked at how much money bas been saved by the many graduates from the ACCESS Program? The 57 who graduated from social work, the vast majority of whom are working in northern Manitoba, are produ ctive, taxpaying members of society.

The many who come out of the BUNTEP program, many of whom are now teaching in their own commu nit ies, many of whom started off unemployed on welfare , Mr. Deputy Chai.J:person, the many other ACCESS Programs. I have seen people say-and it is sort of an unusual thing, and we are not used to that in this House where people will talk about their own experiences to that extent, but I have seen what has happened. That is why I am so passionate about def ending this program. That is why I will fight on this all the way . That is why I was very proud to vote for that motion e arlier tonight, because that is the issue.

The issue is this government cut ACCESS programming by 20 percent. It does not know what it is doing. It has not met with the ACCESS students . It has not met with the people in the ACCESS Programs, nor has it met with the universities that run the programs. The minister sits ther e and, based on an unfinished, unreleased report , cuts the program by 20 percent. I really wo nder, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, and the minister may care to answer this question or not, but what kind of hope for the future can people have in the ACCESS Programs if the minister is going to cut 20 percent based on an unfinished, unreleased report? What is going to happen in the next budget if this government brings in another budget or any other budget that this government might, by course of history , be able to introduce some time in the future? What kind of commitment is there to the program when this pro gram-in fact, I would like to ask the minister even if be wants to put that on the record.

How many other programs were cut by 20 percent in this budget? How many others? Even some of the other favorite targets of this government were not cut by that So the bottom line is here. I indeed am very frustrated. I make no apologies for saying, the people who are making the decisions, and yes, sitting here in the city of Winnipe g, because this is a program that affects northern Manitoba, and the majority of the people making the decision are not in northern Manitoba -we have got four out of 57 seats in the Manitoba Legislature- An B onoura ble Member: Does that mean you do not understand Wmnipeg? Mr.

Ashton: Well , the minister says , does that mean I do not understand Winnipeg? I am sure if I were to make a statement as an MLA representing a northern constituency that someone from the city of Winnipeg objected to, they would be the first one to point to that. When the Liberal Leader (Mr. Edwards) made the statements about Selkirk and SHI, I do not think there was any shortage of people, inclu ding, I think, probably the minister, many of whom are from city tidings, who did not create some level of concern about the fact they thought the Liberal Leader did not understand concerns in Selkirk.

We ll, I am telling you, Mr.

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1768 Deputy Chairperson, and I agreed with them on that occasion, but you know that is not the point. The point is, when a decision is made, in this particular case, by people that I believe do not understa nd the program s, do not understand northern Manitoba, I am elected to come here and to fight for those inter est s, to fight for my constituents. That is why I voted earlier the way I did.

I want some reassurance from the minister that he will not go ahead and do this in the future, that he will meet with ACCESS students, that he will meet with the people in the ACCESS Program . If the minis ter can answ er one question, I would be very happy with that, in addition to the other issues I have raised, whiclr, I am sure, he will respond to, and that is whether he will come to northern Manitoba to meet with the ACCESS students. I will make him the same offer I did with the Minister of Health, Mr.

Deputy Cha irperson, because when the Minister of Health was appointed, newly app ointed, in October of this year-September, pardon me-the provincial gov ernment had brought in rural hospital guidelines which would have cut back hospital care in rural fa cilities across northern Manitoba, including northern faci lities, including the Thompson General Hospital, which would have cut very significantly services. What I did, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is that I said to the minister: Please put those cuts on hold. Please come to northern Manit oba and listen to the people who are aff ected. •

(2320) The Minister of Health, much to his credit-and I publicly credited him for this-cam e to northern Manitoba. He listened to people. He put the cuts on hold. Those cuts, Mr. Deputy Chairperson , are still on hold. 1bey are still on hold. I want to ask the Minister of Education: Will he do the same thing as the Minister of Health?

Espe cia lly fo llowing the de feat that this government faced earlier in committee on the motion on this particular item , an historic defeat, will the minister do what the Minister of Health did: put the cuts on hold and consult with northerne rs, with aboriginal people , with people in Winnipeg-the Winni peg Education Centre is affe cted-and will be consult with them to bear the many concerns they have about the impact the cuts will have? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know where to begin.

Certainly, I recognize the passion of the member for Norway, and I take it as sincere pass ion- Thom pson, sorry. I should tell the member, in another tim e-n ot in a different lif e, but in another time-1 was an Education critic, and one of the first introductions I had to ACCESS Programs was in Norway House. I believe it was in 1984 or 1985; I cannot quite remember when.

I can remember going into that small clas sroom , and I can remember the joy of the students there as they were attem pting to do-l think at that time they were doing basic ally remedial work, but realizing that the real core of education was to come and that ultimately if they were successful it would give them an opp ortunity to provide a very meaningful contr ibution to society in keeping with what their hopes and aspirations were.

So the member does not have to leave on the record the impression that I do not know what ACCESS Program is or that I have not been close to it or that I somehow am a stranger to it. Although I do not live in the North, and although I maybe do not understand all of the northe rn psychology, I can tell him I understand what ACCESS Programs are about. I have seen the good they do, and I continue to be a supporter in government of ACCESS Programs. When I was the Minister of Finance, I alw ays tried to find a couple of million dollars in support of the fe deral offioad ing.

The impact of that was fe lt in other departments, not the least of which are the Dep artments of Na tural Resou rces, Agriculture, Highways, and I could go on and on -Urban Affairs, Municipal Affairs , all those departments that were negatively impacted upon gove rnment decisions to try to ma intain and, wherever possible , accept totally the offload of the fed er al government. I have been there . I understand the program , and I understand the benefit of it.

1769 LEGISLA1IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 But, surely to goodn ess, if we are reforming Health and we are reforming education, and the next line is Student Financial Assist ance , and the members will see a significant reduction there and they will want to know why, what changes have been made? There are ways of doing things. There have to be during this period of time when you do not have the revenue of government.

You have to make changes at times to try and reach out to a larger number of people , and sometimes that means those who have the free good now, in this case, totally paid-f or progra mming, you might ask them to make a contribution by way of borrowing so that they will have not only the right but indeed the satisfaction of knowing they have made some direct contribution to their education. Ye s, indirect is being made . Ev erybody makes indir ect. Everybody maybe has to call on another source of funding. Everybody else has to wo1ic.

Sometimes you have to organize your affairs and sometimes you have to live in conditions you would rather not. That is a contribution that most of us have made in some dimension as we have gone through the process of fo nnal post-secon dary education. The members across are trying to paint it as black and white. They are saying if you are part of the Tory party, you somehow live in either Tuxedo or Wmn ipeg south. They try and make believe that 30 of our members come from Winnipe g South -[int erjection] Well, however many we have . Natu rally we are at the low point now.

There will be many more to com e in the near future. But the reality is, they try and ma ke it appear like everybody who we know and identify with has the means to support their post-se condary education. Nothing is further from the truth. We have all made contributions, and we all have hundreds of constituents who hav e made those same sacrific es. I would say to the memb ers, and if indeed there are means there, well, the criteria are in place. You do not get support, any support . Yo u are on your own. So nobody has to tell me what the government fe els with respect to ACCES S.

Yet I say to the member, in all his passion, that he cann ot fo r one moment make any o ther statement that he wants -[inter jection] Yes, action in tenns of more money. What he wants is more money. He does not want more positions . He does not want more access to numbers. He wants more money. An Honourable Member: Do not cut. Mr. Manness : Well, that is what he means.

When he is talking about cutting he is talking about -what he is talking about in cutting is either cutting the number of potential that can be there or indeed what he wants is the same level of support for everybody that is in the program now even though there are some . Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it should be pointed out that 43 percent, as the member said, of the program are Status Indian s, and many of them have access to band financing that is never taken into account in this program. The member made a commem about the non-Sta tus Ind ians, and he is right. He is right.

There is n ot a potential to turn to alternative sources for the 5 percent who now make up the program. He is right. So what he is saying is, you are going to have a hard time devising a pro gram that takes into account these various sub groupings under ACCES S. So he says, do not have a general blanket policy. Just let it be free and just let the govemmem, indee d, the taxpayers, continue to pay for it. I am saying to him , well, I will debate the issue. I will debate the iss ue. Mr. Deputy Chairperson , I wish society were ordered differently .

I wish that members, when they were in government, bad not spent so much money, so that we did not have $400 million we have to spend on interest costs. I wish we did not have that-but we do-because we could do an awful lot more if we had that mon ey. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again I put the statement on the record. Again I say, the $2 million reduction reflects basically administrative savings and a call upon students now to assume some indebtedne ss. The net result of it all will be additional opportunity for more students, and I say that is a better appro ach to fol low. Mr.

Ashton : I can continue this debate for a considerable period of time , but I would appreciate

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1770 an answ er from the minister on the very specific question at the end of my comments, and I will rep eat it, Mr. Deputy Chair person, because I realize I put many comments on the record. But the Minister of Health, under virtually identical circumstances-a newly appointed minister was faced with major cuts to rural and northern facilities that were anno unced in August, although I realize be did not ann ounce them; it was under the previous minist er' s auspi� came in, and I contacted the minis ter.

I requested, on behalf of a non partisan, grassroo ts committee in Thompson that bad people from all political persuasions, that the minister come to Thompson, meet with people who were concerned. He met with people at the Thompson General Hospital. It included patients; it included seniors; it included nurses; it included people from aboriginal organizations; it included a cross-section of the community. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have said on the record; I will say it again: I commend the minister for doing that.

It was the approp riate thing to do, and the minister put the cuts on bold pending a review of those cuts. An Honourable Member: Different issue. Mr. Ashton: Well, the member says, different issue. What I am saying is, if the Minister of Health can do it on one issue, where there clearly was not appropriate time for review , why will this Minister of Education not do it on this ? The report, by the minis ter's own recognition earlier, on the ACCESS Programs, bas not even been released yet; it is not even completed, Mr. Deputy Chair person.

And perhaps the minister should und erstand here; I would have thought she would have been the first one to say, yes, that makes sense. If the report bas not even been finished, why go ahead with the cuts? Why do you not postpone the cuts? •

(2330) So what I am asking is two things: for the minister to put those cuts on bold- but, more importantly than that, even if be is not willing to do that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, even if be will not put the cuts on bold , will be at least agree to do what the Minister of Health did? Believe you me, it was not an easy decision for the Minister of Health, I am sure, to go before a meeting not knowing what to expect. I can assure anyone that was not there that it was a very good meeti ng. The minister himself bas indicated it was very well run. People expressed their concerns, but it was done with respect.

There was a lot of discussion back and fo rth, and I really believe it was a very positive exercise. I know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that there may have been some people even within Thompson who maybe would have expected me to take a different approach and just strictly attack the government on the cuts and not try and bring some resolution of what was happeni ng. I decided to go the opposite route. I phoned the Minister of Health, be phoned me back and agr eed to come to Thompson, and the cuts were put on bold.

Will the minister , if be will not put the cuts on bold, at least agree to come to northern Manitoba to meet with the students, staff, representatives of the community, the general public , whoever is concerned about the ACCESS Program , to see indeed for himself -as the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) says here-what the concerns are?

I am convinced that when the minister learns more about the impact of the cuts and what bas been happening with the ACCESS Program, if be goes in with any ob jective view to any meeting such as that, be will have the same response that the Minister of Health did on the question of health care, which is that the cuts will be put on bold. So I will be up-front with my motive, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do believe it would lead to a change in direction from the government. But would the minister at least agree to that, to come and meet with the people aff ected? Mr. Mann ess: Mr.

Deputy Chairpe rson, the member makes a strong plea for me to come to Thomp son. Of cour se, only a very small percentage of the ACCESS Programs and the ACCESS total number of 700-and-some students take their training in Thompson. So what he is saying is, well, then visit-be is not saying this, but I assume that be would suggest, well, then meet with everybody.

1771 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is not a new issue to me. I have been close to ACCESS since the day I took government. It was almost one of the first issues that confronted our government and a new Treasury Board in 1988. This is not a new issue

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-28b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 28b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0238b0c2c83a9ce58c81933319916e50c940af0f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).