The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Mervin Tweed): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Seniors Directorate. Does the honourable minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure, as Minister responsible for Seniors, to present the 1997-98 budget Estimates for the Seniors Directorate.

Seniors are the fastest-growing segment of our population. From 1891 to 1921, about 5 percent of Canadians were seniors age 65 and over. This number has increased dramatically with the 1991 census estimating that the proportion has increased to 12 percent. Projections for the future are that by the year 2020, with most baby boomers retired or retiring, seniors will comprise an unprecedented 17 percent of the Canadian population. This growth in the number of seniors is occurring not only because of the aging of this population segment but also because of the increasing lifespans of both men and women. We must pay attention to this ongoing demographic shift and its implications for governments in order to ensure the future well-being of seniors.

* (1440)

In Manitoba, the census estimates that seniors are 13.4 percent of the Manitoba population. By the year 2016, this proportion will increase to 23 percent or higher. Governments at all levels, in partnership with communities and seniors, have a role to play in examining the issues and identifying solutions in order to provide seniors access to safe and supportive living environments.

The role of Seniors minister is a very important and challenging one, that of preserving and enhancing the quality of life for older Manitobans. During the past year, I have continued to take on this responsibility with great enthusiasm. Our government, through the Seniors Directorate, is committed to working with seniors to find solutions to address these issues.

Today, I would like to outline the directorate's activities for the past fiscal year and highlight some of the new initiatives planned for the coming year. My staff at the Seniors Directorate work to ensure that seniors' needs and their concerns are considered when government policies and programs are developed.

As you are aware, the directorate gathers information regarding seniors issues in a variety of ways but essentially from seniors themselves. The directorate has established a close working relationship with seniors groups throughout Manitoba. This allows the directorate to have ongoing dialogue with seniors on major areas of concerns, as well as providing information and other resources.

The Seniors Information Line continues to be well used by seniors, providing them with information, assistance and referral. The types of calls received reflect the issues and the concerns of seniors throughout Manitoba.

The following are some of the highlights of 1996. In June 1996, during seniors month, special celebrations were held in Gimli, Boissevain, one held in Winnipeg in the St. Boniface-St. Vital area in June and an additional September seniors event in St. James-Assiniboia. The directorate works with the seniors group planning these events.

The directorate, with the support of the business library, continues to make its resource library available to the public. Printed materials and videos are loaned to individuals and groups throughout Manitoba.

The directorate's computerized housing directory continues to be in demand. This directory assists seniors looking for a place to live and was developed at the request of seniors calling the Seniors Information Line and those in attendance at consultation meetings held by the directorate and the Manitoba Council on Aging. This informative directory lists rental units, condominiums, townhouses, mobile homes and seniors residences around the province. The list includes housing available for rent or for purchase.

Directorate staff supported the Manitoba Council on Aging in undertaking consultations with individual seniors and senior organizations on issues of concern in 1996. The directorate continues to play a leading role in the area of abuse of the elderly and provided several abuse training workshops in 1996 for professionals working with the elderly. My column in Seniors Today continues to receive a very positive response. Seniors have told us that the information is useful and helpful.

In addition, the directorate published the biannual seniors newsletter, the Seniors Source, first introduced in December of 1994. This newsletter has assisted us in keeping in touch with seniors and, more importantly, has provided seniors with information on current government programs and services that could assist them. Our next edition will be ready for distribution to seniors and seniors organizations in June of this year.

As you can see, 1996 was a very busy and full year, and 1997-98 will continue along this busy schedule. The initiatives in 1997-98 include--the director of staff has a very exciting workshop opportunity for interested businesses, organizations and government departments. These workshops entitled Through Other Eyes are designed to raise the awareness of participants to the special needs of aging adults and to encourage change to resolve difficulties experienced by seniors and persons with disabilities.

Working with Manitoba Consumer and Corporate Affairs, law enforcement groups and other organizations and agencies, the directorate has developed a safety and security guide for seniors. This brochure will raise seniors' awareness and provide helpful information on potential hazards such as scams and frauds and abuse. It outlines some preventative steps and also lists resources that can assist seniors should the need arise. The guide will be distributed to seniors throughout Manitoba during the coming year.

The directorate continues to respond to requests for their original information brochures. Over 38 percent of the calls on the information line are requests for this material. The Seniors Handbook, the legal information guide, and the Questions to Ask Your Doctor and Pharmacist continue to be in demand.

In the area of federal-provincial and territory initiatives, sharing information and developing a framework with an inventory of senior services and programs across Canada are primary and priority issues for the 1997 meeting of the ministers responsible for Seniors in November of 1997, working with the federal-provincial governments to recognize the United Nation's International Year of the Older Person in 1999.

As you are aware, the Manitoba Council on Aging reports directly to the Minister responsible for Seniors. I am able to hear first-hand the issues and the concern of seniors in Manitoba. The direct link between minister and council has ensured that seniors' advice, experience and knowledge is available to government in formulating policies and programs. It is extremely important that seniors have direct input on issues that affect them now and in the future. Other initiatives in 1997-98 include holding community consultations. These consultations provide an opportunity to consult with seniors and their organizations, identify needs and concerns of seniors throughout Manitoba, recommend ways of achieving more effective, efficient services and inform seniors about the Manitoba Council on Aging. To date the council has met with seniors in Gimli, Steinbach, Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Beausejour, Dauphin and Flin Flon.

* (1450)

Another initiative is a fact information sheet. Council and the directorate continue to work in partnership to put together fact sheets for Manitoba seniors. Topics have included apartment security, purse snatching, lost or stolen wallet and card replacement and tips on moving. This is an ongoing project with new information being developed as issues are identified.

Another initiative is the recognition project. The first recognition awards will be made in 1997 to honour individuals, organizations or businesses whose exceptional acts or efforts benefit seniors, or whose valuable services reflect a positive attitude towards older Manitobans.

In closing, I believe that the Seniors Directorate and the Council on Aging have and will continue to have an important role in meeting the needs of Manitoba seniors. We are all working together in partnership to benefit seniors. It is important for government, community and organizations to share ideas and develop a common vision for the future, to have a plan that will provide for the full participation of seniors in all aspects of our society, one that projects their rights of choice, independence and dignity. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): We thank the minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Broadway, have any opening comments?

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Yes, Mr. Chairperson, and it will be a lengthy one.

I am glad to hear the honourable minister talk about rights of choice of seniors and their right to an independent style of living. These are good ideals to strive for if they have the necessary support from the government, from the community and from their families to achieve this kind of lifestyle.

I would like to begin with a story, because everything that is happening around us is related to this basic difference of opinion among people. Cain, as you know, is a tiller of the ground. He made an offering of fruits. He is a farmer; he made an offering of fruits of the ground. His younger brother Abel is a keeper of the sheep; he made an offering of a firstling of his flocks to the Lord. The Lord accepted Abel's offering, but not Cain's offer. Cain got angry and jealous and furious. Cain killed Abel, and the Lord asked Cain: Where is thy brother? Cain replied: I know not. Am I my brother's keeper?

Mr. Chairperson, that question is a very classic question: Am I my brother's keeper? It is a basic issue of great social, economic and political significance. Why? Because people's reply to such a question divides humanity into two opposing groups of contrasting ideological beliefs. Those who would answer, no, I am not my brother's keeper, would be in the group we call the individualists. They believe in individualism, individual initiative; they get anything they could get, are only worried about themselves. At the opposite extreme are those who would say, yes, I am my brother's keeper. They would be in a group called the collectivists. In between, of course, are varying shades of ideological beliefs, depending on which area of human activity is at issue.

What do we mean by ideology? Ideology is our conception, our perception of the world around us, implicitly manifested in the arts, in the law, in legal system and economic activity, in culture, in all manifestations of individual and collective life. According to an Italian philosopher of the left, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian thinker, ideology is more than a system of beliefs because it also provides us with a capacity to inspire concrete attitudes, and it also provides us with orientation for our human actions. Ideology thereby becomes the link between our political consciousness and the economic interests of the various social classes in society. Such social classes polarize, as I have said, between the individualists of what the left would call bourgeoisie capitalist class of the rich, and the collectivists of the proletariat or the working class of the relatively poor in society. The bourgeoisie capitalist class ideology dominates and contaminates the psychological consciousness of the working class because the capitalists have more means, more resources, more powerful means of disseminating their ideas within the reified appearances of the capitalist economy that induces the domination and the exploitation of the proletarian working class who do not own any means of production, but only their own labour to sell in order that they may survive and live.

Briefly then, ideology means the set of ideas, attitudes and beliefs by which we view reality around us, as it appears to us, and sometimes, as you would like it to be.

Adam Smith, a Scottish economist and moral philosopher, argued that the greatest social benefit would result if each individual would pursue his or her self-interest. Self-interest in this materialistic world in which we live, manifested in the buying and selling of goods and services, manifests itself in the striving for profit. The profit motive is the driving force of the capitalist economy. In the materialistic, capitalistic economy that we live in, we also engage in, not only the exchanges of goods and services between and among individuals, but also in exchanges of goods and services between and among nations and countries in the form of international trade. So we have also a capitalistic world economy. In the world economy, we engage in international trade, the means by which nations can specialize and increase the productivity of their resources in their country and thereby realize total collective world output based on the principle of comparative advantage.

What do we mean by this principle of comparative advantage? The principle of comparative advantage states that the total output would be greatest when its community or nation, when each commodity or goods or set of goods and services produced by that nation has the lowest opportunity cost. These are very technical terms, so I have to define what opportunity cost means.

Opportunity cost is the amount of other products that must be foregone in order to produce a given unit of the desired product. Classical economic theories, if analyzed carefully, are reflected in these two different assumptions or conceptions about nature, the order of things around us. One is the belief that there is a natural order in the social statistic, which is inherently simple. It is inherently harmonious and beneficent, and therefore, according to Adam Smith, the simple principle of natural liberty, the operations of the market tend to produce prices as low as is consistent with maintaining of services, and yet yielding a fair return for the efforts expended.

Another conception of nature is that it is devoid of all ethical attributes and morality. Its laws and its rules and its norms are not tied to any idea of justice or reason or equity or human welfare, particularly the economic law of distribution which takes place in terms of social dynamics of social classes as participants in the exchanges of the market where the interest of one class is, by its nature, adverse to the interests of the other classes in society. In a system of economic classes, the fate of any individual is largely determined by the portion of the wealth which the economic forces allot to the class of the individual himself in the context of class conflicts.

* (1500)

In the labour theory of value, if we assume that in a free market the value of the commodity is fixed by the amount of labour necessary to produce such a commodity, individual buyers and sellers must then put in and take out equivalent amounts of value, and the free play of human motives, all egotistic, according to Adam Smith, would work out to the greatest good in the community. Under his theory of the unseen hand in the natural order of things, the pursuit of individual good is admirably connected and will result in the universal good of the whole.

But, according to the English philosopher, the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, his utilitarian theory is based on the theory of pain and pleasure. We do those things that are pleasurable and avoid those things that are painful, individually and socially. Even if the utility requires the harmony of interest in our society which results in the greatest happiness of all, such a condition is not the natural order of things, according to Bentham. It can only be produced by legislation and by the intervention of the state. Thus from Bentham's utilitarian theory, social harmony of economic interests exists because of the legal coercion imposed by legislation to control and canonize human behaviour through directions that are desirable.

From Adam Smith's natural order theory, social harmony is produced by the absence of governmental intervention or absence of regulation, because the doctrine of laissez-faire, let it be free, requires that there be no intervention by government in economic affairs beyond that which is necessary to maintain the peace and to protect property rights.

An Honourable Member: Invisible hands.

Mr. Santos: Yes. But we know the facts, the reality, the naked reality, and unbridled operation of the so-called free market, unhindered in the individualistic pursuit of self-interest with no limit sometimes results in prosperity for some, but sometimes also results in economic depression.

Witness, for example, historically we have the Great Depression of the 1930s. This is called "great" because it is unique in history. It is characterized by bank closings, lots of peoples' savings in their lives lost, loss of pension funds along with commercial bankruptcies of firms and corporations. It will be too remote for the present generation to recall what happened in the Great Depression.

John Maynard Keynes, however, a brilliant English economist, succeeded in persuading governments to directly intervene in this debacle in the capitalistic economy of the free market by either decreasing the supply of money to cure the economic boom when there is prosperity or increasing the supply of money to cure the bust in business cycles.

Business cycles are the ups and downs in the level of economic activity in the economic system of society. After the Second World War, we in Canada added many social programs. We instituted the Canada Pension Plan, the medicare, the unemployment insurance system, other social programs in what we called the mixed economy, which means that there is a mixed private sector, as well as, a segment of the economy called the public sector. There is also this mixed ideology of individualistic, capitalistic ideology of the right, where every person looks out for himself, takes the most, and let the devil take the hindmost on the one hand. Then there is the other set of beliefs, the collectivistic, socialistic ideology of the left so that everyone may pull their resources together in the public sector, that they may assume mutual responsibility for each other, sharing risks and benefits collectively together, because we are our brothers and sisters' keepers.

More recently, the ideological pendulum that had swung towards the welfare state of the left in the recent past began to move and swing to the right, from the collectivist ideology to the individualistic ideology so that governments, prompted by financiers and controllers of wealth and money regardless sometimes of political affiliation, began to cut on social assistance. They began to cut on social insurance. They began to deregulate and then to privatize parts of the economy that are publicly owned. They are still striving to do that sometimes using the concept of balancing the budget, which mostly means cutting of needed social services.

Let us now focus on one of such social insurance programs that intimately and directly affect the senior citizens of this province. This is the so-called Canada Pension Plan. We often endearingly refer to it as the CPP. The Canada Pension Plan, the CPP, had many components such as the disability protection, the survivors benefit, and, of course, the retirement pension when you are lucky enough to reach 65 or over.

We shall also briefly review the Old Age Security, called sometimes OAS, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, what they call GIS. What social programs then we do have now, I have just enumerated them, the components, the related programs. What are their requirements? What are their current benefits? What modifications are coming up in the near future? What are being proposed by the opponents of the public sector social program? Why such opposition to the CPP and other social programs?

Recall that the Canada Pension Plan was started in January 1, 1966, as a nationwide social program which provided basic level of income protection to workers and to families in three types of events: their coming to the age of retirement; the onslaught of the unexpected disability; and, of course, the coming of the inevitable and unavoidable event in everyone's life, death.

CPP is entirely funded by monetary contributions from both employers and employees. It is contributing equally to maintain the account which is described as a pay-as-you-go pension plan. Pay as you go; therefore, the CPP by design is not a prefunded pension plan by its nature and its design. Every person in Canada who is over 18 years old, who earns a salary or wage, by statute, must pay into the Canada Pension Plan for their own economic protection. Any self-employed person is required to pay both the employer's contribution as well as the employee's contribution. Why? Because he decided that he will be his own employer, and he will be the employee himself. The self-employed is both the employer and the employee, and therefore will have to pay a contribution to CPP.

This universal pension insurance coverage of the Canadian workforce ensures that all working Canadians who are gainfully employed are covered by a pension plan, whether or not the company they work for has any private pension plan or not. If the private employer has any private pension plan, the employed worker contributes to both the private pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan and, therefore, is doubly protected when he or she retires or becomes disabled or dies.

The workers make the CPP contributions based on the rate of periodic earnings during the contributory period on what is called their pensionable earnings. The pensionable earning is that amount above the year's basic exemption, otherwise known as the YBE which currently is $3,500. That is the initial exempted amount, YBE, year's basic exemption. The maximum that you can pay under the CPP plan is the maximum pensionable earning which currently is set at $35,400. Of course, some people make twice as much or more than that, much, much more. Anything beyond that amount is not covered by the Canada Pension Plan. It only covers up to the maximum of $35,400.

* (1510)

Now, monies that are paid into the CPP account over and above the money that is being paid out in the form of CPP benefits for those contributors who retire, those contributors who become disabled and those who died--payable to their estate representative--under the pay-as-you-go pension plan, what happens to that money? They invested and lent the money to the provinces in Canada at the same rate of interest as in the case of long-term, usually 20-year Government of Canada bonds. That is where the provinces borrow some of their money.

Opponents who attack the CPP, Canada Pension Plan, as one having unfunded liability--and we hear that too often--are doing so either in deliberate misrepresentation of mischief or in hopeless ignorance. Because to talk about the pay-as-you-go pension plan, which base nature is designed not to be prefunded but a pay-as-you-go system, is meaningless as pointed out by the 1980 report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario. To talk about it, to do so is equivalent to saying or criticizing the confirmed bachelor and the confirmed spinsters in society for not being married.

Canada Pension Plan payouts to eligible recipients could not be criticized either as a drain on the federal resources. The CPP benefits could not conceivably be a drain on the federal government's revenue because by statute, the CPP expenses could only be paid out from CPP revenue, not from the general government tax revenue.

Although the CPP contribution rates may be going up, and it was designed that way, that was known right at the beginning when it was set up in 1966. Indeed, there is a 25-year contribution rate schedule which has been in place to ensure that the CPP stays as a long-term type of pension plan, stable as it could possibly become.

A review of the Canada Pension Plan every five years is being done. This will ensure the continued viability of the CPP which cannot be changed without the agreement between the federal Government of Canada and two-thirds of all the provinces representing two-thirds of the Canadian population, including the province of Quebec, even though the province of Quebec has its own pension plan and administers its own pension plan distinct from the Canada Pension Plan from the rest of the provinces.

The Canada Pension Plan account is targeted and designed to have enough money in it as a pay-as-you-go plan so as to be able to pay no less than two years worth of CPP benefits. Despite the sensational claims of the enemies of CPP about its impending bankruptcy, more measured statements such as the statements made by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries give significant benefits of the CPP and describe it as a viable part of our retirement income security program. What then are some of the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan? Well, it covers almost virtual full coverage of the entire working Canadian population. There is also, secondly, immediate vesting of the pension plan; immediately, it is operational. There is also the advantage of portability. Portability means you can carry the plan every time you change locations, change employers, change jobs. It goes with you.

Again, when there are periods of low or lack of earnings, like months when, for example, working mothers have to raise and rear children, that period of time can be removed from the contributory period for their own benefit so that their rate will be higher. There is the protection against inflation in the form of indexing, and there are the low administration costs of the Canada Pension Plan.

Despite the sensational claims of the enemies of CPP about its impending bankruptcy, the CPP gives several benefits, in addition to the basic pension, at the age of retirement. For example, there is this survivor's benefit consisting of a lump sum death benefit, a monthly surviving spouse benefit, and a dependant children's benefit of the disabled or the deceased, if the CPP contributor is a contributor for a minimum three years or 10 years of recorded contribution. Also, there is a death benefit being paid to the legal representative of the deceased of the estate, and if there is no estate, to the person or agency responsible for the funeral expenses of the contributor who is deceased at an amount of five times the deceased's pension, calculated retirement pension at age 65, but only up to a maximum.

Also, there is the surviving spouse benefits paid to the legal spouse, or even the common-law spouse or partner of the opposite sex, depending on the age of the surviving spouse at the time of the death of the contributor. The surviving spouse benefits start in the month following death and ends when the surviving spouse dies, but such a surviving spouse pension is paid only once, even if the survivor might have been widowed more than once. You can have so many widow situations, but they will not be paid as many. There is only one payment of the survivor's benefit.

The retirement pension itself, of course, is the core of the plan. When you reach age 65, or flexibly if you arrange it and apply for it between the ages of 60 and 70, you can receive the pension which is your due as a member of the plan. Before age 65, to receive a pension adjusted to half a percent less each month under age 65 to a 30 percent maximum, a CPP contributor must have completely or substantially stopped remunerative work. So even if you are 60 and you want to receive it right away, you have to stop working, no earnings whatsoever.

The amount of the retirement pension is equal to 25 percent of the person's average monthly pensionable earnings. On the other hand, a person may choose to receive up to a one-year retroactive retirement payment after the age of 65, but then this will be adjusted up half a percent every month over the age of 65. In 1997, the current year, the maximum retirement pension amount is $737.

Now, let us go to the other plan they call OAS, Old Age Security plan. Unlike the CPP, the Old Age Security plan is funded from the general tax revenues. To qualify for the Old Age Security, a person must be at the age 65, he must be a Canadian citizen and at least a legal resident of Canada for at least 10 years after the age of 18 up to 40 years residency, because there will be a proportionate amount given if it is less than 40. For example, with a partial pension, it will be one-fortieth of the maximum OAS for each year of residence in Canada. So, if you reside only 10 years here, you get 10 over 40 of the OAS; that is the amount you get.

You cannot receive this outside of Canada if you should move to United States, for example, unless you have resided in Canada for at least 20 years. If you come to this country and you reside less than 20, you cannot receive it in the United States if you leave in the twelfth year, for example. It will stop.

Another social program is the Guaranteed Income Supplement. This is an income-tested program which is an add-on amount to the Old Age Security when the pensioner couple had little or no other income. The basis of old age payment, the OAS, is counted as income for income tax purposes, but it is not counted as income when they are determining whether you qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

When a couple is living apart by choice, voluntarily, the Guaranteed Income Supplement may be recalculated as if it were single rather than married if you separate voluntarily. But, when you are living apart involuntarily, as for example when one of the couple is confined to a hospital or a nursing home, both will automatically, without any move on their part, be considered a single person if it is to their financial advantage.

* (1520)

The Guaranteed Income Supplement is not paid outside Canada for more than six months beyond the amount of the departure from Canada. If you want to retire in the United States, you do not get it longer than six months after you leave Canada.

Now let us ask, what are some of the impending changes, because this affects seniors, everybody, including us? We will be seniors soon. What are the impending changes to the CPP, Canada Pension Plan, that are proposed in the draft legislation to amend the Canada Pension Plan, tabled in Parliament last February 14, 1997? What are they proposing, I mean, the present Liberal government in Ottawa?

There is a proposed seniors benefit plan which is scheduled to start in the year 2001. The seniors benefit plan would abolish the Old Age Security plan, the OAS. You know that the Old Age Security plan is an entitlement, meaning every Canadian citizen who is age 65 and over is entitled to it as a matter of right. That will be abolished.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Order, please. I wish to advise the member that his 30 minutes allotted time for opening remarks is up. Is there leave to allow the member extended time to finish his opening remarks? Leave has been granted.

Mr. Santos: I am grateful because everyone is affected by this, including the honourable Minister for Seniors (Mr. Reimer). So is the minister from Lakeside (Mr. Enns). He was the Minister of Highway in 1977. I had an old map. I saw his picture, good-looking young man.

An Honourable Member: He had dark hair then too. Lots of it too.

Mr. Santos: I am looking for one, just to have a picture of the honourable minister. As I have stated before, there is a proposed seniors benefit plan. The present government claims it will not affect the rights of senior citizens. Is that true or not? Well, let us find out. The seniors benefit plan, as I said, would abolish the Old Age Security plan. That alone negates the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Stefanson) statement, because the Old Age Security is an entitlement. Every Canadian senior 65 years is entitled to it. They will abolish it. How can they say it will not affect seniors' rights? In addition, the seniors benefit plan will also end what we have been benefiting from when we file our income tax, the age tax credit of seniors. That will go away. That will be gone. Again, there is the pension income tax credit. If you are deriving some of your income to be reported, income tax from pension, you have a certain advantage in the income tax form. That will be gone, too. Therefore, it is inaccurate and false to say that the new system of seniors benefit plan will not affect the existing seniors' benefit under the Canada Pension Plan.

What is being proposed is to change the Canada Pension Plan from its present form, as I described it, as a pay-as-you-go pension system, into a fully funded pension system. How? They will try to do this by three ways. They accelerate the legislated contribution rate increases. There will be a steep increase. And what will happen? That will improve the rate of returns on the CPP account. They will also change the investment portfolio from the low-interest earning long-term government bond to diversified portfolio of securities at arm's length from the government. It means it will earn greater and higher interest to get higher returns. Also by tightening the administration of benefits and changing the way the benefits are calculated, that will save some money and decrease the cost.

Although they will not directly cut the retirement benefit, the proposed seniors benefit plan will do away, more likely than not, with the inflation-protection indexing feature. They will cut benefits to the surviving spouse and reduce the number of years of those deductible low- or no-earning periods of contribution that we can exclude now for our own financial benefit.

From a political strategist perspective and from the analysts' point of view, we ask this question: Why is the federal government doing all these changes and tabling the legislative changes in February 1997, but they are not scheduled to take effect until five years after, in the year 2001 outside of their electoral mandate?

The so-called CPP crisis--we see that in the papers, and if you analyze who owns all the papers, well, the monied class: Conrad Blacks, Thomsons and all the rest of them. They decry the crisis of the CPP. These people are opposed to the CPP. This so-called crisis will not take place until 30 years from now, and they are decrying it as if it were real, imminent and at present. How is such a discrepancy to be explained? Why is this federal government saying we have no alternative but to address this issue now? How are the proposed changes and the deferred date of effectivity to be explained?

Well, astute observers in the financial circle, those who are in the know, some of us are smiling and saying, well, the key maxim of the financiers is "don't mess up with Moody's bond rating." That is a warning to all governments coming from the monied class, the financial economic elite. They want most of Canada's retirement dollars to be channelled through the private sector financial institutions rather than through the government. Don't mess up with Moody. And the government, whatever level, whether provincial, federal, whatever political affiliation, is listening, and they are doing what the financiers want the government to do.

According to Murray Smith and others who have studied deeply into the so-called CPP pension crisis, there is an ideological and financial motivation in all these attacks on the CPP.

People in political parties like the Reform Party do not like public sector social insurance plans. Why? Because these individualists of the right believe that the CPP and other public pension social programs weaken individual initiative and self-reliance of individuals. This belief is, of course, consistent with the individualistic philosophy of life. You take the most you can take and you do not worry others. Let the devil take the hindmost.

Financiers and other people in the political services industry who oppose the Canada Pension Plan were opposed when the plan was instituted in 1966. They have been opposing it since then, and they continue spreading all this doom and gloom about financial crisis of the CPP. Why are they doing this? Why? The financial motive is because they want to have a bigger share of the retirement investment money, which approximately amounts to $18 billion currently being paid into the Canada Pension Plan. They want all this pool of money to be paid and channelled through the privately operated pension plans or through the Registered Retirement Savings Plan contributions that they manage in mutual funds and guaranteed investment deposits so that these banks and these financial people can earn their commission, their management fees, their means of livelihood and their ways of getting rich quick.

* (1530)

Indeed, the banks and the financiers and the economic elites dream, their fondest dream is that Canada Pension Plan will disappear completely and, if it does so, all those billions of dollars of pension money now passing through the Canada Pension Plan account will have to pass through the private sector financial institutions. That will yield them millions of dollars worth of commissions and management fees and profits on the several billions of dollars of pension contributions coming from Canadian workers all across the nation. That is the financial motivation.

This incessant drive for the privatization of the public sector income security money is their desire to reduce the payroll account and the social security contributions. However, the facts are different. If you look at the statistics of the OECD, economic co-operation for developed countries, the industrialized countries, including Canada, the rate of Canada's payroll and social security contribution is only 14.4 percent of the gross domestic product. The gross domestic product is the total amount of goods and services that are produced in the entire country.

How does this compare to the contribution of European countries in their own public sector social security program? Most of the governments in Europe, industrialized countries, at least, the same level of Canada, they have a rate of 37 percent of their gross domestic product being contributed in the form of payroll taxes and social security contributions. The United States has a rate of 30 percent of their gross domestic product. Ours is low at 14.4 percent of the gross domestic product. Yet there is a vehement attack on the Canada CPP that provides security to all the workers of the nation.

Indeed, the Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne proposed that the Canada Pension Plan should be converted into a superduper RRSP plan, whereby all contributions will be deducted from the worker's weekly pay cheques. All these deductions, instead of going to the CPP, would now go to the individual RRSP, and the individual RRSP will constitute the superduper RRSP account. The proposed contribution that he is suggesting is 10 percent of the private earnings, and there will be no matching employer contribution. All the contributions will come from the workers themselves.

How could they guarantee then? They could not guarantee that the money would still be there, because the superduper RRSP scheme will be at their control, at their management. We know for a fact that there are Canadians today, if they are lucky enough to save enough money to contribute to RRSP, they have been cashing them out for needed financial support during economic depression, recession and during long periods of unemployment. They cashed those savings.

There are people who cannot even afford to invest in RRSPs. Why are they are not able? They fail in their contribution; they are laid off work. Women would take time out of paid work to raise children. They take out some of their working time. They cannot contribute. What would happen to them under a privatized pension system? They will have no social security protection whatsoever in the dog-eat-dog world of the economic survival of the strong and the elimination of the weak by the powerful and the rich. That is the kind of belief that the individualists of the right are promoting.

In a presentation to the Public Affairs Forum sponsored by Bernard Betel Centre for Creative Living in Toronto in August 1996, Monica Townson, vice-chairperson of the Pension Commission of Ontario and chairperson the Ontario Fair Tax Commission, writing as an independent economic consultant, stated that a cap on the indexing of pension which is a protection against inflation would be politically difficult for the government in Ottawa to do. Why? Because the government in Ottawa cannot--it will be politically risky for them to tell the future seniors that they cannot have indexed pension benefits while the current seniors are continuing to have their pension benefits adjusted to inflation. That will be applying different rules to the same set of recipients.

The adverse impact on the female seniors who would retire would be much more severe, because women seniors start out with lower benefits in the first place. They had to raise children before they can go to the workforce. Generally they receive lower pay compared to the males, and generally they live longer. Therefore their benefits stretch out for long periods of time, and by definition it will be very minimal. Virtually all proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan will have adverse impacts on women seniors, because they have lower level of earnings, shorter contributory periods due to raising children, and they live longer than male seniors.

Now some of the arguments they create seem to be logical. The rhetoric of the intergenerational conflict will be raised as a justification for cutting and tightening CPP benefits. There is some general public perception current among all the current public nowadays that the seniors have never had it so good than now. They are now drawing pensions. Jealousy. Therefore it is time for them, they say, to make more sacrifices so that our society can redirect the pension money to the members of the younger generation in terms of better security for the future of this coming generation, sometimes known as the X generation. The nonseniors now, who will become senior in the next generation are called the X generation.

In a public hearing on the proposed Canada Pension Plan changes, there was a young man who is a member of the so-called X generation, who stood up and pointed out to the representative of the seniors group and the representative of the people with disabilities--he stood up, and he said boldly: You old and disabled people, you are sitting around here with your hands out. Why should I contribute to the Canada Pension Plan to pay for your benefits? What have you ever done for me? There was a stunned silence for a moment until a feisty senior lady stood up and said she deeply resented the comments. She continued, I have paid taxes all my life, and I am still paying taxes now. Who do you think paid for your education?

We must, therefore, strive to find more innovative solutions rather than simply lowering the benefits from CPP, because if we lower the benefits we simply increase the level of poverty. We simply increase the number of destitute among our seniors. Particularly hit are women who are unlikely to be covered by a private pension plan, who are unlikely to be able to afford adequate private savings. They cannot even afford to buy RRSPs for their future.

Perhaps some progressive future federal government--maybe in the distant future, I hope, the NDP will come to power in Ottawa--may require workers to contribute on earnings over and above the year's maximum. You know that if you are earning a salary, let us say, $100,000--and there are deputy ministers here who are earning that much, more than the ministers themselves--your contribution is limited only to $35,400. That is the limit. The rest is free. If they require any earned amount beyond the maximum to be contributable also to the CPP, what would that mean? For example, there are people with huge amounts of salary. Let me give you some concrete examples. The chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal makes $2,511,953--$2,511,000 annual salary. That is how many times more than what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province makes.

* (1540)

Mr. Reimer: A lot more.

Mr. Santos: Yes, chief executive officer of the Toronto Dominion Bank, $2,154,000--salary, annual. President of the Royal Bank, $2,281,192. All $2 million annual. If all of those would be subject to CPP contribution, there would be lots of funds in the CPP. But who are the rule makers? Oh, they are the same people. They make the rules in favour of themselves, so they exempt all the salaries. This remedy, of course, will transfer some of the wealth from the higher income earners to the lower income earners if this progressive change comes to be realized.

I want now to conclude because people seem to be fed up with what I am saying. If the rich could transfer some of their wealth to the poor worker, then we have truly answered positively the classic question I posed at the beginning: Are we our brothers' and sisters' keepers? Yes or no?

I do not see the representative of the other political--oh, it is unparliamentary to refer to them. I would like to give opportunity to the Liberal Party representative to give his opening statement. I am done, Mr. Chairperson, with those lengthy introductory comments. I hope it is helpful.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): We thank the critic from the official opposition for those remarks. I would now ask the minister's staff to enter the Chamber. Is the minister prepared to introduce his staff to the committee?

Mr. Reimer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson, yes. With me today from our Seniors Directorate is Kathy Yurkowski and one of our executive directors, Dorothy Hill.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): I thank the minister. I guess we will proceed with the review of 1. Seniors Directorate (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $349,600.

Mr. Santos: I was looking at these figures, and I noticed that in the organizational chart on page 4 this flow chart of positions, I counted the number of positions involved of the professional staff. There is one Managerial position, there are two Administrative Support positions, secretary and accounting support, and four Professional/Technical positions.

The managerial position makes $63,900. The average salary--I just averaged them because I do not know what they really are--of the Administrative Support staff averages $30,800. The four Professional/Technical positions, there is an average salary--I just averaged all three--it averaged $47,600.

Why is there this discrepancy in the salary level?

Mr. Reimer: I think the discrepancy can be noted towards the seniority of some of the staff and the functioning of some of the staff but, mainly, some of the staff are of senior nature and some of them are relatively new in the position. So there would be adjustments in salary according to that type of classification more than anything else.

Mr. Santos: On Schedule 3, as I understand the schedule there, the estimate of expenditures in terms of salaries and employee benefits with the details on Schedule 4, there is, between the estimate in 1996-1997, which was 345.8 in terms of thousands of dollars, a difference of 3.8 percent.

Mr. Reimer: You subtract the lower number from the bigger number and you get the difference.

Mr. Santos: Yes, subtraction. Then you divide it on the base from which you started, so you find the increment or the degrees. There seems to be a change of 1 percent. Why 1 percent, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that because of maternity leave of one of our staff, I believe just one staff, it made a discrepancy or a difference in the salaries and also with the backfilling of that particular position. So this would be the main reason why there is a discrepancy in the salaries between the two.

Mr. Santos: On the Operating Expenditures category, the estimate for 1996-97 was higher, 181.6. The estimate for 1997-98 is lower, 175.8. That means from the last fiscal year to the current fiscal year, 1997-98 there is a decrease in Operating Expenditures of approximately 3 percent. Can we have an explanation for this? While everything is going up, why is the operation of the department's Operating Expenditures being reduced?

Mr. Reimer: In doing the budgetary considerations between the two, the '96-97 and the '97-98, a lot of factors are brought into consideration as to where expenditures can be saved or better efficiencies realized in the performance on the operating end of our directorate. So it is more or less reflected in that type of philosophy and thinking of efficiencies and of better accountability of the expenditures. The difference would be attributable more or less to that philosophy that has been put forth, not only in this department but I believe in all departments. So it is consistent with the philosophy right across government to look at better efficiencies of expenditures.

* (1550)

Mr. Santos: Overall, is it true or is it not true that we have a surplus?

Mr. Reimer: In our department, we are not showing any surpluses. No.

Mr. Santos: Why is the Seniors Directorate not sharing some of this surplus?

Mr. Reimer: I think it must be recognized that this department is not a source of generation of wealth, if you want to call it. The Seniors Directorate is a service-oriented department that gives of itself to supplying a service. We are not in a position to generate wealth other than through some very minor activities that the department can get involved with, but in general we rely upon a certain amount of money that is put forth by the Treasury or through the Minister of Finance and we work within those parameters. We do not have the opportunity to generate wealth or to generate any type of surplus to offset any of our operating expenditures or our salaries.

Mr. Santos: This is true of almost every regular department of government, except for the Lotteries Commission and the tax collecting agency. All of those are service departments. They are not generating any revenue, but they are sharing in the general revenue funds of the government. Why is this Seniors Directorate not sharing in it?

Mr. Reimer: I do not know how to clarify it more than to say that I guess the monies that are allocated through the expenditure program and through the budgetary process--my government has always been fairly consistent with our funding towards the Seniors Directorate. It is a department within government that is unique in a sense that Manitoba is the only one of the provinces in Canada that has a Seniors Directorate that is part of a cabinet position and is recognized as such, and has the opportunity to participate and has a type of ability to make the decisions that affect seniors. So the allocation of funds that is brought forth by government towards the Seniors Directorate has always been consistent and has been of benefit in reaching our goals that we set out in dealing with seniors and in dealing with the various other departments of administration, of legislation or rules or our regulations that are brought forth, so it just becomes one of the parts of government.

We share in the so-called surplus to the extent that we are still able to provide the benefits that the director and the staff are able to achieve. But, as to increasing or taking part of the surplus and being directly earmarked towards the Seniors Directorate, or to have it specifically designated towards the Seniors Directorate, I do not think that any--or I should not say it that way--but I think there are very, very few departments in our government that have a direct access to the generation of revenue, as was pointed out. There are only a couple of departments; the Finance department and Lotteries, I believe, in general are the only ones that generate the revenue for this government to spend.

It is through this process that it is allocated to not only this department but to all other departments for expenditures, whether it is through my other two portfolios, Housing or Urban Affairs. The allocation of funding is dictated by the budgetary process. The budget and the allocation of funds through the Seniors Directorate are directed in the same way. So it is not unusual that for the funding allocation and the expenditures that are under review right now to be taken in any other type of characteristic than the normal process of government.

Mr. Santos: Mr. Chairperson, if you look at it overall, the budgetary process is simply a division of the revenues of the government to all the various, different service departments in terms of their expenditure or budget. You could see that the amount of allocated money is related to the importance the government in its perception gives to the function being performed by any particular department. If it is the case that the Health department is taking the lion's share of all this revenue, it is because the health is a high priority in the scale of values of the government.

If Education is next, it is because education is next highest. If the Seniors Directorate has a higher place of priority in the scale of values of this government, would it not be logical that it should be receiving a little bit more money than it is receiving now?

Mr. Reimer: The measurement of importance has various degrees of measurement, if you want to call it. I guess you can put to the fact that if it gets more money, then it is more important. However, I think that a lot of times it is the utilization of money within a department and the quality of the individuals who are in the department that has of more value to bringing forth policy and direction that government is going.

I think that within my department, I measure the quality of the people that I have in the department, and their output as more of a benefit and as more of a positive initiative than as if there was just money involved. I would think that if I could say that if I had more money in my department, my department would be more efficient or would be able to perform to a higher level, I do not know whether that would hold true.

I think that the dedication of the staff at the Seniors Directorate, their involvement with the various community endeavours, their willingness to participate in community, their willingness to go that extra mile--if you want to call it--in dealing with the seniors is something that you cannot put into a dollar figure and say that because the amount of money that went up to my department is an indication that the quality of dedication or the output of results is more. I have the confidence in the staff that their dedication is there because of the commitment that they have to this particular job or service that they are providing, and that money is naturally a part of it, but to tie in total reliance on funding allocations or the increase in funding to make things on a higher output, I do not know whether that would be of benefit. So I think that it is the old adage, I am getting good bang for the buck out of the Seniors Directorate with what is being allocated there right now.

* (1600)

Mr. Santos: I am not even talking yet about the efficiency or lack of efficiency of the personnel of the Seniors Directorate. I am talking about the priorities of government. If the government has placed a higher priority for the interests of seniors of this province, do we expect this government to give more or less money to the Seniors Directorate compared to other departments?

Mr. Reimer: I think that the Seniors Directorate does play a very, very significant role in the government and its direction that we take forth regarding legislation or regulations in pertaining to seniors. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the seniors are proving to be a very large component of our population in Manitoba. In fact, as pointed out, over the years the percentage is going to increase to whereby, as I pointed out, by the year I think 2015 they will almost be up to 25 or 23 percent of the population. So they are recognized as a very important segment of our population.

The allocation of funds towards the Seniors Directorate, it is hard to speculate as to what the budgetary considerations may be. As we go into the process later on after we are finished with this year and go into our next year, I can only say that I know that through the Department of Health the expenditures in health, which is related a lot to the aging population, has increased. Our budget now in Health is almost $2 billion. So there is a recognition of health care.

The Seniors Directorate in some of their mandates is dealing with a lot of the people who are not into the health care field but into the growing of the population into the aging population--if you want to call it. Retirement now, sometimes we talk of 55, sometimes we talk at 65. It is all a matter of interpretation as to when people retire and they become seniors. The classification of seniors now is becoming very broad. At one time when we talked about seniors, we usually talked about people that were fairly old, in their late 70s or 80s or even older than that, and they call them seniors. Now we have people who are 55 years old, and they are so called, classified as seniors. There are even places where they even talk about 50 years old.

So the broad spectrum of seniors and the catering towards the needs of seniors is in degrees of need. Your early seniors, if you want to call them, there is not that much of a need for the supply of services, information or the direction of help that they may require. As they get older the needs increase, and they flow into other various service sectors within government that possibly have more allocation of funds and more direct response to their needs.

They get into possibly the social service aspect involved with that department. There is a certain amount of funding that will flow through that. They come through my other department which is Housing, and they can become part of budgetary consideration as they flow into my Housing sector. They become more and more a part of my Housing portfolio. Right now seniors occupy almost 65 percent of my portfolio. As they are aging, the senior then comes into possibly the nursing home or the PCH, the personal care homes. The health care starts to take hold, and they become more and more of a budgetary consideration at that time.

We, as the Seniors Directorate, are gearing not primarily to one sector. We will try to be aware of the various components of seniors in a broad sense as they age. A good illustration is the so-called baby boomers, as we refer to from time to time. Now it has been estimated that every day there are a thousand of them celebrating their 50th birthday. That is a lot of birthday parties. They are starting to get into the aging spectrum too. Yet a lot of them are just as active and more active than when they were so-called younger people. Seniors nowadays, just because a person is in that so-called classification of seniors, a lot of them are very, very active, very contributory towards various sectors in life here in Manitoba. They are tremendously involved with volunteerism.

The senior centres, I get a chance to go around visiting them, not only in the city but in the rural area, are very active. A lot of them have tens of activities that they list. They go on a continual basis sometimes right from nine o'clock in the morning right through until eight or nine o'clock at night with some of these activities.

I have had the opportunity to visit some of the seniors' homes in Boissevain and Killarney last year. I was amazed at the participation that they draw not only from the small area around there but also from some of the areas in around. The seniors will drive in for some of the events; they get involved with the events; they participate in the events. They serve as a valuable resource for volunteerism. More importantly, too, I believe they serve as a mentorship for a lot of young people who possibly need some help from time to time in the community, and seniors can serve to help them in guidance or advice in trying to help them.

So seniors is a very broad spectrum. When you put the classification of senior, you just cannot pinpoint it and say that now that person is a senior, they fall into this category because of that designation. It is all a matter of interpretation. We feel as government that it is important that we recognize that continuum and that requirement of involvement, so that as a Seniors Directorate with a senior staff, they are out in the field, they are talking, they are bringing back information to this government. They have the ability to contact other jurisdictions right across Canada. Because of this funnelling of information through the Seniors Directorate, we have access to a lot of information that other provinces may not have, because I have the ability to or we have the ability to direct staff to try to find out what is going on in New Brunswick or British Columbia or Ontario. We can take forth these ideas that they are doing there, bring them back to Manitoba, bring them in to be part of our legislative package or changes that we feel that we may want to implement with the seniors. It makes for a better understanding of how we can address the seniors, some of their problems and what we feel is important. So the classification of seniors becomes quite tricky, in a way of saying it, you know, that you are a senior now and you are expected to perform or do these types of things.

Mr. Santos: Of course, Mr. Chairperson, there is the popular, colloquial way of understanding the term "senior" and there is the legal way by which you can define who belongs to the seniors group. Let me give you an example. When there was a blizzard I could not take my car out of the yard. Naturally, I had to walk to the bus station where all the buses are running, and I asked the driver: How much do I pay? He looked at me. I have white hair, glasses. Do I pay the seniors rate or not? He said: Are you 65 or over? I said, I am not yet. Then you have to pay the regular rate. That is the legal definition. Again, there is the colloquial way. If I exercise every day, I walk every day like the honourable minister, he runs every day, the chronological age does not coincide with the physical age. You feel good. I shovelled a lot during the blizzard because it gives me some kind of pep. Of course, I have to watch myself. You know, there are people who are shovelling who had attacks because they overexerted themselves but, generally, it gives you that good feeling when you do some physical activity.

What I am saying is: Who does the minister consider senior and the recipient client of his department, those people who are sick but not yet over 65 or those who are 65 or older but are very healthy? Who do they cater to?

* (1610)

Mr. Reimer: Thank you. The member brings up an interesting commentary in regards to definition of when is a senior a senior, you know, and age-wise seems to be a general criterion.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Just as he mentioned 65 at the bus to be eligible for a senior, I guess, and I do not know his age, but if he went to Country Kitchen and he was 55 he can get a senior's discount there and get a meal for less. But within our senior centres and our housing we generally indicate that 55 is the age of being classified as a senior. The housing, like I mentioned, under my portfolio we use 55 as a classification and in the senior centres they use 55. So the Transit may use 65, and some other places I understand even use, I have heard, 60. You know, they use that as a classification sometimes for seniors. So I do not know whether there is a legal definition. I know that the member earlier alluded to CPP, and I believe there they say you are eligible at 65, but you can still get it at a discounted rate at 60, I think the member was referring to. So there is your, I do not mean the member, but is the definition of seniors being 60 by the federal government or is it being 65 by the federal government? So circumstances seem to dictate interpretation.

Mr. Santos: If you ask Country Kitchen, they are not giving the discount because they want to benefit those people, they want to use their business. It is a form of promotion. They can even give it to 50 if they wanted to, so that the clientele will be wider and their volume of sales will increase.

Why this discrepancy? When 55 Plus says you can apply for this supplement when you are 55, and yet the city which is also under the honourable minister's jurisdiction as Minister of Urban Affairs, is he the Minister of Urban Affairs, why are they insisting on 65? Why is there no consistency?

Mr. Reimer: The member brings up a very interesting topic. It revolves around the so-called definition of when age dictates when someone is a senior. I guess with the City of Winnipeg and their Transit philosophy, they are taking guidance possibly from the federal government where the federal government has said that retirement age is 65, and Transit is using that as their guideline. It has been pointed out to me that in the United States sometimes they even go down to 50 years old as a classification of a senior in some jurisdictions.

That is too early in my opinion. It is too close, too early. It is not something that has--no, I should not say that. I think that we could debate it quite at length as to what is the merit between considerations of 65 or 60 or 55 and even 50 as to where certain things end. A lot of times it is tied into, as the member alluded to earlier, some sort of economic indicator because the age will dictate an economic advantage or disadvantage and that seems to be more of the determining of a definition of age. Is it at 65 you pay this or you do not pay this? At 55 you pay this or you do not pay this? So it is an economic indicator and not an age indicator of what are the ramifications of being a senior.

I think the member has pointed out in his opening comments that we revolve around the economic indicators of definition. This seems to be more apropos with exactly what we are talking about now when we say that at 65 you get a discount on the bus, that at 55 you get a discount at Country Kitchen, and in the United States you get a different classification when you are 50. So economics are dictating the thing more than possibly the need as the person grows older. Interesting comment.

Mr. Santos: The two are not exactly unrelated because the amount of wealth in your control and possession is related to your degree of need, not your chronological age. So, if we are to be very logical in the formulation of public policy, let us ask ourselves: who are the riders of buses? Are they the people who are the possessors of wealth, or are they the people who are on the margins of society who have to take the bus to go to the place of work or to go to some place they want to go?

Now, if it is the case of the facts before us that it is the needy who are the ones who are riding the bus, then it behooves us to make policy consistent with need. Therefore, the 55s should be the ones who should be defined as seniors for the purpose of riding the bus because they have fewer resources at their disposal, and not 65. The greater the need, the greater the benefit that we should accord as government and as society to our own citizens. Is that not correct, Mr. Minister?

* (1620)

Mr. Reimer: The direction of reasoning on that is actually age should not be a criterion. If the member is saying the criterion should be need, that would supersede the fact of people having to prove age. That way you would have to prove a need to be on the bus in a sense of, because of possibly social connotations. Then that way age should not be a factor if you pursue the reasoning of the member that need becomes a criterion, and it does not necessarily mean that, just because a person is of a certain age, they need certain things. A person of a younger age may be having more needs because of their social circumstances, their physical or fiscal situation. Their needs may be even more than that person who just happens to be 65 or 66. Because of that position, they are in a position to take advantage of a discount or something.

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Maybe the member's comments regarding the need factor could be brought into the scenario of consideration when people are looking at riding the bus. When the need situation becomes more than a person that is a senior possibly--because of their financial situation, they may have more money, and they can afford a full fare. But the definition of need comes at 65: they need to pay less than a person that possibly is 20 or 24, but their social needs may have dictated that they are in more of a need. So it makes an interesting balance.

Mr. Santos: Of course, need is another factor in itself recognizable. But may I ask the honourable minister, the older you get, are your needs increasing or decreasing as an individual in terms of your requirements for government services?

Mr. Reimer: Well, I think there is a fair amount of definition that can be brought forth on that, because I think that it depends on the person, his or her lifestyle, attitude towards life and how they feel that they would like to make their way through the journey. It can be quite fulfilling because of their legacy that they have accumulated as they grow older, whether it is through wealth or through family or through personal achievements and accomplishments, and those all become measurements of satisfaction.

As the member will, I think, agree with me, the more that a person builds up these inventories of satisfactions and accomplishments, the better the person is as a whole person. As they grow older, because of those inner accomplishments, they can satisfy themselves in a sense that possibly they do not have to have as many needs as someone who is still trying to fulfill certain obligations. As the person ages, with a lot of people--I will agree with the member--their needs actually go down, because they have finished their goals of life, in a sense, with their family and the raising of their family. Their children have left them, and their children have accomplished or have gone on to their own source of living. The person may have more time to enjoy his or her self-worth, accomplishments, goals, recreation pursuits, ability to interact on volunteerism or to interact, and those are the types of inner satisfactions that help that person continue on his or her journey.

These types of satisfactions also make the person of a healthy mind, and that will, in a sense, a lot of times help them dispel sickness because if a person is in a frame of mind that is of a positive nature, a lot of times that is the biggest factor in fighting diseases or some sort of debilitating situations that that person may have experienced. So, as the person starts to grow older--again, if we talk about growing older--their needs possibly will dwindle because they have achieved these satisfactions, and they are still growing upon the other goals that have come up and they have been able to participate more, possibly, in the community. The weight of decision making that they had within a growing family with children has gone off their back, and the satisfaction of accomplishment that they have when they look back on the joys of their family or their accomplishments, whether it is through the family or through business or something like that--these are some of the things that will make them a better person.

On the other hand, other people, maybe not of the same disposition, and as they grow older, bring on more so-called burdens upon themselves, and these people, as they grow older, will require the needs and the facilities of our health care. They will need the facilities of our social fabric and the social safety net that we set up through our Family Services and our various other governments. Those people then have this safety net that this government has provided for them. So, hopefully, as the person goes through their journey of life, they can rely both on the positives and the relinquishings of a lot of the things that government can provide for them. So there is a balance between the two. I think that there are more people of the accomplishment nature that have realized a lot of their goals, that have realized their achievements; we can see that in a lot of the seniors groups that are so active now. So many seniors are a part of seniors groups and seniors centres and resources centres now. I have talked to some seniors, and they say I have never been busier since I so-called retired. They are involved with more things now. They are actually saying, I have got to put my phone on an answering machine, because I get too many calls from people wanting me to do things. They do not say that in a derogatory manner. They are just saying that the circumstances have swept them into places where they are enjoying even more their life as a so-called retired person. So the definition of "burden on society," I guess, depends on the individual and his or her lifestyle.

Mr. Santos: Should we not distinguish between, for purposes of simplification, those who are well endowed--have lots of savings and lots of resources at their command--and those who do not and have nothing, because they did not plan for it or had other things to think about or were too sick? Where would the services of government be most relevant to cater to those who are satisfied in life, have lots of achievements, lots of accomplishments and lots of free time? They are the ones who are active in seniors groups. Or, those who are sick, debilitated, cannot go from place to place, because they cannot afford the regular rates in transportation, because they have to be 65 to get the discount? Which ones should the government, in the minister's mind, really extend its services and its benefits to?

Mr. Reimer: I think actually we have the benefit of both worlds, in a sense. We have the benefit of an active and a contributory section of our society that is contributing back into the mainstream of volunteerism and help and, to a degree, even paying taxes. The idea that they are able to contribute and be part of it will mean that if they are earning income, they will be taxpayers. As taxpayers, that money will go back into the system which will help the person on the other side of the spectrum that the member is referring to, the people that are in need.

That becomes a benefit that government does not have to be the sole provider on that side of the spectrum. Because of the fact that the seniors that are still participating in the workforce or possibly the fact that they have been shrewd investors and have been able to realize an income off of their investments, they will pay taxes. They will continue to pay taxes, and they will be a source of revenue that indirectly will go to offset some of the needs that the other side of the senior spectrum is in need of.

* (1630)

So we as a government will still have the responsibility to provide that safety net. If through the allocation of funds or the generation of funds through all the other sectors that the seniors are going to need on the one side of the spectrum with the provision of a safety net, we will be able to do that. It is because of usually the prudent management of government and the fact that we were able to do the prioritization of where we feel that the health care has been a very, very large part of our budget. We will continue to fund it that way, and the seniors will be able to benefit on both sides.

They will be able to benefit because of the small catalyst funds that we may have for them in one end through the Seniors Directorate, helping seniors to be more actively involved with their community or actively involved with volunteerism. They in turn, will be able to help the seniors on the other side that are in need of a little bit more or that help up. The fact that, as the member mentioned, when they get to be 65, they will be able to get the seniors' discount on the bus, those are things that they can enjoy a little bit better. Until they get to be 65, they will still have to pay full fare, for buses anyway.

Mr. Santos: I would like to be generous and suspend myself, because the member from the other opposition party would like to ask some questions. So I will give them all the opportunity they need to do so.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I appreciate the thoughts from the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), as he has proven over time to be a very considerate individual.

I had a couple of questions, and I was listening to the opening remarks of both the minister and the member for Broadway, and they spoke eloquently in terms of some of the projections with everything from seniors, numbers into the future, to programs that need to be made available and how much we as politicians have to be very sensitive as we have an aging population in the province of Manitoba. There are, indeed, a number of services where we can enhance, other services that we need to possibly look at in terms of change, not necessarily to avoid change. A change can be a positive thing, and when I think of the change, one of the things which this government did was to strike the Seniors Directorate, which is something we had supported.

We had hoped and believed that through the Seniors Directorate, and this goes back to the '90 provincial election, when the then leader Sharon Carstairs had talked of the benefits of having, through a ministry, some sort of a co-ordinated approach at dealing with issues facing seniors. Having said that, I have a few very somewhat specific questions. First is: Does the department today offer the handbook which clearly demonstrates the services that are available for seniors?

Mr. Reimer: The member is alluding to a publication that we do have that comes out. It is a seniors handbook that is available. I can make sure that I get a copy to the member. What it does have in that handbook is a listing of all the services that are provided by the Seniors Directorate. It has the listing of the handouts, the guides that are available from the Seniors Directorate, the phone numbers and the programs that are available, that can be provided through the seniors by other organizations by the Seniors Directorate.

It has been updated. It is updated every two years. We are into a process of updating it right now. I can get the last issue for the member and then when the new issue is printed, which would be about in the fall of this year, we will make sure you get the updated version of it too.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would appreciate to get a copy of the handbook. I know that in my office downstairs there seems to be a number of different books that facilitate senior services, and having a handbook or a resource book that makes reference to the different organizations that are out there would definitely be of some benefit. It is quite possible that at some point in time I might have even received one of these books from the department but have obviously handed it out, because I was not able to find one from the Seniors Directorate, so I would very much appreciate to get one of these books even if at all possible sometime this week would be nice.

From what I understand, the Seniors Directorate is also coming up with fact sheets on different issues. I can recall a press release that the government had issued in which it talked about things which seniors can do to make themselves feel safer--not only feel safer I trust but also be safer--in their homes and on their person as they walk about the broader community. I am wondering if the minister can indicate what sorts of these so-called fact informative type of sheets and the issues they have accomplished to date, again, if I could be provided a copy of each, it would be appreciated.

Mr. Reimer: Just to give you an example of some of the brochures that are being developed and have been developed, there was one on purse snatching. There is one on the loss of ID, if a senior loses his or her ID, identification, I should say. There is one on safety and homes. There is also safety and security, just to give you an example of some of them. I believe there are some other ones.

What I can get for the member is a listing, and not only a listing but a sampling of all our brochures that are available. Maybe, as a suggestion, he can use them in his constituency library for seniors that do come in, and that if there is an inquiry we can make sure that if he gets a hold of our department, we will give you the brochures. Then your constituency has a supply of these brochures so that if you do get--

An Honourable Member: That is what you call service.

Mr. Reimer: That is what you call service. Then we can get those for you.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, to show how efficient at times the minister and his staffperson, in particular, Vern, can be within the office, I have already been provided the Senior Citizens' Handbook. I know there is a chance that Vern might be listening, and I thank him for having sent it up. I do welcome the opportunity to get that. That is in essence what I am looking for is to be able to have some sort of a resource within my own office, as all MLAs have a seniors population, to be able to service them in a better way.

The minister made reference to the fact, in his opening remarks I believe it was, that the government, or the Seniors Directorate, is going out into the different communities, and then listed off some rural areas. I am wondering, if he can indicate, what is the primary reason for this?

* (1640)

Mr. Reimer: The idea behind it is actually through the Council on Aging. The Council on Aging was set up as an advisory board to the minister and to the Seniors Directorate to literally go out into the field and have meetings, have public consultations, on a regular basis to find out some of the localized concerns. What it does is gives us a better feed and a reading on some of the concerns that are in the local constituencies.

For example, I recall the Council on Aging being up in I believe it was Flin Flon. One of the concerns that they brought forth which we would have never known about was the fact of disrupted bus service through some of the towns in the rural area, and how it affected seniors that wanted to travel between Flin Flon, The Pas and from some of the surrounding areas. So the Council on Aging was able to relay this type of information to the local bus line. I am not sure whether it was Greyhound or Grey Goose, one of them anyway. They were not aware what their rescheduling had done to a lot of the seniors in the area in their ability to do some town-to-town travelling. From what I understand, they readjusted their bus schedule to try to accommodate the seniors.

Some of the resolve came about just because of the fact that, if we had not held that meeting, and if we did not have this forum for the seniors to come together to talk about things, that problem may not have been solved. It was a lot of to do with just because it was brought to the Council on Aging's attention, brought to the directorate's attention that we were able to facilitate them in giving them some sort of direction and to try to come to their problem.

We have held meetings in other towns like Beausejour, and some of the other ones that I mentioned. It does give the chance to set up this idea of communication. With those meetings, we set up workshops. The Council on Aging will have people come in to talk about elderly abuse, some of the retirement options that possibly some of the people are thinking about. The Council on Aging gives the seniors in the area the opportunity to get information from us. They use us as a source of information and also as a catalyst to get more information. I feel that it is an excellent way to outreach by this government, through the Council on Aging, to get more involved.

We will continue to stress going out of Winnipeg. We do hold them in Winnipeg too, the Council on Aging meetings. But I am of the opinion that they should go out, and I recommend them to go out into the rural areas to hold meetings. They have been invited to go to Brandon, Winkler and other areas to set up these types of seminars and meetings. I think we have had some very positive results from it. It is mainly because of them getting out there and talking to the seniors, other than strictly Winnipeg. We do not want to be accused of Perimeteritis by just being always in Winnipeg.

I think that in the last year, we have had about half a dozen meetings out in the rural area, out of a council that sits once a month. So, out of the possibly 12 months of the year, we have had over half of them out of the city, and we will continue to do that.

The board is composed of representatives from Winnipeg, from Brandon, from the rural area. It is composed of individuals that have been from the various sectors of Manitoba. It is a board comprised of 15 people. The chairperson is a Dr. Stuart Hampton from Brandon, a very well-noted and well-known individual. I think, we are very fortunate to have him as our chairperson. He brings not only the perspective because he is a senior, but he is a doctor that specialized in--he is a geriatrician--so it brings a very close relationship within the board. I am very fortunate to have the quality of people that I have on the board. They do a good job in outreach for this government.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairperson, just a quick question here before I go into the other committee room. This probably would have been a better question during Question Period because this way the minister could have skated more around the question. But this way I figured I would bring it in this committee here so that I get a straight answer. I rely on the staff very much because he has got such a great staff, and I would like to congratulate them at this time. Any time we need information, they are very competent in giving us the information that we require. As I was saying, this booklet here, I have had them before and have passed them on to seniors in my constituency, and which are very good for the seniors home.

My question to the minister is, I look at the new booklet that has come out on safety and security. It is a very good booklet. Then I look for the French side of it, and I cannot find it. I think that, if you look at the French policies of the government that have been established here, anything to do with the public has to be in the two official languages of the province or the country. I asked when it was delivered, because, as the minister is aware, probably 60 percent to 70 percent of my seniors in my constituency are Francophones, and I am sure he has quite a few in his own constituency. Why is it not printed at the time in both languages? It would cost a lot less, as far as I am concerned, if you did it the one time. You could reverse the booklet and you have got it in French, and you have got it in English on the other side. I think it would save in the cost of producing these booklets for the community.

Mr. Reimer: I can assure the member that it is of concern and a priority in trying to establish a presence in the French community, and the brochure is being translated into French right now. As to the availability, I have been told that it will be coming out fairly shortly. I will make certain that the member will get a supply of copies as he needs, you know, for his own constituency office. He will get some, and as mentioned, I will need some for my own constituency because I do have a French component of mine and French seniors in my constituency. So we are addressing that.

Mr. Gaudry: I thank the minister for his reply, but I have already provided his department with a list of the seniors homes in my constituency, with the numbers of booklets that should go out. If there is any further required, then they have advised me that they will forward them directly.

My concern is the fact that, like I say, when it comes out, why would it not be done then at a cheaper cost in printing, for example, when you are doing one run of these booklets? That was my concern. I know they have advised me that it is coming in a week or so, and I appreciate that very much. It is the cost factor, because when you hear the people, they say, well, you know, they want it in French. Again the cost, and I think if it is done in one printing, it would save the dollars.

* (1650)

Mr. Reimer: I guess one of the considerations is the volume. There is no doubt about it, the member brings up a good point in possibly dualing it with the French and English in the same booklet. In regard to the numbers, the proportion of need in English is about 25 to one. The consideration of printing is the economics of printing 1,000 in French, for example, compared to 25,000 of need in the English sector is of a savings to the government. The double printing of the total amount that is used, say a number of 25,000 or 30,000, is a lot more of a cost in dual printing it than just printing the demand of about 25 to one. So there is a saving by just printing solely a French copy.

Mr. Gaudry: So there is a comparison that has been done in regard to that, because you have got other documents like, for example, the Estimates book is available in French and in English or other documents that I have seen where you reverse it and you have got it in French and English. Therefore, what you are saying to me, like on a small booklet like this here, it would be cheaper to print 25,000 than 1,000 for the French community?

Mr. Reimer: It is based upon--we have the ability to look at the demand of our other brochures and things so we can fairly accurately depict how many we would need. We would always add a certain percentage more because of perceived demand because of the fact that it is a new publication and a publication that may have wider appeal, plus the fact that there is a growing segment in the market. It is not necessarily that it would always be the same amount. It would be adjusted because of not only the demand but the perceived demand and the anticipated demand.

Mr. Lamoureux: There are just a couple other questions that I had. One is with respect to, at one time you needed to be 65 before you actually received any sort of real entitlements. What we have seen is programs over the years such as 55 Plus, which dates back no doubt a number of years. We see the Shelter Allowance Program or other forms of nonprofit housing where that age has dropped to 55. I am wondering if the minister could comment in terms of to what degree we receive the lower end of 55. Are there more people that are retiring at 55 today than there were before and for him possibly even to speculate as to the reason why? Is it a question of lifestyle or is it a question of health, why we might actually see that sort of flow if, in fact, that is the case.

Mr. Reimer: I think what has to be considered is a number of factors as to why there is the perception that 55 and from 65 and a lot of it has to do, I guess, to a degree of, as the member mentioned, with lifestyle. People are retiring earlier because they have possibly the ability to retire earlier. The economic situations sometimes will dictate that companies will go through various forms of restructuring and they look at it as an age category or age placement as when they want to change or make different directions in their company, and they use an age of 55 or 60 as their benchmark for retirement. Some of those things are brought into consideration.

The member knows that we are into what they call the baby-boom generation, the huge amount of people that were born after the Second World War. Canada has more of a baby-boom population than the United States. It is an interesting study of demographics. The book Boom, Bust & Echo written by Dr. Foot has a very good explanation as to why Canada has such an abnormal amount, more of baby boomers; part of it has to do with when Canada went to war. There were more people that came back earlier, and there were more babies born per capita in Canada than there were in the United States. Our baby boomers are coming to the point now here in Canada, and I mentioned a little earlier that almost over 1,000 a day are turning 50 years old. So that is the fastest growing segment of our population. If you look in a bell curve, the biggest bulge in our population is the population that is just coming into the 50s. So we are going to see a tremendous influx of people into that category between 50 and 60 in the next few years.

In fact, by the turn of the century, as I pointed out, we will have more people in the so-called seniors category than any other province in Canada. By the year 2015, I think it is, we will have almost 23 percent of our population as seniors, which is going to put a totally different perspective of needs of satisfying this segment of our population by government. As people get into the senior years, not necessarily but to a degree, more allocation of funding for health care is directed towards that segment of our population. On the other hand, because of lifestyles and activity levels and nutrition awareness, sometimes they are in better shape as seniors than they were as younger people, because they have the ability to do better possibly in nutrition planning and physical planning and mental planning, because they are coming through a stage of their life where they do not have the burdens and the responsibilities and the pressure of raising children and possibly their mortgage is paid for. They have been able to do some prudent savings or investment, and they can enjoy their lifestyle which affects their health. So it is going to be an interesting scenario of weighing the expectations and the needs as this segment of population goes through the system. So why there is this type of reliance or these expenditures and this type of category and how it is going to be calculated is going to put a lot of governments to the test as to satisfying these requirements. It is going to be an interesting time not only for within this particular portfolio but in the Health portfolio and some of the other portfolios as to how it is handled. Government is going to have quite a challenge on its hands in recognizing some of these needs.

* (1700)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, that is in part the reason why I bring it up. You know, today's mind-set appears to be moving more towards the early retirement. I have often commented to Cathy, my wife, saying, gee, you know, would it not be nice to be able to at 55 retire, have somewhat of an income coming in and be able to enjoy the wonders and beauty of Canada by travelling across it? It seems to me the more people I talk to, more and more people are starting to look at it in that sense. Now, if you look at the future and you say, well, we have this bulging seniors population that is not too far around--you make reference to the year 2015. I would be somewhere around 52-53 thinking about my retirement and start wondering, well, gee, am I going to be in a position in which I am going to be able to retire, like many other Manitobans or Canadians when they look at it, and they say, we have 23, 24, 25 percent of the workforce or potential workforce is in retirement, and these social programs--and that is why we should not necessarily fight change.

We should be opposing government if it is not moving towards change, because change is absolutely essential in order to ensure social programming, good solid social programming in the future. But what I see is, on the one hand, the population currently looking at this more that the earlier the retirement, the better it is going to be. Then when I look at that year 2015 when we have that bulge, that there is going to be a relatively small percentage of the population that is actually going to be contributing taxpayers, if I can put it in that fashion, which does cause a great deal of concern.

I think the real challenge in governing, quite frankly, could be, not today, but in the next decade or so. Because if we are not successful at changing or managing those changes, especially in our social network, in working in co-operation with the government, that we could see a very serious change in lifestyles for seniors that are expecting to be able to have good programs, are expecting to be able to retire.

The reason why I bring it up in the fashion that I have, I would think that the Seniors Directorate within the government of the day requires a great deal of attention from within the cabinet. Because when we start planning the economic future of the province of Manitoba and the types of jobs that we are currently getting, the type of jobs that we want to be able to attract, and the type of, you know, mindsets that we are feeding into, that we have got to be very, very careful in terms of the way in which our population demographically is growing.

That in itself, Mr. Chairperson, is one of the reasons why I am a fairly avid supporter of a small-Liberal, if you like, policy on immigration. Because that is one of the things, along with more babies I guess being born in the province, or more people coming to the province from other provinces, that we are going to need to be able to secure the long-term survival in some cases of some of these very worthwhile projects. Because if we are not prepared to do some long-term thinking with respect to this, I could see in the future some areas in which user fees will become a part of everyday life for someone that is 65, 66 years old. I do not believe that we are too late today, that if we take the actions that are necessary that we can forgo some of those negatives that could be there in the future. Because there is very little doubt in my mind the top issue for seniors today is health care, followed very closely with respect to crime, personal safety, and being secure within their own premises.

I bring it up, for what it is worth, and hope that the minister responsible for seniors--and I see him nodding his head in an affirmative--acknowledges the importance of this particular directorate at getting some very strong, tangible, I do not know if you want to call it evidence or policies put into place that can be articulated so that the cabinet looks at that more long-term vision for the province of Manitoba. I appreciate the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) being so generous with me in being able to say a few words. Thank you.

Mr. Santos: I would like to resume, Mr. Chairperson, by going back to the topic that I left, namely, the transportation of senior citizens.

If it is the case that those people who have less resources are the ones riding the bus, is it not unreasonably unfair and unequitable to maintain the concept of senior at 65? We should lower it and be consistent with the 55 Plus. Because if they can apply for 55 Plus at age 55, why are they being forced to pay the full rate after age 55 when they take the transportation bus system? The honourable Minister of Seniors, being also the Minister of Urban Affairs, there should be consistency in our policy.

Mr. Reimer: The member brings up an interesting comment because it is an area that has become more and more a part of defining when there is a certain eligibility for people to enjoy some of the benefits of either a reduced bus fare or possibly even getting into the movies at a cheaper rate. I think at movies they have a seniors fare for movies, to enjoy some of the movies that are playing in the city of Winnipeg. They can go to the movies.

The bus fare itself is something that I think the member realizes is set by the City of Winnipeg in their deliberations of their budget. As Minister of Urban Affairs, I do not have any direct authority over the City of Winnipeg in how they set their fares. That is within their jurisdiction in their budget deliberations.

Our association with the City of Winnipeg through Urban Affairs for funding in the Transit Department, we do fund just over $16 million a year to the City of Winnipeg Transit Department for part of their operating budget. It is not a small amount. It is a big amount of money that we have allocated consistently over the last years to the City of Winnipeg for their bus and their transit operating expenditures. As to the charging of actual fares, they have the authority to dictate the fares.

I guess where the member is referring to is the category of interpretation of age as to whether 65 is the proper cutoff and whether it should be considered at a different age. Whether it is 50 or 55 is something that possibly the member, through his contact at City Council, would be able to bring some pressure as to when they are considering their setting of bus fares. I am not too sure whether the bus fare has been increased for seniors or what the differential is. I think, as pointed out by the member, a lot of people found out for the first time what bus fare was during the blizzard, because I think they were saying on the radio that one of the most often asked questions during the blizzard was, how much is the bus fare? People had never been on the bus for years, and the blizzard made people take the bus.

I was fortunate. I was able to get a ride with someone with a four-wheel drive, or otherwise I would have been looking for the bus too. But I was able to contact somebody and get a bus ride. My car was stuck in the back lane with snow for three days, so even though I was Minister of Urban Affairs, I still had to wait for the tractor to come down my back lane. I was in with everybody else in having to walk. It was an experience that everybody partook in.

* (1710)

Mr. Santos: Certainly the City of Winnipeg enjoyed some autonomy in setting the rates in the public transportation system. But the province is providing grants to the city for transportation. Certainly the province can influence the decision, and the province will appear very, very consistent and logical if those who are eligible to apply for 55 Plus should also be eligible to have the reduced fares for seniors at 55. There will be no questioning about it because these are people who need the services.

Let me point out the benefit, Mr. Chairperson. As the minister said, there are many people who can take the bus. Then the bus system will be more used; there will be more economic opportunities because these people will spend money on movies, on shopping, and it will be for the good of the city itself. Maybe Eaton's will not close if the transportation system is available to, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said, the bulging segment of our population, if they can move around. But they cannot move around because they are hampered and restricted by this discriminatory kind of treatment. They are eligible to apply for additional supplement under the 55 Plus program. I do not know how many of them did. Maybe I should ask the minister how many actually succeeded in applying for this kind of provincial benefit.

Mr. Reimer: The member is right when he alludes to the fact that Urban Affairs, through the provincial government, does provide funding to the Winnipeg Transit to offset some of their operating losses. I would think that with the blizzard that came a couple of weeks ago, that with the ridership they were saying they were at an all-time high during that time period, that maybe some people benefiting from the transit for the first time are going to be converted to riding on the buses because they realize that it is a good deal. It is going to be an interesting case study to track now the ridership numbers between, you know, just before the blizzard, then during the blizzard, and then as we continue over the next four to six months to see how that recognition factor is related to the amount of money that is collected in the fare box.

It may mean that if the transit system does start to show a more positive cash flow, they may be able to look at, you know, adjusting the bus fares, and this is something that should be brought forth to their councillors and the fact that there may be an opportunity to pass on some of the benefits to the seniors and possibly lower the age requirement down to the ages that the member referred to. What we can do--when I say we, I mean through the Seniors Directorate. This could be a very excellent topic of discussion for the Council on Aging to tackle. I can get some insight from the Council on Aging and ask them to put that on their next agenda for discussion, and see what type of recommendations or directions they feel they would like to come up with. So what I can do is, I can give the member the assurance that the Council on Aging will, maybe in the next meeting or two, it depends--I think that I would wait until they have a meeting in Winnipeg to discuss it because it is more apropos to Winnipeg--have that as an agenda item for discussion.

Mr. Santos: I thank the minister for that qualified commitment to bring this issue to the Council on Aging. I suggest that if you are a businessman and your product is not selling, what you do is you lower the price. When you lower the price you increase the volume. When you increase the volume you make margin, you make profit. The same thing with the transportation system. If it is easily accessible and there is a lower rate for the majority of citizens--in the minister's opening statement they will be increasing tremendously by the year 2016. They will be 23 percent of our population in the province, you said. If that is the case, there is a social experiment here right now. Lower the rate, see how it affects the income of the city transportation system, and if it does, then that is a good direction of policy. And it will be for the benefit of our senior citizens because they can be mobile, they can walk anywhere. There will be less need for a special Handi-Transit because they will take the regular transportation system, and there will be, as I said, more economic opportunities. There will be more buying and selling, and that will be good because then all the merchants in downtown who are complaining will no longer be complaining.

Let me now leave that transportation or mobility needs of seniors and go to another basic need of seniors, the housing needs. I have listened sometimes to Question Period, and I learned that there is a thing called Shelter Allowance for Elderly Renters, SAFER. What was the minister's explanation why there was a cut of $250,000 on this seniors accessible program?

* (1720)

Mr. Reimer: What the member is referring to is what they call the SAFER program, and that is the Shelter Allowance for Elderly Renters. The acronym is SAFER. What that is, is a program that is set up to help seniors in their rental accommodations and to pay for some of their rent. It is a subsidy that goes towards their rental allowance. Now, when we are doing our budgetary Estimates, we look at previous history from the year before as to the applications that are submitted, and we base our budget on and make an evaluation as to how much money we are going to need to fulfill these applications.

Under the SAFER program, to give you an example of how the applications have come in and the budgetary considerations, in 1993-94 there was approximately--well the number was 3,656 applicants for an expenditure of $4.6 million. In 1994-95, there was almost exactly the same amount of applicants for an expenditure of $4.644 million. In 1995, there were 3,600 applicants, a decrease, for an expenditure of just over $4.5 million. So, when you get into your 1996-97 Estimates, you have to look at putting in a budgetary figure for it. So we budgeted for 3,750 applicants in our '96-97 budget, but actually only just over 3,500 applied. So we had a budgetary projection of $4.65 million that we based our budget on thinking that we would have over 3,700 applicants. We only had just over 3,500 applicants, so our budget came in as an actual expenditure of $4,343,700. So there is a difference of, as the member mentioned, around $300,000. Now, that does not mean that there was less money spent. What it means is there were fewer applicants that applied for the program. So if there are applicants that are available that have the ability to apply because of the criteria and they are eligible, they will receive the shelter allowance.

It is a program that is generated by applications, and as the applications come in, they are processed. If they are eligible, they will get the shelter allowance. But, when we go to our budgetary considerations, naturally we have to try to project as to what we feel is going to come in. So we budgeted for one number. Fewer actual applicants did come in, so naturally our allocation of funds and our expenditure of funds was less than what was anticipated.

So now, when we get into our 1997-98 budget, we go back to what the actuals were in '96-97, which I pointed out to the member were 3,548 actual clients. So what we are budgeting for in our '97-98 budget is 3,590, which is actually a little bit more than what we had from before, even though historically the numbers are going down. We still added just a fraction more than what was actually the take up last year. So our budget for this year is $4.4 million, which is more, in a sense, than what was actually spent last year. Last year we spent $4.343 million. This year we are budgeting $4.4 million. So, in essence, our budget expenditure and our projection is up over the last year. This is why it is not a decrease but it is an increase.

It is generated by clients, the number of clients that apply. The more clients, the more we are going to have that are eligible, the more monies would be spent. So it is not a decrease in actual dollars that is taken away from the program. I think I explained that properly to the member.

Mr. Santos: Obviously the number of applications, if used as an index for budgeting, will depend upon the degree of familiarity of the clients with the program. May I ask the minister what his Seniors Directorate is doing so that the program will be known to those people who are eligible to apply for the renter for the elderly program, their allowance program?

Mr. Reimer: Applications are made available through the social services agencies, like social work offices. There are applications there so that when clients come in there, they are made aware of the shelter allowance. We also, through our Seniors Handbook that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was looking at just the other day--there is reference to the shelter allowance in the handbook with a phone number that they can access to get information. So these brochures are available through our Manitoba Housing. We have them in our housing complexes. Like I say, the social agencies do have them in their contingency of brochures. So there is the availability to the general public to access this type of information.

Mr. Santos: If that is so, the one medium which is available to the directorate is the Seniors Handbook because that is directly published by the directorate. Is that not correct?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, definitely, it is the Seniors Handbook, yes.

Mr. Santos: Okay. How many of these handbooks have been published this fiscal year?

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that we have published about 50,000 copies of the handbook, and we are just going into a new printing very shortly because we have just about run out of those. In that handbook it does refer to the fact that people can access the SAFER program and applications are available, like I mentioned before, through our Housing department, through the social services agencies, and if they specifically ask us for the application, I mean the Seniors Directorate, why then we will mail it out also.

Mr. Santos: So the new edition will be coming this new fiscal year? What is the time frame on it, Mr. Chairperson?

Mr. Reimer: I have been told it will be available this fall. They will be ready for distribution.

Mr. Santos: Well, if that is the case, then they will not know the SAFER program until the fall.

Mr. Reimer: No, no. The program is alluded to also in the old book, and we still are sending out old books. When I mentioned 50,000, we are not out of them. We still have books available, so books will go out continually and in the old Seniors Handbook it is referred to. In the new book it will be referred to also, so there should be no disruption of supply to people that have inquiries.

* (1730)

Mr. Santos: The honourable minister stated that some of this information also disseminated through the service agencies. That does include the United Way and all the related agencies?

Mr. Reimer: It was just pointed out to me, you know, the brochures that I am referring to are these here, the SAFER books. These are the ones of Manitoba Housing. We are the ones that print these and distribute them and make them available. I should point out to the member that through my Housing portfolio, we have initiated a marketing team, if you want to call it, and these are people that--we are concerned about the vacancies in our Housing department here in Winnipeg. We have a fair degree of vacancies in some of our units. So what we have initiated is we have initiated a team and these are two ladies, and I cannot remember their exact names right now, who are assigned to various projects in certain areas. Their directive is to try to make people aware of the social housing and the public housing that we have available in that particular area and the eligibility criteria. One of the things that is pointed out to them is the fact that if they are eligible, they can take advantage of the SAFER program to get into some of these units.

A good example is Fred Tipping Place, which is just over here on Osborne Street. When we assigned the marketing team to that particular complex, there were 37 vacant units in it, and within a span of, I think, it was six weeks to two months, we were able to fill almost all those units other than about three of them. They then moved over to another unit on Carriage Road, and they are doing that same type of marketing in that area. One of the things that is made known to the people in speaking groups, and the group goes and speaks at seniors organizations and seniors centres, is the fact that they can take advantage of shelter allowance and get into our units.

We are having some fairly positive results from it, and it is an initiative through my Housing department that indirectly is benefiting my Seniors Directorate and my Seniors department by filling in some of the needs for seniors because, as pointed out earlier, the seniors component of public housing now is growing to a point where it is upwards of 65 percent to 67 percent of the occupancy is seniors, and they bring forth a new awareness of the needs and the new directions of trying to fulfill some of the obligations that we have as a government to look after the seniors.

Our Housing component has grown from a public housing sector to a social housing sector and to the fact that we are able now to cater to seniors in certain areas. Some of our seniors homes have support services such as kitchens and meal programs that they are running out of there. We have tenant-counselling services set up to a degree in trying to help some of the seniors in the area. We have programming that goes into some of these seniors complexes. A good example is the seniors complex on Smith Street, 185 Smith Street, where we have Age and Opportunity that works out of the second floor in that unit. We do not charge any rent to Age and Opportunity in that unit, so they are able to provide a sense of community within that complex for the seniors to get involved with arts and crafts and paintings. I have had the opportunity to be in there a few times to see some of the endeavours they have performed and whether it has been weaving or crocheting or needlework or painting, they do have the opportunity to participate. Age and Opportunity provides a very, very beneficial service to the aging population. The volunteers that work out of Age and Opportunity--I had the opportunity to tour their offices very recently with the director, Hilda Hildebrand, and she is able to draw on literally hundreds of volunteers to help seniors, and this is an example of seniors helping seniors. So it grows to be quite a system of co-operation, and we are very, very fortunate here in Manitoba that we have these types of groups that can grow.

I am very interested in forming partnerships of some sort with groups such as Age and Opportunity in building some other type of programming or direction or needs that they may pinpoint for me. They have come forth with their problems of how they are approaching aging. They want to be part of not only recognition but possibly even contributing in suggestions as to how we can better service the seniors population.

So the relationship is very positive that I enjoy with some of the groups. I use Age and Opportunity as an example, but other ones we co-operate very closely with in trying to come to a better understanding of which way the seniors are going and what type of direction we can help them with.

As I mentioned, the SAFER program is an excellent opportunity for seniors to get into housing. It is a rental supplement program. It is not an income supplement. It is geared towards the rent that they are paying, and it is based on the criteria of income that the renter is categorized in and the supplement is adjusted accordingly. If the person is making more money, then their rent supplement goes down. If they are making less money, their rent supplement goes up. So it makes it quite an equitable formula that can work and benefit for the senior to take advantage of.

So it is a program that we are--like I say, we have got a team, these two ladies, this marketing team that is going out, trying to fill our housing component and get more usage out of the program. We have had good results from it, but as I pointed out earlier, it is based on applications and, historically, the applications have been going down. Whether it is an indication of better economy because of our fiscal policies that are starting to come into effect--because I notice it seems to have coincided a lot with just in the last few years when we have sort of taken our government on a more prudent management of our fiscal responsibilities and the generation of wealth within the community so that these people can possibly enjoy a better way of life and that possibly they do not need to use the shelter allowance. We have found that it is very beneficial and that if people are willing to partake, it is there for the uptake.

Mr. Santos: More likely than not this supplement to rent will be much more needed now given the lower interest that seniors will be earning on their savings, and they will probably need more supplement. It makes more sense for the government to fill up the vacancies in public housing than making this generally well known and available.

Now, I still ask the question. Why cannot these brochures go to those social agencies that are related to United Way?

* (1740)

Mr. Reimer: The member is referring to the brochures available through the United Way. United Way, in a sense, does cover some of the areas that we already do have brochures in because of the funding agency that United Way is involved with. We do have a fair access to areas that we, as Seniors Directorate, do have our applications in. The seniors centres, there are about a dozen or so seniors centres that would have these brochures in them. The resource centres, there are about 63 or 65 resources centres that would have these brochures in them. Age and Opportunity, which does a lot of out-sourcing has availability of these brochures that they hand out. Also, through the Seniors Directorate, we send out what is called a seniors source newsletter. It goes out every two months, I believe it is--twice a year, pardon me, that is what it is. Within the last year, one of the articles dealt with the rent supplement program.

The word is getting out there to the affected areas. Then in combination, as I pointed out earlier, with our marketing team to try to fill our public housing, we are making it well known that way. They are also talking to seniors groups, seniors organizations and gatherings about the SAFER program. The program is fairly well known by anybody that is involved with renting their accommodations, that they can make application. We encourage them to make application.

Mr. Santos: As I have indicated, Mr. Chairperson, because of low interest rates on savings for seniors, their income naturally will be going down, decreasing. But there are certain changes in our health care, medicare, drug coverage and Pharmacare system, with increasing deductibles, all those increasing costs. My question is, if this is true and there are some changes going on, let us say in the case of institutionalized seniors, they are now probably shifting in greater number into the community away from an institutionalized setting, into the community-based care. Maybe some of them will be going back to the family home. Is there any plan or projection whatsoever? They will probably be needing more home care from the government. What is the Seniors Directorate doing in planning for this?

Mr. Reimer: The member is right in his assumption that the communities are becoming more in tune with their responsibility to seniors and the adaptation of seniors into the community. The member is right, if a senior can stay in the community or stay within his or her home or apartment or possibly even living with their relatives, it does switch and shift the burden of financial costs away from the high end of providing for health care for the seniors. To keep a person in hospital is very, very expensive compared to having that person into a home care situation or providing some sort of assistance on a daily basis or a visitation basis so that that person can still be part of the function of the community. That does realize a saving to the government. It is through this type of initiative that a lot of times there is the reallocation of funding from the high-end cost of health care down into the community, and this is one of the reasons why home care has become more of a function of this government in providing funding that way.

I do not have the exact funds available as to how the shifting has gone from home care. I do know that it has become a very, very big component, and I believe the last figure I heard, without verifying it through the Health department, I believe it is something around $90 million that we spend in home care right now. I would have to double check that through the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), but that figure sticks in my mind.

That has been a growing figure. We have recognized that if we can keep the seniors in the community, keep them possibly even in their own home, provide a home care visitation, whether it is on a daily basis or twice daily basis or maybe every second day or something like that, it gives that person a sense of being part of the community, and he or she has the ability to still be a contributory force. So the shifting, without knowing the exact numbers, I cannot speculate unless I had closer contact with the Health department. I think that when the Estimates for Health come up, these are questions that can have a definite answer come forth from the minister at that time.

Mr. Santos: If that is the case and the government is saving money by this shift in the location where the seniors would be, because partly also if they have decided to die at home, you know, along with family circles and support groups, why is this government privatizing home care, thereby losing control of the operation of the home care services of the government?

* (1750)

Mr. Reimer: I guess the question of privatization of home care the Minister of Health was alluding to earlier is the fact that it was a small component of home care that was being privatized. I am not sure exactly what the percentage was. I believe it was about a quarter of the requirements. I would have to get more detail from the Minister of Health to give a more definitive answer, but the idea of privatizing a portion of it was done to set up a system of comparisons, I guess, but as to the--I cannot be too specific as to the amounts and the savings because our Seniors Directorate, we do not have access to the decision making that the Department of Health has. I think that maybe those questions might be more apropos to give to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) when his Estimates come in, whenever his department is called.

Mr. Santos: Throughout the years I notice that all the services required by our senior citizens are inextricably bound up with activities of the Health department, because the older you get, the more health care you need. Unless the Seniors Directorate takes some of these activities, it probably will lose some of its function to this mammoth department called health care. People are now finding that after they reach their deductible, for example in the coverage they have for prescriptions, because they are capped and some of the changes are not known to them, they simply run out of money. Some of these marginal people who have savings, who depended on the interest on their earnings, can no longer pay for those prescriptions that they have to pay for themselves.

In addition, if this is being thrown out to the profit-making sector in the private sector of home care business, you double their problem. How can this government then say that it is caring for seniors? I am not being political here. I am just trying to analyze what is going on. Because those private operators have to make profit, they have to pay a lower rate, they probably will have to cut some of the services and yet the services are increasing as far as seniors' needs and demand for services are concerned. Given the minister's population projection about the number of seniors in this province, the increase will be tremendous. If their income is dwindling and the demand for services increasing, and the government is handing out and dumping all these services to the private sector, where will the senior be? And we are all getting old.

Those are my concerns, Mr. Chairperson. Last year's Estimates, Pharmacare decreased their funding from $57.3 million to $37.6 million. This is 40 percent cap. In addition, out there in Ottawa, they are passing this legislation that extends the patent rights exclusively of all these multinational pharmacare sellers of drugs. Naturally, the price costs will escalate. If the seniors' sources of income, even those who have some savings for themselves, are decreasing, we are compounding the problem of our senior citizens in this province. Are we planning for this? Is the directorate studying this somehow or having this at least discussed by their Council on Aging?

Mr. Reimer: I should point out to the member that when we had our ministerial conference, down in New Brunswick I believe it was, this is one of the things that we wanted to bring up, the fact of the escalating drug costs and the fact that some of the seniors and hardships that are brought forth because of the addition of drug and costs regarding brand name and generic drugs. Generic drugs right now account for approximately 40 percent of the prescriptions that are handed out, which represent about 15 percent of the sales dollar-wise in regard to the medication that is handed out. Generic companies make the claim that their drugs cost upwards of 40 to 60 percent less than the brand names. I believe that there has been active lobbying for and against Bill C-91, I believe it is, with the federal government. I believe our minister went down and made presentation. We have been in contact through publications and through information gathering as to the implication of C-91 here in Manitoba. Our Council on Aging has talked about these applications from time to time in our meetings. There is a concern there. There is a tremendous cost involved both ways, savings and/or increases because of the fact that they are using generic drugs or brand name drugs.

So it is a situation that the federal government has now said that for one, I understand, are granting the patent protection, or a continuation of it. So things like that implemented by the federal Liberal government are going to have a negative effect on our drug cost. This is why we are very concerned.

Mr. Santos: Elderly, as the minister has alluded, sometimes live alone. Of course, if they are already in a state where they need some help--how many minutes away?

Mr. Reimer: Did you want to pass the department today?

Mr. Santos: I do not know. I just want to ask this question.

Mr. Reimer: Sure, a fast question and then you can pass it, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Santos: I understand now some of the seniors are going back to school because they have to be mobile, they do not want to stay home. I understand that Red River Community College is charging them full tuition fee even if they are seniors. Is that true?

Mr. Reimer: I think that is something we can certainly look into for the member and get back to him. I was not aware of that.

Mr. Santos: The telephone rates are another requirement. When you are living along and you are a senior, you need a telephone. You need to contact your family. You need to contact somebody when you are in trouble. The phone rates since privatization have gone up $4 a month since MTS was privatized. MTS now in the private sector will apply for another rate increase in June as we have predicted. Is there any planning here? How can we ever change the situation now? Their income is decreasing and their costs are increasing?

Mr. Reimer: Here again, the regulatory authorities are what the CRTC and we--unless there is representation made to the CRTC, that is the only availability of any recourse that lobby groups have.

Mr. Santos: I would like to talk about elderly abuse but we probably are running out of time. I would like a commitment from the minister from now on that I get all the brochures that they ever issue so I can follow up all these concerns of seniors. I would agree that there should be an end of everything, and we should end these Estimates.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 24.1 Seniors Directorate (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $349,600--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $180,800--pass.

Resolution 24.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $530,400 for Seniors Directorate for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998.

This completes the Estimates for Seniors Directorate.

The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tweed): The hour being 6 p.m., as previously agreed, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).