LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, May 24, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND
TABLING OF REPORTS
Western Premiers' Conference
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the
House, copies available for opposition members, as well as copies of
communiques and reports from the Western Premiers' Conference last week in
Gimli.
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling copies of the 11 communiques and
two reports which were released during last week's Western Premiers' Conference
in Gimli.
The range of topics covered in the communiques shows that
the western provinces and territories remain committed to close co‑operation
and to working together on key priorities for the West and for
What is particularly encouraging is the commitment by the
western provinces and territories to move ahead together in several important
areas, including development of a strategic investment plan for western
Canadian infrastructure needs; the establishment of new western export
consortia to ensure the West can compete more effectively for large international
projects; confirmation of our continuing united position in opposition to
tobacco smuggling; a commitment to strong co‑operation on taxation and
budgetary policies, as well as the national training and social security
reviews; a recommendation to the Prime Minister that the Premier of
Saskatchewan be the co‑chair of the national forum on health; continuing
joint work on new farm safety net programs; development of a more proactive
approach to advancing Canada's case in international trade disputes; a strong
endorsement of the international Trade ministers' effort to negotiate a
comprehensive agreement by the end of June on reducing internal trade barriers;
a full‑scale review of western transportation priorities to be led by
Manitoba; confirmation of support for an ongoing formal relationship between
the western Premiers and the western governors; agreement on the importance of
moving ahead quickly with the federal government to reduce overlap and
duplication and to pursue on a western regional basis co‑operative
initiatives in such areas as environment, emergency preparedness, health care
and public service renewal and reform; unanimous support for the continuation
of bilateral federal‑provincial economic development agreements in the
West and for the inclusion of the Northwest Territories and Yukon as full
participants in meetings of western industry and economic development ministers
with their federal counterpart; and finally, a call on the Prime Minister to
restart the process of annual First Ministers' conferences on the economy, and
in addition, to continue the practice started last year of consulting the
provinces in advance of the yearly G‑7 summits.
The other Premiers and territorial leaders were very
generous in describing the success of the conference. I believe a large part of the credit should
go to the hospitality provided by the people of Gimli and the surrounding
community. They made everyone feel very
welcome, and I believe they can be proud of the positive impression of
I would like to pay particular tribute to the member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer), as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) for their contributions to
making this year's conference one of the best and most productive our province
has hosted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1335)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
Premier for his statement to the Legislature this afternoon.
We would like to start and congratulate the people of the
Interlake and the people of the Gimli community for what we have heard to be
just a tremendous job in hosting the Western Premiers' meeting. We are all very proud of the job that
Manitobans and members of the Gimli community provided to host this important
meeting of western Premiers.
I would like to talk a little bit about the substance of
the meeting and about the statement the Premier made to this Legislature and
about other media reports that we have been able to glean over the four‑
or five‑day period that the stories came from the meeting.
First of all, we think it is a very positive idea that the
Premiers have proposed that Premier Romanow of
So it seems to us that our first priority should be to get
a strong national government and strong national standards and strong national
funding as part of the health care reform.
We believe very strongly in a strong partnership between the provinces and
the federal government. To us,
partnership also is not just talk, it is also action in the form of the federal
budgets that we see in the province. So
I think it is a good proposal, and we wish the government well on having this
kind of co‑operative review of health care rather than a unilateral
review.
We also note the recommendation on smoking, and I applaud
the western Premiers on that issue.
Certainly, the smuggling has gone from north‑south to east‑west. This, the Tuesday after the long weekend, I
have talked to a
The whole issue of powers‑‑there was a report
on powers. Devolution of powers was one
headline, other reports about rationalization of powers. We in
There are various decisions that have to be looked at. I happen to believe that we should have a
strong national presence in environment.
Ecosystems do not stop and start at provincial boundaries. They cross waters and air, and ecosystems
cross provincial boundaries. I actually
believe that rather than having the reaction we saw with the
The whole issue of taxation is a very important issue.
On the issue of trade, we note that the communique is
continuing to work towards a June 1994 resolution of trade. We believe that areas of strong and high
unemployment must be considered along with our needs of commerce, and northern
and aboriginal communities must be considered in any communique or position
that
Finally, on the issue of agriculture, we wish the
government well. We do not note any
strong, co‑ordinated approach of the western Premiers dealing with the
farm support programs. Some provinces
want to proceed with the removal of the Wheat Board. Other provinces want to keep a strong Wheat
Board. That is the same kind of
dichotomy we see between our western Premiers and provinces on transportation
policies and other issues. I am pleased
this government will look at the whole issue of transportation. How many jobs will we lose with CN and CP,
with their merger? What will it mean for
Thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker.
* (1340)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want
to join comments with the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
in congratulating the people of Gimli and of the Interlake region for putting
on a very, very fine job of hosting indeed.
All reports were that it was extremely well done by that community. I do not think we would have expected any
less. They have proven that in the past,
but they have obviously shown their hospitality again.
Mr. Speaker, there are specific concerns about some of the
documents that the First Minister has sent out; in particular the communiques
which we had earlier received, and we are glad to have his comments this
morning, but there are comments we have on some of those communiques which will
come up in Question Period today.
By way of overview, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say
that I was, of course, pleased to see that a large topic of discussion was the
whole area of western co‑operation, both on the economic front and in
terms of the expenditures of government across this region. I have consistently maintained and continue
to do so, that this region of the country still lags far behind other regions,
most notably Atlantic Canada in recent years on that front, and there are many
millions if not billions of dollars to be saved for our common taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the other issue that I raise as a general
statement here is that, again, and unfortunately in recent years‑‑and
I see the pattern unfortunately continuing‑‑the whole genesis and
the whole‑‑what is contained more than anything else in these 26
pages of press releases, 11 of them. One
wonders what else was done except write communiques; 26 pages in two and a half
days is not bad.
In any event, the press releases either start or degenerate
to largely continuing by the provincial governments to blame other levels of
government, most notably, of course, time and time again, the federal
government. No doubt there are always
those criticisms to be made, but that has become an increasingly, still is, the
raison d'être apparently of these meetings, is to do this.
What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, what I think
Manitobans would like to see is some concrete solutions, some things that are
actually coming forward, that are actually being done by these provincial
governments. There is a lot of hypocrisy
in talking about offloading when this government has offloaded in every single
budget that it has come in with‑‑seven budgets in a row.
There is a certain level of credibility which I think is
continuing to lack from the overall talk about co‑operation and finding
solutions. It does not appear to be
reflected in these. There are a lot of
communiques, 26 pages worth. The words
"co‑operation" or "co‑operatively" are used 30
times. What do we have to show for
it? Those are the tough questions for
the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Thank you.
* (1345)
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report, 1992‑93, of the
Universities Grants Commission.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
From the
From the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Prime Motor Oils
Environmental Cleanup Costs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Last week, we were, unfortunately, given an Auditor's
report dealing with the Hazardous Waste Corporation that indicated the company
itself did not want any involvement of the Auditor in the affairs of public
money and public investments in that corporation.
Previous to this, we raised questions in the House about
Solvit and Prime Oil, two private waste corporations that have resulted in
considerable concern in our communities for both the safety of these operations
and the costs.
I would like to ask the Premier, how much did it cost the
taxpayers to clean up the Solvit operation which was licensed from the
provincial government, and did we recover any money from that corporation or
take any legal action?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
Solvit cleanup actually was not a large number.
I cannot call to memory the exact number. We have attempted to take action to recover
any possible dollars that are available from that site, but as you can
appreciate, there is not a lot of value in the site.
I think the member will have to be a little bit patient,
however, in terms of Prime Oil, because one of the things that occurred there
is that we spent a considerable amount of time working with the owners to get
the liability down and get as much of that site cleaned up as possible. Unfortunately, they eventually collapsed
financially under not only the business climate they were in, but part of the
pressure that we were putting on them in terms of bringing their operation up
to snuff.
We have spent, I believe, about $300,000 in getting rid of
the initial amount of waste that was left onsite, but we have taken some very
strong action to attempt to recover, and the courts will ultimately decide how
much.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, Prime Oil is a company, and the
amount of money we understand for Solvit is $60,000, which is a lot of money in
terms of all the other decisions government is making in terms of reduction in
services.
The minister has indicated and we have Freedom of
Information indicating that considerable amounts of public money have been
spent on Prime Oil. This is a company that
the government cited in its Fire Commissioner's report in 1989 and '90 as an
exemplary company, and a company, of course, which they went and licensed, Mr.
Speaker.
We have close to $300,000 outstanding, and to date, there
has only been one judgment against Prime Oil, and that is a judgment in
February of 1994, of some $65,000.
I would like to ask the government, how much will the total
bill be for cleanup because the Freedom of Information indicates that this is
not the total amount of money? What will
the total amount of money be that the government will spend to clean this Prime
Oil site up? How much money do we expect
to recover, and what are we going to be short from another private operation?
* (1350)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the implication
is that we should have more public and less private operations in the handling
of hazardous waste in this province, but in the soil cleanup at Prime Oil,
there has to be some analysis as to what level of contamination there is. The whole area is being evaluated quite
carefully to make sure we do not inadvertently overlook something.
The member should know that this is one of those situations
where the owners‑‑we have attempted and will continue to attempt to
recover from their personal assets.
Frankly, all of their personal assets, I believe, are likely at risk in
attempting to recover the costs here, and the courts will ultimately decide
what is fair.
Mr. Doer: The minister asked us what our position is, and
we believe that this hazardous waste material should be handled in a nonprofit
way by a public corporation where the safety of citizens is the primary
consideration, not the profit of individuals.
That is our philosophy on dealing with hazardous waste. That is why we are opposed to privatization
and other moves by this government over the years and specifically this spring.
I would like to ask the government, what are they going to
do to stop their licensing of private companies that has resulted in explosions,
in fires, in material being left in the grounds and material being left in our
communities and the government and the taxpayer being left with the bill at the
end of the day? What are they going to
do to stop this in the future? It is
they who licensed these corporations. It
is they who allowed these organizations to exist, and it is they now who are
picking up the tab for cleaning up.
What are they going to do to stop this in the future? We have had two cases already. How are they going to stop this in the
future?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the
Leader of the Opposition would take the approach in opposition to have the
private sector come in and invest up to $20 million in hazardous waste
management and control in this province‑‑that coming from the
Leader of the Opposition, a party that supported Manfor for which we are paying
a $13‑million environmental cleanup‑‑$13 million.
Does he want to go into the taxpayers' pockets for more of
that kind of waste and ineptitude? I
think not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we look to the Prime Oil development, the
liability at that site began decades ago and has gradually built up until this
government started to take some action to make sure they either cleaned up or
they were put out of business. They have
eventually been put out of business, and we are making sure that they pay
everything that we can possibly get them to in terms of the cleanup.
Agriculture Marketing Boards
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I would like to ask the Premier if he will let us know what
his position is. Does he support the
monopoly of the Wheat Board to stay as it is, as many farmers do, and does he
support marketing boards in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we continue to believe and, in
fact, I have indicated that one of the things we need to do is ensure that
Americans understand what the role of the Wheat Board is, that it is not, as
they allege, an organization that engages in subsidizing wheat for export,
that, in fact, it is a marketing agency that has served the farmers of western
Canada well in the past and I hope will continue to serve the farmers of
western Canada well. I at no time have
advocated the removal or dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.
With respect to marketing boards, we continue to be
supportive of marketing boards, and at no time have we suggested that marketing
boards ought not to continue to exist in our province. We recognize that under the GATT agreement,
certain changes will have to be made with respect to tariffication as the way
of the future for marketing boards, but I have not been an advocate of the
dismantling of marketing boards in Manitoba either.
* (1355)
Agriculture Marketing Boards
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
If farm support programs are to be successful, we believe
that they should be national programs, where there is equality across the
provinces. However, from the communique,
we see that there are certain measures of protection that are not covered and
still have to be defined.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether these
areas that have to be defined yet will be tabled in this House prior to the
Ministers of Agriculture meeting that is upcoming.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot give the honourable member the answer perhaps that she is requesting
inasmuch as a fairly substantial committee involving the provinces is currently
meeting to place some of the questions before that upcoming conference that she
alludes to, and decisions will not be made until the first week, second week,
of July when the ministers meet here in Winnipeg.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, surely, since other provinces
have position papers, the
Since Manitoba producers, Mr. Speaker, need to know the
position of this government, we need to know what position the Minister of
Agriculture has taken, will the Minister of Agriculture, prior to the meeting,
table his position paper in this Chamber, so that we can look at what
Manitoba's position is on safety support programs for farmers?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be difficult
with the honourable member. I am simply
saying that I have listened very carefully to everything that our federal
minister Mr. Goodale has to say about it.
He speaks in general terms about a whole farm program, I
understand, and our officials are working towards that end, that it means, in
many instances, perhaps an extension or enhancement of the NISA program in some
cases, particularly in those areas where past programs, like the tripartite
programs in beef, pork and other individual commodity items, are being dropped
in this current year.
Mr. Speaker, these are issues that a very significant group
of Manitobans, some 14 or 15 in all, representing virtually all the
agricultural community, is engaged in advising me. They are participants in a much greater
committee, consisting of some, I am told, 40 or 45 people from across the
country who are meeting on a fairly regular basis to make these suggestions to
the ministers when they meet in July here in
Environmental Management
Jurisdiction
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Premier. As one read
through the 11 communiques, one I wanted to raise with the minister was
Communique No. 9. This is about the 24th
page of communiques. This conference did
succeed in tripling the number of communiques from the last one.
This communique calls for the devolution of authority down
to the provinces in environmental management framework and classifies that as
an immediate priority, and The Globe and Mail of Saturday indicates, and I
would like the minister to clarify that the western leaders identified a number
of areas including environmental management in which the federal government
could cede control to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the First Minister: Is it his position, and did he join with the
other Premiers in calling for environmental management and control of
environmental reviews to be given solely to the provinces?
That strikes me as the one area in which it makes no sense
to have the provinces individually regulate this in isolation, because we all
know that air and water travel and environmental pollution and degradation is a
larger issue than our borders as provinces allow us to somehow curtail the
pollution.
My question to the Premier:
Is that his position, that the provinces want full control over
environmental management?
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I must say that is the last area
of communiques that I thought that the Leader of the Liberal Party would strike
on, because he has been one who has constantly advocated our trying to remove
the overlapping duplication between and among the provinces. He has always talked about the tremendous
savings that would occur if we harmonized our efforts or if we combined into
one commission or other things.
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely an area in which there is
overlap. In fact, I have been one who
has said that there ought to be consistent federal standards, but it seems to
me that having federal standards or consistently agreed‑upon standards
across the provinces does not necessarily mean that we have to have two panels
to review the environmental assessment for the same process. This is direct overlap and duplication. If you set your standards, you agree on your
standards, and then you require two different panels just simply because you
have two different levels of government, that does not make any sense whatsoever.
So if we take that to the extent that he has been
advocating in the past, that provinces ought to harmonize and get together
their efforts, then you would have provinces doing the same thing. Where you have border crossings, you have two
provinces agreeing to have one review panel conducted on the basis of agreed‑upon
standards. That would make sense, as
well.
So, Mr. Speaker, we as governments are looking for ways to
be innovative, to seek to accomplish the things that he says we should, and
here he is the first one to stand up and say, ah, we should not do that. I cannot understand where he is coming from.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, more nice words. Creating 12 islands of environmental
management in this country will do nothing to assist in the efficient and
responsible management of the environment.
This Premier is calling essentially, with the others, to have complete
control over the environment. It is an
international issue. It certainly should
not be restricted to provincial boundaries.
Western Economic Co‑operation
Report Tabling Request
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My supplementary
question for the First Minister: In the
communique from the November meeting in Canmore between these Premiers, it was
specifically indicated that the Premiers had asked at that time for a report
from responsible ministers on items raised at the spring 1994 Western Premiers'
Conference on western economic co‑operation. An inventory was supplied at that time, and
the report was to be tabled.
We have, I certainly want to recognize, a report on
learning and post‑secondary education distance learning. Where is the overall report on the western
economic co‑operation initiatives that was promised in Canmore back in
November?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Speaking to the member's postamble, you do
not have 12 islands if you agree on one uniform set of standards. That is the first principle, that you agree
on one uniform set of standards across 12 jurisdictions, so you cannot possibly
have 12 islands. I reject totally his
postamble.
With respect to the areas of co‑operation, Mr.
Speaker, the Premier of Alberta updated the report which had been delivered in
Canmore to indicate that there have been not only the more than 160 areas of co‑operation
that had been listed in Canmore but that we had a whole new series that were
being catalogued; not only the report that he has referred to on the use of the
electronic highway for distance education, but we have new areas of co‑operation.
For instance, in
There are a number of other areas in curriculum development
in education that are being proceeded with.
We talked about areas such as university level courses where it is now
being acknowledged that we have far too many of the same professional faculties
in some areas, and so we are looking at that.
The area is exploding so rapidly that the Premier of
Alberta did not have an accurate handle on all these things, because it had
only been less than six months since we had the meeting, for instance, in
Canmore, and it was agreed upon that we would have a much more comprehensive
review of all of these areas of co‑operation for our next meeting.
Mr. Edwards: Again, Mr. Speaker, very nice words, lots of
communiques, but the report promised in November is not here, unless we are to
take the 26 pages of communiques as the report.
Western Economic Co‑operation
Common Curriculum
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): I have a final
question for the First Minister.
He specifically mentions curriculum and education. Just two months ago, the Atlantic Premiers
announced a joint approach to curriculum in the core subjects across their
region. They are going to come up with
the same curriculum to assist not only in saving money in coming up with new
curriculum, but also in the mobility of their citizens throughout that region.
My question for the First Minister: They made a commitment two months ago and set
a timetable. What is the commitment, the
real commitment of these Premiers in this region to do the same thing in that
area that the Minister of Education mentioned just a few weeks ago was a good
idea? What is the commitment? What is the time line for our region towards
a common curriculum in the core subjects, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated in the Estimates review just last week, the protocols
are in place as between the provincial governments of western
I would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that we have some distance
to make up.
I find it rather indifferent on behalf of the Leader of the
Liberal Party to pose these questions when his critic of Education is
challenging us for holding our numbers of people within curriculum development,
because we are trying to prevent the overlap and duplication, and we are trying
to work to greater efficiency with our limited resources.
So the member is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Maintenance Enforcement Program
Service Access
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (
Despite the hopes expressed by the Ombudsman in his 1992
report and promises by past Ministers of Justice, the Maintenance Enforcement
Program in
My question to the minister is, what immediate shakeup of
the Maintenance Enforcement office can the minister announce to people like
Tammy Williamson, who is in the gallery today, a very frustrated single mom,
because she had to wait three weeks for a return call after leaving 20 messages
with her officer?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, in the area of maintenance enforcement, as I have said in
the House before, we are looking to certainly increase efficiency. We have been able to increase efficiency in
some areas, and we are looking to continue to do so.
The specific case the member raises in the House, I would
have been very appreciative if he had let me know the circumstances of that so I
could look into it, because our concern for Manitobans is of the utmost
importance. The member chooses to raise
it here, so I have no idea how many of those calls were placed within a certain
amount of time. However, it is always
our effort to return the calls of Manitobans and to see that they get the
information they need.
Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps the minister would advise the House
why, when a phone call was made on about April 5 to her office, her assistant
said he would get right on it and that person has never heard back yet.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member makes accusations in
this House, accusations where, obviously, I do not have the information at this
moment, but if he would give me more details, I will certainly look into that,
too.
However, Mr. Speaker, just to assure Manitobans‑‑because
the member often seeks to make Manitobans fearful, and I would like to assure
Manitobans that we have certainly taken action in the area of maintenance
enforcement by increasing the number of officers. We have increased them by two more in this
budget year.
We also have an enhanced computer system now so that we can‑‑[interjection]
The members opposite seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding or seem
to think it is really very funny.
The information required by those Manitobans is information
which we are seeking to provide to them very quickly. By putting it into a computer system, we are
able to bring it up more quickly than finding that information manually. Members opposite have treated that also with
disdain.
* (1410)
Mr. Mackintosh: My final question to the minister is, how can
such plans work when the caseloads of some officers continue to grow, in fact,
in one case to 1,930 files, another one to 1,188 files as of May 6‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the information that I have
about the caseloads of officers is in the range of 800 to 900, which is similar
to officers across
The information that I have from the office is as I have
explained to this House. In addition, I
have also explained how we are moving to an automated system where people may
be able to pick up the phone, press certain numbers on the phone and get the
information, which thereby frees the officers then to deal with more difficult
and more complex problems.
Education Facilities
Asbestos Regulations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Labour.
Back in June 1992, the problem of developing a plan of action
to deal with asbestos in the schools was raised with this minister. It is clear from Regulation 53‑88 under
The Workplace Safety and Health Act that there is a requirement, among other
things, that an inventory of substances like asbestos be filed and posted and
that there be a management plan developed.
I would ask the minister why he has not taken action on
this known problem of asbestos in the schools, particularly in ensuring an
inventory is developed for St. James‑Assiniboia School Division, and if
such an inventory does exist, will he table it in the House?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, as the member for Radisson
should know, under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, the prime
responsibility for a particular worksite lies or rests with the owners of that
particular worksite.
So, in the case of St. James‑Assiniboia School
Division, they have a responsibility for the abatement of asbestos problems
within their school division. The
Department of Labour Workplace Safety and Health Branch is the regulator. We provide advice and assistance, and where
action is not taken, we issue the appropriate orders and enforce them.
So, if an inventory in that school division exists, it
would be the property of the school division.
If we happen to have such an inventory, I will take it as notice to
provide it to the member.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, it is this minister's
responsibility to enforce Workplace Safety and Health regulations, and I would
ask him, what is preventing him from doing this, to ensure that they are
enforced and that a program is developed, a comprehensive program, that is
going to look at identifying asbestos in schools, that is going to look at the
need for removal and is going to look at managing asbestos in certain
situations so it does not have to be removed.
This is a program that is being followed in other
jurisdictions‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the member
for Radisson, under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, the responsibility for
dealing with a problem in a particular building lies with the owners of that
building. We are the regulators, and we
work throughout the province with many owners of buildings to deal with
asbestos, but I would point out to the member that she does tend to bring to
this House, from time to time, information that is inadequate.
A week or so ago, she asked me a question which I took as
notice, and I do have that information to the member now, where she did come to
this House indicating that a particular disease, I believe legionnaires'
disease, had been found in a particular school, and from the latest report that
we had, that there was only a screening test, not a diagnostic test that had
revealed‑‑that was one of a number of possibilities. Extensive air testing by the branch did not
determine in any way that the particular organisms that caused that illness
were present in the school.
I would also inform the honourable member, where she
indicated that there had been changes in branch policy with respect to indoor
air quality, the branch getting out of that particular business directly,
occurred in 1984 when the member's party was in government.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary related
to the issue of asbestos in the schools is, will the minister ensure that the
code of practice is strengthened to deal with asbestos in public buildings, as
I said earlier, so we can have a comprehensive program in Manitoba, enforced in
Manitoba, as they have in other jurisdictions?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, one very important part of
Workplace Safety and Health is risk management.
The member for Radisson tends to bring to this House accusations of
problems without any solid indication that there is a particular problem. I would suggest to the member for Radisson,
if she has particular incidents that are not being properly handled now, that
present a health risk to people in any buildings in this province, that she
bring it forward to our staff, and we would be more than pleased to respond.
What we cannot deal with and what does not lead to, I
think, good administration of health and safety legislation, is unfounded information,
innuendo and anecdotes, just as the member brought up in this House, comments
about another alleged spill in
Hay Report
Implementation Report
Ms. Becky Barrett (
To date, three years after the report was tabled, no report
has been forthcoming. I am tabling in
the House today a letter dated April 14 sent by the Manitoba Women in
Government to the Premier asking for a report.
My question to either the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the
Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission is, why has there been no
report of the action on the recommendations and the implementation of the
recommendations of the Hay Commission?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, I can inform the member for
Radisson that many of the recommendations of that particular audit have been
implemented by the Civil Service Commission, that we have been working with a
number of people who have been involved in that project. I can tell the member that there have been
some very successful projects launched out of that. One that comes to mind is the Executive
Development Program in which a number of ministers of this government have
participated.
So, to date, I think that the member's question with regard
to a report is something we can deal with in Estimates in greater detail.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, the member for
When will the government, either the Minister responsible
for the Civil Service Commission or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or anyone in the
government table and report to the Manitoba Women in Government and the people
of Manitoba what they said they would do almost three years ago, which was
deliver on a regular basis an interim report on the government's actions on the
Hay report and not just a question in Question Period?
The people of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly recall at
that time the commitment that the member for
I can tell the honourable member for
So the member's question is certainly a valid question, but
I think much of the work has been done and is ongoing.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I was at the presentation where
the minister did undertake to issue interim reports on a regular basis.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
Hay Report
Implementation Report
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, will the Premier, in response to
the letter of April 14 by the Manitoba Women in Government, now direct the
Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission to immediately table a
written report about the implementation of the recommendations of the Hay
report‑‑not waiting for Estimates, but an immediate tabling of a
written report so that we know what, if anything, this government has done
about the recommendations of the Hay report?
* (1420)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, this government has had more
women on a percentage basis appointed to boards and commissions than the
previous NDP government ever had. This
government has more women working in senior officer positions with the
government of
They are all hot air and no action when it comes to that
topic. We will have our record stand up
against anything they ever did when they were in government, and they can get
more information from the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission
during his Estimates.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education.
We know that there are numerous findings from the report that
Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg did in regard to ACCESS programs in
Can the Minister of Education tell us why he has reduced
funding to the ACCESS programs which is in a direct contrast to the findings in
his own commission report?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I am not familiar with the exact passage quoted by the member for
Crescentwood, but certainly the uncertainty with respect to funding over the
course of the last five years could almost totally be directed towards the
federal government, because we have stood in the breach year after year, and I
can remember this first‑hand through the budgetary process, and standing
in and accepting millions of dollars of additional costs associated with the
ACCESS program when the federal government unilaterally moved to withdraw.
Mr. Speaker, I am not as certain with respect to the
clarity around the remarks referenced by the member for Crescentwood, but I
would indicate that this government has certainly maintained its commitment in
the area of ACCESS.
Report Tabling Request
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Education is
so confident about his decisions he has made in regard to ACCESS funding, why
will he not table the report so that all members of this House can discuss the
findings of the report, and if he is confident, table it so we can have a
discussion to find out if, in fact, his decisions have followed along his own report
that was commissioned?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I know the member for Crescentwood is at a disadvantage because she
has been in Health Estimates at the same time as the review of post‑secondary
education.
As I indicated to the NDP critic in this area who posed the
same question several, several times, it is my intention to try and have that
report tabled some time in June. It is
requiring some final preparation. That
is being done at this present time, and I will table it as quickly as I can.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who is at the
disadvantage. I am telling the minister
about what is in the report, and he cannot seem to remember a particular
passage that particularly refers to the fact‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Crescentwood, with your question, please.
Ms. Gray: My question to the Minister of Education is,
is he prepared this afternoon to table the report so that we can have a
discussion about the findings of the Hikel report in regard to the ACCESS
program? Is he prepared to do that and
prove to the people of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, again, there was exhaustive
discussion on this issue in Estimates review at that time. As I indicated to the many questions put
forward that were similar, identical as a matter of fact to the question put
forward by the member for Crescentwood at this time, we will table that report
as quickly as we can. Today it is in a
draft form and not ready to be tabled.
Health Care System Reform
Nursing Consultations
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, from the very onset of the
government's health reform, it is very clear that the government was not
listening to the public and to nurses in particular. Last week's announcement of the make‑up
of the medical services panel did nothing to dispel this notion, although
doctors are represented on the committee, and there is no criticism of that
specifically. Nurses and the public in
general were not and are not represented on that committee.
My question to the minister is, what specific steps‑‑and
not just little fireside chats the minister has with various groups in his
office‑‑will this minister take to allow the public and nurses in
particular to be plugged into the health reform process and have real
meaningful input, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, specifically, we will have two
nurses on the advisory committee on mental health reform. We will have one nurse on the Manitoba
Emergency Services Task Force. We will
have 11 nurses on the working group to develop criteria for the application of
triage definitions. We will have four
nurses on the anesthetist working group.
We will have eight nurses on the Nurse‑Managed Care Working
Group. We will have two nurses on the
primary care medical transfer group. We
will have six nurses on the provincial obstetrical services committee. We will have one nurse on the provincial
surgical services committee. We will
have one nurse on the Rural Health Advisory Council. We will have nine nurses on the steering
committee for critical care nursing education core curriculum program. We will have four nurses on the short‑term
emergency program project evaluation committee.
We will have one nurse on the Terminal Care Committee.
On many, many committees and implementation teams, we have
nursing put to the ultimate.
Mr. Chomiak: What the minister does not say is on those
same committees, he has 346 doctors and 248 members of his department, and of
that total, only 6 percent are nurses and only 4 percent are consumers.
What will the minister do to redress this obvious
imbalance, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in seeking the
input of medical practitioners, of medial professionals of all kinds, and our
bottom line is to seek the right answers for the people we are all supposed to
be working for; that is, the patient, our fellow Manitobans, those people who
need health care services in this province.
Those are the people we are working for, and nursing
professionals throughout
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of matters of House business.
House leaders have met and agreed to set aside the remaining items in
the Estimates of the Department of Health until the minister tables the Capital
Estimates for that department and, in the interim, to proceed with the
consideration of the Estimates of the Ministry of Family Services and/or other
departments in the order listed. I
believe that if you were to canvass the House, you would find there is
unanimous consent for these changes.
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to set aside the
Department of Health and bring forward the Department of Family Services at
this time. That is agreed. There is unanimous consent.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the
House to determine if there is unanimous consent to change the previously
agreed to sitting hours for tomorrow evening from 7 to 11 p.m., currently
listed, to 7:30 to 11:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: The House had previously agreed to sit
tomorrow evening from 7 to 11 p.m. Now
there appears to be a willingness to sit from 7:30 to 11:30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent for that change?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: There is agreement? It is agreed to.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, so for Estimates this afternoon
we will now consider the Department of Family Services in the House, and
Education continuing in the committee room.
So I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself
into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee
to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member
for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education
and Training; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting
in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of
Education and Training. When the
committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(h)(l)(a) on page 42 of the
Estimates book.
* (1430)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, before we begin I would like to formally correct an error
on page 1447 of Estimates from May 10 when members and myself were discussing
curriculum issues. I went on the record
as indicating, or I left the impression on the record, that Mr. Macek was an
author or had contributed to the new reference material on minerals as part of
a supplementary reference in the area of science.
I was in error in suggesting that Mr. Macek was an author
or one of the many authors. He was
not. Certainly, though, he did review,
after the fact the curriculum was released, and did find certain errors which
he did bring to my attention. So in my
full flight, I overstretched the fact somewhat.
I apologize to Mr. Macek or anyone else for that oversight. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the minister for that information.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chair, we have been discussing
Workforce 2000 and particularly the strategic grants across industries and
training grants.
The minister has also, on a number of occasions, indicated
that he would bring forward some information on the IBM grant. It was $50,000 to a corporation for training,
a corporation which does not maintain an educational department. It was a payroll tax rebate.
Could the minister, now that he has his staff here, perhaps
give us some further information on what was undertaken by IBM for that rebate
and what the total amount of the rebate was?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this was against the
payroll tax offset. There was approved
training cost of $50,300, yet only $22,000 of it was eligible as a tax refund,
so the value to the company under this program was $22,000. The training plan involved 438 hours of
training to 87 Manitoba employees as follows:
51 participants and 105 hours of technical skills training, which
included Information Systems Management, Application Development Methodology,
Computer‑Assisted Business Engineering; and 36 participants had 333 hours
of human relations general skills training, which included Management Skills,
Consulting Solutions, Management Interpersonal Conflict and Communications.
Ms. Friesen: The 333 hours for 36 people in human
relations, could the minister give us some further information on the kind of
training and the outcomes of that training?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot at this
time.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to table the
training plan for that?
Mr. Manness: I have overviewed the training plan, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson. The synopsis I have
just read is an overview of that training plan.
If the member is asking for specific documentation as to
what was filed on the application form, that is not information that is
disclosed.
Ms. Friesen: Okay, so am I clear then from the minister
that the 304 lines on the application form which indicate training plan is
information which the minister is not prepared to release?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a detailed plan
which we have on file but which will stay as a relationship between the
department and IBM, in this case.
Ms. Friesen: In this particular case, could the minister
tell us where the training took place?
Mr. Manness: I do not have that information at this time.
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister aware that IBM has no
training section nor a personnel section in Winnipeg or in Manitoba, but that
is all handled from Toronto? My question
is, was the training actually done in Toronto?
Mr. Manness: We will determine as to whether that is the
case, and we will report back.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us when he will
provide that information?
Mr. Manness: As soon as we can find an answer to the
question, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Ms. Friesen: I do remind the minister that I have asked
for this information on two other occasions, and he has undertaken to provide
it and not in that specific detail, but so far there has not been anything
forthcoming.
Could the minister tell us what the precise formula is or
what the general formula is between the amount of payroll deemed eligible and
the actual amount spent? The minister in
this case‑‑for example, if we use this as the example,
approximately $50,000 of the payroll was eligible and then $22,000 was eligible
for the tax refund. So is that related
to the number of employees in the workforce?
How is that evaluated?
Mr. Manness: It is a formula in a refundable cost sense,
as against payroll tax paid. The annual
maximum is the lesser of $100,000 or 0.3 percent of the company's payroll. So using that then as the basis,
reimbursement is calculated on the basis of 75 percent of the first $20,000 of
eligible costs, and 50 percent of training costs in excess of $20,000. When one applies that formula against the
eligibility with respect to the IBM case just cited, the total offset I believe
was $22,000, even though the approved training costs were $50,300.
Ms. Friesen: Who determines the total payroll costs? Is that a joint determination, or is it
simply the submission of a plan by, in this case, the employer?
Mr. Manness: The Department of Finance administrates this,
but it is in after conversation, I understand, with Workforce 2000 to make sure
the training plans are acceptable, but the Department of Finance does the
administration with respect to this element of Workforce 2000.
* (1440)
Ms. Friesen: So the Department of Finance determines
whether the proposed costs are in fact in line, acceptable, normal in the
industry?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have passed
judgment, firstly, with respect to the training plan. Once the plan I am talking about is
acceptable to the government, then after that Finance receives information
confirming actual training expenditures by June 30, following the year of
application. They are processed and a
tax refund is remitted to the employer, this is by Finance, where again the
formula that I have just presented is in place, and then audits focusing on training‑related
expenditures occur.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give me some information
about the training plans submitted by Northern Blower?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in 1992 there were 29
participants who received 68 hours of training.
In '93 that number diminished to 21 participants receiving 42 hours of
training.
Ms. Friesen: How many hours?
Mr. Manness: Forty‑two. Both the '92 and '93 training programs were
in the technological category involving instruction in the introduction of new
processes.
Course content included structured coaching, train the
trainer, management planning, cascade implementation of quality‑improvement
teams and total quality management.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
tell us what category of employee was involved in this?
Mr. Manness: No, we cannot. Although if we were forced to guess, we sense
it may be supervisory.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate why he cannot
tell us that? One of the criticisms
which I have made of these programs is in fact the nature of selection for
employees and the equality of access to training programs and to these kind of
training programs in the workplace.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the issue is not
workplace training, the issues are ones which surround that. One which we have discussed before is
accountability and evaluation. Another
issue, wherever these types of programs are introduced, is the ability of all
employees to have access to publicly funded training programs. So who is selecting, in this case, the
employees for training, and on what basis are they being selected? That is the reason why I asked for the
classifications of the people involved.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is what
was obviously different. The member has
pointed out many times, management selects the level or indeed the strata of
employee who they want to train. I guess
over the course of all of the projects or indeed all of the training plans that
have come forward across sectors, across individual businesses, we have seen
all individuals, regardless of what their economic rank or position is with the
company, who have been called upon to improve their training with this level of
support. So it is a priority presented
and developed by the company. That was
the focus of Workforce 2000.
Ms. Friesen: So as far as the minister knows, it is
management who selects, and as far as the minister's criteria for the delivery
of public money, there is no criteria which would have employers presenting evidence
that all employees in a particular category had had access to training. It is simply management selection.
Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is management
selection. This is a model that is
obviously finding favour in other jurisdictions because of the fact it is
flexible. It instantly, or as close as
possible at least time‑wise, takes into account the immediate needs of
the firm and as spoken through the management.
By the way, the vast majority of funds, I think from the beginning we
said that $1 here levers considerable $2, $2.50 of training from the firm. If we were to impose rules and indeed
regulations that dictated who should receive the training within the firm and
under what conditions, then we may as well not have the program. But of course, that is exactly what the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) would advocate.
Ms. Friesen: The minister, has however, in defending this
program, spoken of the empowerment of the individual. Certainly there is some addition for some people
in some of the training received, but where is the empowerment for an
individual when the employer, in fact by this program, is given public dollars
for training and essentially can, may or may not have‑‑I am asking
the minister for evidence in fact‑‑but certainly can cherry‑pick
who he or she wants to have access to training?
That basis of selectivity is what I am asking about. Were there any safeguards, were there any
indications to the people who were receiving this money that there should be
quality of access in the workplace to training money?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, notwithstanding the
fact that these are public funds that are put in training, the government has
chosen not to challenge management's right to dictate where there will be the
greatest return for dollars spent. We
found out long ago that if you want to ruin companies, have a government edict
or a decree come along and tell them how to manage their affairs. So, again, this is a philosophical difference
between the member and myself.
This program has chosen to allow greater freedom for
management to decide where the scarce dollars related to training should be
directed taking into account not so much the individual needs of the staff, but
the greater good of the company.
Obviously, if the company does better, then there will be a greater
opportunity for employment, there will be more taxes paid and the economy will
be more productive. That is the way the
theory works.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the other side of
that coin of course is that when you reduce the opportunities at community
colleges and when you increase the cost of certain types of training at
vocational schools, then in fact what you are doing is reducing the
opportunities for employees to find education, further training, further
certification at public institutions.
You have essentially added to the power of management with public money
to determine who is trained and for what they are trained. So, again, it is the equality of access and
the empowerment of the individual in that case which is the issue here and
cannot be seen in isolation from what has happened elsewhere.
Mr. Manness: That is the issue with the member for
Wolseley. The issue with me, and indeed
with the government, is that private firms in many cases who are not training
had no natural fit with the courses being offered at our formal institutions,
therefore had very little value for them, but still needed training
nevertheless. We are suffering‑‑Manitoba
was suffering as a result and needed a new system of training that empowered
more greatly the management of the firm.
That was the essence of Workforce 2000.
So that is the issue, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in my mind, not the issue
as put forward by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
* (1450)
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us an idea of what
kind of training took place in the Kentucky Fried Chicken payroll plan? What was the curriculum? That was a human relations one, I think.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if that is the first
time the member has asked about it, we have not developed a response formally
to that, but we will endeavour to do that if the member wishes.
Ms. Friesen: Well, we are in Estimates. The minister does have his staff here. I have asked about a specific example, one
that is in the current year, or the year just past, of payroll tax
deduction. I would have expected that
Estimates was where the minister was going to answer those kinds of
questions. I have not raised that
specific question before, but I have certainly used it as an example, so I
would have thought that it might have perhaps been monitored by the department
or some evidence be available.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have with us 170
pages of briefing materials. If we were
to bring along all of the files associated with Workforce 2000, we could
multiply that by tenfold. So I did not
know that this particular firm and its training costs were an issue with the
member. I knew obviously that the IBM
case and Northern Blower were, so there had been issue sheets prepared on those
particular requested areas, and I will prepare issue sheets for any one. But I can tell the member that around every
one of these firms which have received support under Workforce 2000, there is a
myriad of information, and we have not brought all of that with us, because we
would have to, of course, rent a moving van to bring the files with us. So the member can chastise us for not having
ready answers to some of her questions, but the reality is, unless I know into
what area she wants to delve, I do not have all that information with me.
Again, she points out it is my responsibility to talk about
the past. That is not true. We are talking about the future. We are talking about money going to be spent
in the 1994‑95 year. Again, I am
not going to belabour that point, but the member is out of order in many
respects when she begins to ask questions about 1993‑94.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, well, I have pointed
out the logical difficulties of this.
Since the minister does not table a list of grants which are about to
happen which we could ask questions on, then presumably he has to answer
questions on the year just past. I mean,
logically, it has to be one or the other.
If the minister was prepared to table a list of the companies which were
receiving it in this coming fiscal year which we are examining, then I would be
happy to ask questions on those. But
logically, it has to be one or the other.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, logically, it does
not have to be one or the other.
Logically, it may not have been determined yet which firms are going to
receive what funding. [interjection] Well, of course. This is a dynamic program, and so if the
member is saying‑‑I mean, the member knows government better than
that. If she says that April 1 of a new
fiscal year the government knows exactly where every dollar is going to be
directed by way of cheque to every firm or every person outside of government. If she is saying that is the way she thinks
governments work, well nothing is further from the truth. We are seeking authority.
We are seeking spending authority to spend so many million
dollars in this program area with the criteria in place, and through the year,
ultimately there will be applications come forward. This is a dynamic process. It is not static.
Through that period of time, we will determine, rightfully
or wrongfully, as the applications come in and it is measured against the criteria,
whether or not a certain company warrants support. Of course, as the money is spent as we go
through the year, through the fiscal year, sometime by late next fall and we
see how much money is left and we see how many applications are left, by that
time some number of applications will be denied.
The member is saying, no, you must know right now who it is
all the money is going to go to. Well,
that is a false argument, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and it is not in keeping with
reality, because we do not know at this point.
So we cannot tell her who are going to be the recipients of the money,
that we are seeking authority, at this sitting, to spend in a global fashion.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I am sure as the minister knows, that
is not the issue. The issue is what he
was prepared to answer questions on and the logic of what he was prepared to
answer questions on. In the absence of a
list, understandably the absence of a list, and in the absence in this particular
case of no criteria publicly available and no evaluations publicly available
and no public accountability for this program, then the minister I believe
ought to logically answer some questions on the past year.
Mr. Manness: I am not going to sit here and let the member
say that there is no public accountability.
Workforce 2000, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, was an issue of the Provincial
Auditor. The Provincial Auditor looked
into the program, looked into the mission statement of the program, looked to
see whether or not the program was delivering in keeping with that
mandate. That is part of the record,
part of the Provincial Auditor's statement.
I do not know what higher authority the member wants to go to.
I know the Provincial Auditor has now been here as part of
Public Accounts and has been asked to address certain questions surrounding
Workforce 2000 but has written, most definitely. If the member is saying that the Provincial
Auditor is not accountable and that that person now has done a shoddy job, then
she is going to either have to accept what the Provincial Auditor has said or
she is going to have to say that the Provincial Auditor basically has not done
her job. She cannot have it both ways,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson. This program has
been through the public scrutiny, and it has obviously passed the test
exceedingly well.
Ms. Friesen: As the minister well knows, the Provincial
Auditor recommended that the minister publish an annual accounting of Workforce
2000 with his annual report. On several
occasions on which I have asked him whether he intends to comply with that,
there has been no clear answer and the minister has said he is considering
it. That would be a start if he were in
fact to comply with the recommendation of the Provincial Auditor. So that is the issue.
I want to ask the minister about Nygard company which
received for 11 trainees, in Categories 1 and 3, total training cost approval
for $16,000. I wonder if the minister
could give us a sense of what the training plan was in that case.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the answer is the
same as that given with respect to the chicken franchise the member was asking.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I gather the minister's response is
that he only has 150 pages of briefing notes here. Could he give us a list before we start of
which ones he is going to answer questions on?
Which ones has he prepared briefing notes on?
Mr. Manness: On the ones that were asked specifically of
me in the House.
Ms. Friesen: So the minister means to sit here and to say
that he is not going to answer any questions on any specific case of Workforce
2000 unless it had been previously raised in the House? What precedent can he give me for that in the
process of Estimates that everything must be raised in the House before a
minister will answer to it when he has his staff at Workforce 2000 sitting here
with him?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would think the
member would want me to read a synopsis, to try and do an overview of the training
programs and agreements entered into as I did with respect to Northern Blower
and also IBM. I have no problem doing
that for any of the specific firms that the member wants to focus upon, but
that has not been done yet. It is not a
case of leaving that information back at the office. We do not and have not yet developed those
synopsis sheets firm by firm by firm, and that is done deliberately.
I mean, I do not want this staff spending all of its time
in a bureaucratic maze. I want them to
deliver this program, and that is what they are doing. So if the member then wants to tell me which
companies she would like to pose specific questions on, then I will try over
time to give her the same synopsis that I did with respect to Northern Blower.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, over the last three
weeks I have been asking about Northern Blower and IBM in the House. It has taken three weeks now for the minister
to give, what I would call, not a full response.
* (1500)
Mr. Manness: I did not respond in the House on Northern
Blower. I did use it‑‑[interjection]
I did so. I may have not taken as
notice, but I did respond specifically on Northern Blower. It is on part of the record. I read part of the information today. I have already read that into the record, but
I mean, let us not dispute that fact, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I will ask the member for Wolseley which
firms she wants to focus upon, and we will try to develop synopsis sheets for
her.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I would like to know about every one of
them. This is public money. I want to know about every report. I want to know the training plans for each of
the companies who have received this.
The minister is not prepared to table that annually with his
report. He is only prepared to answer
questions which have been raised earlier in the House. He has his staff sitting here with him.
I would point out to the minister that when people file a
plan with Workforce 2000, there is a very brief synopsis which is written. They are asked to circle one, two or three,
in terms of the training categories which are required. They are given a space of about four or five
lines, in fact, to write a very brief outline of their training plan. I am interested to know whether that is, in
fact, all they have to supply. They have
to indicate who is the trainer.
Now there is a brief synopsis which it seems to me is not
beyond the realms of possibility for any minister to direct his staff to keep
in some kind of systematic fashion. I
mean, I believe we do even have computers these days that might perhaps be able
to codify some of this in some simple way so that the minister could, in fact,
bring up the material very quickly, but it has taken three weeks even from the
House to ask a question and to be provided with not what I would call a
training plan. The minister has given me
some categories of training but not a training plan. He has given me no information on who the
trainer was. He has given me no
information on what the outcomes of that training were, and he has provided
absolutely no information on what categories of employees were selected.
Some of the very basic questions which I asked in the
House, which after three weeks he has not supplied even now when he has his
staff sitting with him. It is not beyond
the bounds of reason to ask for the very elemental material on this program
that I am asking for now in Estimates.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for the record, we
have provided reams of information already for the member. We have indicated the number of participants,
by company name, the training area, and the member talks about the three
categories. We have talked about the
training costs that have been approved.
So let not the record state that we have provided no information. We have provided absolutely all the detail
associated with the company: number of
participants, the costs, the training areas, whether they are technical or
technological, basic education, human relations.
I do not quarrel with the member's right to know even more
detail, Mr. Deputy Chairperson; that is not at issue. But what is at issue is the timeliness with
respect the member expects me to jump and to direct staff resources to
preparing all of this information and providing training plans for the
companies. If the member is saying now
she wants all of that detailed information, I am saying to her, well, that now
is going to take considerable time. I
can respond issue by issue, one by one, and I will try and do my best to
present an overview, a synopsis of the training, but if the member is wanting
volumes of material and she wants it on her time, I am saying to the member,
unfortunately, we cannot provide that because it is not prepared. It is a massively onerous task, and I think
that it would be better if the member would direct her queries to some of the
individual firms that she might have a specific interest in.
Ms. Friesen: Is this information kept on a computer?
Mr. Manness: We have some information on file, but the
data base does not have any of the detailed information that the member is
seeking.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us what is meant by human
relations in the context of Kentucky Fried Chicken or anybody else who has
trained in human relations? Are we
training these people to smile more brightly?
What on earth is it you are paying for?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is the
third area, human relations, general skills under eligible training; time and
stress management, enhanced presentation skills, negotiation and teamwork
skills, leadership, management and supervisory skills and organizational
strategies such as total quality management.
Now, if the member for Wolseley (Mr. Friesen) wants to take
that to mean smiling, well, I am not going to be able to stop her. She has the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway),
who when technical training was going to support of mechanics, he of course
diverted that to mean support of used car salesmen. So if the member for Wolseley now is going to
take this broad area and mean that to training and smiling, if that is her
approach to legitimate training that has helped so many Manitobans‑‑97
percent of the training by the way, 97 percent of the public by the way, the
trainees who are so supportive of the program‑‑if she wants to in
any way denigrate the training and call it smiling, a public relations exercise
in smiling, well, so be it. She is going
to have her day in court anyway. [interjection] Well, the member for Wolseley
used that term.
Point of Order
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): On a point of order, I wanted to point out to
the minister when he makes comments about me in regard to the grants to the car
dealers, that last year in the committee, the minister at the time did admit
that Keystone Ford got $10,000 for training car salesmen. That is on the record, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order,
please. The member did not have a point
of order. The honourable minister to
continue.
*
* *
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can
understand the sensitivity of this issue by the opposition. I mean this is a good program. It is being mirrored in other parts of the
country. It recognizes the greater
flexibility that industry has to have today if it is going to stay competitive,
efficient.
In spite of the fact that this government has made
significant contribution to greater governance at the community college level,
increased funding this year, I know the members opposite feel very sensitive
with respect to these training issues, because they want the rigid state system
of control to continue to be in place. I
guess we have a difference in philosophy and they cannot quite handle it. That is their problem.
I am not going to deny those companies who make a
tremendous contribution to the wealth of our province an opportunity to train
in a short period of time employees who are craving for an opportunity to
enhance their skills.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the minister‑‑I
think I now have said this four times. I
do not know how many times it takes for the minister to actually understand a
simple principle. The issue is not
workplace‑based training. The
issue is, in fact, accountability and priorities and equal accessibility to
these programs, and that has been the direction of my questioning.
I wanted to ask the minister about Caron's Collectibles,
which received $10,000 of Workforce contribution in '93‑94 to train two
trainees for $10,000. I wondered if the
minister could give us some information on that one.
Mr. Manness: The answer is the same as it was before. We have not brought additional information with
respect to that firm‑‑
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): You have no answers. You are kidding. What do you think you are doing here?
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not need
the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) to holler at me. I am experienced‑‑
Mr. Plohman: Holler at you, you never heard
hollering. You hear me whispering to you
in the House.
Mr. Manness: Well, he can holler. He can make as big a fool of himself as he
usually does on every other issue.
The reality is, as I said to the member before he came in,
we are here reviewing '94‑95 Estimates.
The member for Wolseley is painstakingly putting questions, I might add
out of order, with respect to money spent in '93‑94. Then the member is critical of me when I do
not have the detail associated with every file.
I have invited her to tell me specifically which of the companies she
would like greater detail on.
The member said that she would like some more detail on
Caron's Collectibles Inc.. In other
words, the trainer name is Smart Products, this is CAD‑CAM training,
$10,000 from Workforce, total value of training $18,000. That means the company put in $8,000. That training started on May 3, 1993, and
completed October 28, 1993. That was
under Class 1 as referenced earlier.
* (1510)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, in that case, there
was $10,000 spent to train two employees in CAD‑CAM training, training
which is available in other locations, and a number of programs in fact were
CAD‑CAM training. Some were done
in architects' offices; some were done in community colleges; some were done,
in this case, two people for $10,000.
Has the minister done any surveys to look at the efficacy
of spending, the effectiveness of spending this kind of money in small
workplaces? Are there economies of scale
which used to made by the community colleges, for example, or in this case, in
parts of the program are made by the community colleges? How does the minister decide to train two
people for $10,000?
Mr. Manness: Well, we are always looking for efficiency,
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. We are
always looking for much greater efficiency.
That is why we do industry training.
That is why we encourage industries or sectors to come together as a
group, so that there could be greater efficiency. That is why we try and do cluster training
and direct, where applicable, to the institution that offers programming in the
time frame in keeping with the requirements of the firms.
To repeat for the record‑‑and the member says
she repeats for the fourth time; I think I am repeating now for the fifth time‑‑there
are individuals firms, individual companies who do not fit under an industry
banner, do not fit under a sector program banner, and that require an
opportunity in fairness to have some specialized training dealing with our set
of circumstances. That is what happened
in this case.
Ms. Friesen: What were the special circumstances then in this
case which required spending $10,000 to train two people? Why were other programs not available to
them, or why were other programs not appropriate?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, without
being able to answer that specifically, I would say generally that this firm,
looking at its workload and the availability of staff, the program, the
training offered here had to be provided in a hands‑on, specific,
directed sense to this company, and it did not lend itself to being part of a
larger, more efficient group of training or clustered training.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me then: What was so specific about this company? What does this company do?
Mr. Manness: No, I cannot, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. I do not know what this
company does.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister undertake to find out what
this company does?
Mr. Manness: I most certainly will, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister explain why $10,000 would
train two people in this case and why it had to be so specifically tailored to
this particular company? I have been
unable to find this company, by the way.
I would be interested to know what it did.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
certainly, now that the member cannot find this, I will want to make sure that
this company exists, and‑‑
Mr. Plohman: Should you not have found out before? You gave it money. This is ridiculous.
Mr. Manness: Well, the loud blower from Dauphin says that
I should have known this before. I mean
I did not blow 27‑28 million bucks in Saudi Arabia, like the member
previous, but we will find out. None of
this money is spent, as I have indicated on the record several times, not a
dollar is spent until after the training is done and the claim is presented to
the department.
Ms. Friesen: The money may not be paid until after the
training is done, but the minister, I think, has indicated in earlier answers
that he does not have a systematic way of ensuring that the training has been
done‑‑50 percent provide personal evaluations, individual ones,
another 10 or 20 percent have on‑site visits, but the evaluation is not
done in a systematic way. It seems to me
that if it were, you might have a very easily available file of answers to the
kinds of questions that I am asking.
That would be certainly one way of providing it.
There are two general types of questions I want to ask, and
I will, by the way, provide the minister with a very specific list of companies
which I would like more information on the kind of training which has been
done. I want to ask about financial
companies. The minister, in his
responses a number of times in the House and to the press, has indicated that
financial companies have not received money from this Workforce 2000. Would he indicate what he meant by that?
Mr. Manness: They were barred from applying under the
payroll tax offset, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. They are eligible to apply under the other
two programs.
Ms. Friesen: How many financial companies have received
grants under the Workforce 2000 program since its inception?
Mr. Manness: I do not have that information.
Ms. Friesen: In the last year of the Workforce 2000 program,
the smaller grants, could the minister tell us how many financial companies
received financing or received assistance in the last year?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will try and
share some broad numbers, and it falls into the sector finance, insurance and
realty, the very broadest definition of the finance area.
Since the beginning of the program, there have been 119
contracts with small and medium business.
I have, I should say, regional breakouts for the province. The provincial contribution has been, and
this is since the beginning of the program, roughly $1 million that have
levered almost $3 million of training.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
The skill development has been in the total quality
management training for finance and insurance firms, training in specialized
real estate industry software for 42 employees, and again, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I have nothing more than a breakout as to the number of
contracts. Of the 119, 48 have been in
the city of Winnipeg, 35 have been in the Westman area, 6 in Interlake, and 15
in the Parkland area for the member of Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Ms. Friesen: What proportion of those were given to real
estate companies?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have that
information with me right now. This was
the only broad overview we have available.
Ms. Friesen: If this was the application or the teaching
of the application of computer and software techniques to real estate, why
would these be given to individual companies?
* (1520)
Surely the real estate industry in Winnipeg and Manitoba is
a well‑organized industry. It has
a real estate board. It has an elected
directorate. It is very well connected
in terms of multiple listing services.
Why would there not be one industry‑wide program that could be
used for that?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is again a
debating issue. I am prepared to answer
questions or try and find details specific to any agreement with any individual
firm in attempting to reach out to the province as a whole. In this case or up to this point, I might
add, we have not worked through an industry association, but probably we should
work in that direction if we can in this area, particularly within the real
estate area.
Ms. Friesen: But in the meantime, how much money has been
put into individual workplaces in a program which could have been delivered
much more effectively on an industry‑wide basis?
I mean, why has it taken three years for the minister even to
figure out that there was a possibility of dealing with the real estate
industry on an industry‑wide basis?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the members opposite
are calling into question the whole program, and that is fine, it is their
right to do so, but the government has put this program forward. It set into place the general criteria. It is fine tuning that area, the criteria
area, and it supports the program.
Now the members are against it; we are for it. We have asked the Provincial Auditor to view
the program to see that we are keeping in the context of the mission and the
mandate of the program, whether or not we are delivering a program in keeping
with the way government programs are delivered.
We are given comfort from the Provincial Auditor that we are living
within the spirit of good accountability and good management of the taxpayers'
resources.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about other financial
institutions. Again, the same principles
would seem to apply. If we are looking
at computer‑assisted software for financial institutions, the same
principles of industry‑wide application would seem to be there.
So I wonder if the minister could tell us, for example,
Midland Walwyn, which has received grants two years in a row, was there
something particular to that company which indicated that they could not
participate with other people in the same industry in having some of their
employees undertake some of this training?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will undertake to
find some more information with respect to Midland Walwyn.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain why the
distinction was made between the payroll tax refund and the individual grants
in the case of Midland Walwyn, in the case of financial institutions? There are other areas, for example, again,
the Kentucky Fried Chicken, where some Kentucky Fried Chicken is receiving the
payroll tax reduction, and in addition, some of the franchisees are getting
individual grants. So why was that
distinction made in the case of financial institutions? What particular principle is the government
applying here?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think we are a move
short and a move down, you know, the hypothetical road. I just wish the member would ask specific questions,
and we will try our best to give greater detail another day with respect to the
question that she poses.
Ms. Friesen: The minister is perhaps achieving his goal
and leaving me speechless. He will not
answer questions on principle; he will not answer questions about specific
cases. He does not provide the kind of
information which I have asked for in the House.
Now we are told in Estimates, the basic place where
ministers are responsible in a more informal, and in the spirit of some, kind
of open discussion about the purposes of their program, and we are finding
absolutely no information. This is a
stonewall from the minister on a program which I must underline is the only
educational initiative that this government has undertaken in the area of post‑secondary
training. When you have cut community
colleges and when you have cut the other public institutions, this is the jewel
in your crown.
Why is there not an annual report of this? Why is there not something which says, look
what we have done for Peter Nygard, look what we have done for Simplot Canada,
look what we have done for Bristol Aerospace, look about the 49,000 we have
given to Cargill, look about the amount of money we have given to Boeing Canada
and to Borland Construction and to Bristol Aerospace? Where is the pride in this program?
What on earth is the minister hiding? He knows that we have been interested in this
in Question Period. He knows that we
have a number of questions, some of which are specific, some of which are questions
of principle. I am now asking, because
the minister has literally stonewalled and refused to answer any questions on
any specific question in these Estimates process, I am now directing my
questions to questions of principle, to questions of policy, and I find that
the minister is not prepared to discuss the policy or the principles.
I repeat again my question:
Why, in the area of financial institutions, did the minister make the
decision not to allow them to apply under the payroll tax deduction fund, but
only to allow them to have the individual one?
What is the difference in the minister's mind in those two
programs that that distinction must be made?
That is a question of principle.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was the Minister of
Finance, I restricted them. I restricted
them in the offset. I restricted them
because I did not want them to have an offset against their payroll tax‑‑as
simple as that.
What was the principle?
The principle was that they paid payroll tax, a significant amount, and
I wanted them to pay that full amount and not less. The principle was that if you were in the
financial circle, you did not get an offset against payroll tax. That was the principle and nothing more.
Now, the member can say we are not proud of the program, we
are extremely proud of the program. We
have said so over and over again. When
you train 60,000 people, when you have the evaluations come back, when you
survey people, employees, and survey the employers, and there is an 80 to 90
percent acceptance rate of how well the program is delivered and how well it
has levered and brought about a new training culture and a corporate training
culture. Then we say the program has
been a success; that was the goal. The
member can say that we have turned our back on the institutions. We have not.
At least the member, why does she not dialogue with the private
employers, and why does she not ask the question, well, why have the public
institutions failed? Of course, all she
can say is, well, it is money. You have
cut money. It is a money issue, more
money.
So I am saying, obviously there is a new model that has
been wanted. The government saw this a
few years ago as a result of the STAC review.
This was the public crying out for a different model of delivery, not to
one that was going to be at cross‑purposes with the formal institutions,
but the one that was going to allow for shorter periods of training, more
specifics and that would result in more expeditious training. That has happened.
The member says it is our jewel, well, the member can say
it is anything at all, but the reality is, it has been an extremely successful
program. We stand behind it. Furthermore, the member, of course, chastises
me for not having a million and fifty details under my consideration, that I
cannot answer all of her detailed questions; well, I am sorry, I am only a
human being. I do not pretend to have
all of that information at my disposal.
* (1530)
I have given overview information. I have tried to find answers out to her
specific questions on specific companies.
I still make that offer. I made
that offer at least now for the sixth time, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I will continue to do that, but I am telling
her, I did not bring along all the filing cabinets that have all of the details
associated with every one of the firms that has received support under this
program. Am I proud of Workforce 2000? As the government, obviously we are. Does it needs some straightening up in a few
areas? Obviously it does. I have said so, and we have made some of
those changes and will continue to make some of the fine tuning changes. Overall the program has delivered as we have
said it would.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would point out to
the minister that he has not tabled a single training plan. He has not tabled a single curriculum. He has not given us a sense, in any of the
examples I have asked, about any kind of outcome, of any evidence of outcome. He has not tabled his questions of
evaluation. He has not even in fact
evaluated all of the programs which have been in front of him.
There are ways, and I have suggested to the minister
before, there are ways of providing some of this information in a very easy
format. It does not seem to me to be
beyond the abilities of the minister to direct his staff to do that,
particularly for areas that are not currently in the program for those which
have been completed. There is no
evidence that the minister has done that or is interested in doing it or is
going to comply with the Auditor's recommendation that an annual report be
published.
The question I asked before this was why financial
institutions were exempt under the payroll tax exemption and were not exempt
under the other. The minister
essentially has given me the circular answer:
because I said so when I was Minister of Finance. Could the minister now give me an indication
of why he made that policy decision? Why
were financial corporations, financial companies, to be required to pay the
full payroll tax and companies of the scale, for example, of Simplot or
Cargill or Boeing or any of the
extremely large companies of Manitoba, which were able to have a payroll tax
deduction? What distinction was the
minister making in his mind at that point, when he made that distinction?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have alluded to
this on several occasions, and the answer that I have provided consistently is
that I have tried to make a determination as to which of our firms and sectors
were contributing to the wealth of the province through outreach of exports
and/or services outside of the province.
That was the general principle that I tried to bring to bear when I
considered, as the former Minister of Finance, a decision as to whether or not
a sector, particularly, was eligible for offset as against payroll tax.
I always said Simplot, which exports so much of their
product, bringing in foreign exchange into the province, into the nation, that
I could justify and offset as against that type of activity no differently than
Versatile Manufacturing, more so than I could with the financial institutions
who are here providing a service that if they were not here would be probably
provided by some other institution. That
was the general principle behind the decision.
Ms. Friesen: So the guiding focus then for the payroll tax
refund was export. Does the minister
have any information on how that would apply to Kentucky Fried Chicken or to
Chicken Delight or to Videon or Jim Pattison Sign Group Manitoba?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as far as Kentucky
Fried Chicken, we cannot seem to find that on the '93‑94 list. Maybe the member can show it to us. If I am in error, I will apologize.
Ms. Friesen: I have Chicken Delight on the '93‑94,
and I have Kentucky Fried Chicken on the '92 list, to February '93 in
fact. I expect that Holt Renfrew, for
example, on the '93‑94 one would perhaps fall into the same group, as
would Pepsi‑Cola in the '93‑94 ones. I can see the minister's distinction that he
is making about export, and certainly there is a considerable number on these
payroll tax deductions which are export oriented, but there are some that are
not.
So is the minister telling me or telling us that the policy
has changed, that this is one of his streamlinings, that this is one of his
distinctions he has made?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are really digging
up the past here, but when I was the Minister of Finance in '91 when we brought
in the offset, originally the eligibility criteria‑‑and these are
broad context‑‑since '91 Manitoba firms engaged in goods producing
industry, manufacturing, with payrolls in excess of $600,000. That was the general eligibility criteria in
'91. Effective '92, the criteria were
amended to include service sector companies.
That was in '92. In '93 the
criteria were amended to exclude financial insurance companies. Of course, the payroll eligibility threshold
increased to $750,000 in synchronization with the move to exempt all those who
had payrolls below that level. So that
is the history associated with one aspect of the Workforce 2000 program,
namely, the payroll tax offset or refund program.
Ms. Friesen: So that in fact, contrary to what the
minister said a couple of minutes ago, in '92 service sector was added and is
still there as a criteria.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this was done in '92
realizing that virtually all of the service sector was not paying payroll tax
except from the large firms, and recognizing that we were trying to compete in
the international world of call centres, as I recall, and that we were vitally
interested per the framework for economic development, that we were trying to
reach out to larger back‑room operations and activities associated with
the call centres.
We made a decision at the time, given we had a payroll tax
that of course we were totally opposed to, the NDP brought in and wanted to
charge against everybody, virtually. We
decided to include an element of the service sector because, of course, the
number of people who would be eligible under this area would be minimal. We then realized that the banks were those
who were beginning to show some interest, and then in '93 we tried to shut out
the banking institutions.
Ms. Friesen: So what is the economic justification for
Holt Renfrew training their people in human relations under the payroll tax
deduction fund?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am trying to
tighten the service sector up. We opened
it to reach out to some specific areas, and all of a sudden Holt Renfrew came
in, and what are we talking about? We
are talking about refund eligibility of $2,100 that was directed towards eight
participants, 16 hours of training, instruction in human relations, general
skills category, course content induced customer service, goal setting,
communication skills, problem solving, decision making and stress reduction, so
$2,100 of a total value of $4,700, so $1 levered over two. I indicate to the member that this is where
we are trying to be more specific and again trying to direct the training
towards a greater sector or industry‑supported activity. These are the changes that are being made in
the program.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if the
minister could read over that list of training categories again. I do not think I got it all. Customer service, stress reduction, goal
setting‑‑
Mr. Manness: Communication skills, problem solving,
decision making, would be the exhaustive list.
Ms. Friesen: I am sorry, I am trying to write this down at
the same time. Communication skills,
problem solving, and what was the last one?
Mr. Manness: Decision making.
Ms. Friesen: I wonder if the minister could indicate what
Holt Renfrew did in these areas before the minister's program emerged? Were there no goals set? Were there no communication skills? Was there no customer service? Was there no decision making or problem
solving? What is the legitimate role in
training‑‑sorry, the legitimate role of the employer in training or
the legitimate role of the company or the co‑operative in training? I think this particular instance might bring
some of those general questions about all of these types of programs into some
relief. So could the minister indicate
why that particular program was approved?
* (1540)
Mr. Manness: I cannot, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I will
say again for the fifth time for the record, at the beginning this program had a
very wide intake, and some would say too wide.
As I have indicated over the course of several months, over the years we
have made more decisions that have caused greater restrictions to be put into
place and such that some of the wide intake that occurred at the beginning is
no longer occurring. The program did
exactly what it wanted to. It was very
well conceived. It wanted to move very
rapidly in causing private sector training to take place, very specialized
training, and with that went some risk.
The risk, as I have indicated publicly for the record, as I
have been reported to have said, the risk it associated was that in a very,
very small percentage of cases, hardly measurable, there were some maybe who
took advantage of the program, and the training maybe was moved into an
abstract area. So I say to the member
there is nothing new here. It has all
been part of the public record, and we are making changes accordingly.
[interjection]
Now, the member talks about shredding files, the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). The reality is,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as part of the former NDP government he knows what
shredding files is. We have the files,
but we are not going to present anything other than general reviews of what was
involved in the training, and, again, I reviewed the broad training areas that
were provided in the Holt Renfrew case.
The member has fun with them. She
seems to get some enjoyment as I provide her with that detail. I am hiding nothing, but I do have to have
some time to bring certain information out with respect to a number of the
specific firms because that is not with us today.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the minister
saying that he will provide further information on the kind of training that
occurred at Holt Renfrew?
Mr. Manness: This was a two‑hour training
session. I have provided to the
member. Sorry, 16 hours, two days. I have presented the broad topic areas of
training that occurred over those two‑day periods.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you.
So the minister will not provide any further information on that
particular case.
Mr. Manness: Today?
I am sorry.
Ms. Friesen: I am asking a question of principle. How much information, how much public
accountability is in these programs? The
minister has read us a list of categories of training. I am asking, is he prepared to give us
further detail on what, for example, customer service meant, what actual
training took place in the area of customer service?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member again is
asking us to lay before her copies of the curriculum. We do not have that. I have said that on many occasions. If we did have it, I do not know whether we
would provide it to the member anyway, because it could very well be
proprietary information, not of the government's but of the firm. Some of this training is very
sophisticated. It is in‑house.
[interjection]
The member says, on what basis, principles. We have spent countless hours on Workforce
2000. That is the height of accountability. That is what accountability is all about, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson. I am very proud of
the fact that staff has been here, and we have provided all the detailed information
we have to this point now. We will
provide more, as the member focuses in on the firms that she would like greater
detail provided on.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister talks
about proprietary information, but on other occasions he has talked about
generic skills and empowerment of the individual. The minister cannot have it both ways, either
it is one or the other. Perhaps in
different cases, it is one or the other, but without the information, without
the evidence, we have a really very difficult time making any kind of judgment
on that. The minister is not prepared to
provide any further evidence on, for example, customer service.
I did also want to come back to a theme that the minister
raised in his last longer answer, and that was that in the early years of this
program there was a wide intake. I would
point out to the minister that this Holt Renfrew one was not in the earlier
intakes but was in fact in the '93‑94.
So this Holt Renfrew‑‑[interjection] No, '93‑94, it
says on my list. So this is not the
original wide intake, this is the considered, streamlined, slimmed‑down,
precise program that the minister has come up with so far.
I would secondly point out that this is specifically the
service sector, which the minister introduced in '92, not in that first year of
wide intake, but in the second year, after‑‑one hopes, but should
not assume in this program‑‑there has been some evaluation of the
overall directions of the program, and so this is after evaluation. This is the most recent set of applications,
and this is a program which is training people in customer service, goal
setting, communication skills, problem solving and decision making.
I wonder what else Holt Renfrew does for its training staff
that is not covered under this program.
To what extent is this program in effect taking over the
responsibilities of employers in the workplace for training and education? Does this enter into any of the criteria for
the program? How does the minister view,
in principle, in general, the responsibilities of the employer or of the
management in training? What is the
rightful role of the employer? What is
the rightful role of Workforce 2000 or a program like this?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the program came into
foster training across a wide spectrum.
It came in as a shock therapy to foster a training culture across the
piece.
It is time to now redefine who is eligible. I share some of the sentiments of the member
for Wolseley. To that end, I will be
reviewing the criteria associated again, particularly in the service
sector. The service sector, though, is
very, very hard to define. Anybody who
has looked at it from a Stats Canada measurement as to what it contributes to
the economy is always horrified by the fact that now as a catch‑all area,
it measures 60‑70 percent, it is now approaching 80 percent of jobs, 60‑70
percent of gross national product, and yet it has no definition. It is a catch‑all.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are trapped. We have some of the same difficulties when we
try and develop programming that reaches into this sector, because I do not
want to exclude everybody that comes under that label because there are many
which border very closely to be export oriented. I think of the tourism industry
particularly. Many components of it fall
under the service sector side, and yet it is natural wealth creation to the
extent that any individual can be encouraged to come to our province, spend
their resources here and go home with less money rather than that with which
they came.
* (1550)
Yet I do not want this program to be abused across the
whole gamut of the service area, and I would think the example cited most
recently by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) is one that bears greater
insight, and I will do that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I would think another year, certainly in
terms of '94‑95, that some of the examples cited by the member for
Wolseley will not in themselves be candidates eligible for additional support
under Workforce 2000.
But that is happening at this present time. It has happened since I have come into
office, and the staff is‑‑
An Honourable Member: We started asking the questions.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) again, as he is akin to do, likes to chirp from his seat,
says that this is happening as a result of questions being put by the member
for Wolseley.
Nothing is further from the truth. I have brought a concern about a whole host
of these issues to this office. I
developed them when I was the Minister of Finance. Nothing has changed.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the minister
perhaps lost the thrust of the general question I was asking, which is under
Workforce 2000. What is considered to be
the legitimate role of the company in training, and how is that examined? Where does that appear in the proposals of a
company?
For example, the minister says he wants to deliver a shock
therapy. Well, as I look to the larger
companies of Manitoba, as I look at many of these companies, I mean, I know
that companies like Simplot, for example, like D.W. Friesen, like IBM, have
corporate training programs already in place.
So where is the shock therapy?
The minister is distributing money to companies which already have well‑established
training programs. Where is he drawing
the line to say here is what the company should do, and here is where Workforce
2000 can make a difference in partnership with private industry in the
workplace. Where are those kinds of
criteria?
Mr. Manness: Well, the examples cited by the member are
long outstanding and credible companies who pay a significant amount of payroll
tax, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in support of all of the good activities. I do not know with certainty whether that is
the program area in which they fall and have received support under Workforce
2000. I sense it is.
When you set your basic criteria as firms, whether they are
doing training or not but who are paying payroll tax, who are making an incredible
contribution to the wealth generation of the province by way of exporting, how
do you deny them when there are smaller firms who are probably making a lesser
contribution? So that is the rationale.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give me an idea of the
export contribution of Holt Renfrew then?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chair, I was talking about Simplot
and D.W. Friesen. Those are the examples
cited by the member for Wolseley.
Ms. Friesen: It seems to be that there are a number of
criteria involved here and that they are each invoked on different occasions
for different purposes. Either it is the
shock or it is the fact that they are export or perhaps that they are not
export and are service which is difficult to define and, hence, we must be all‑inclusive,
even in 1992. The minister understands I
am trying to get a handle here on the principles behind the payroll tax refund
program and its companion piece, the grants to individual companies, and the
distinction the minister has made both as Minister of Health [sic] and Minister
of Education over the years in defining these two programs.
So it is an attempt to try and understand those general
principles that I would like to ask about Palmer Jarvis and associates, the
advertising company, which had training costs approved in '93‑94 for
$6,500 to train again in human relations 24 participants. Could the minister give me an idea of what
the principles behind that were and what kind of training took place?
Mr. Manness: We have no more information that we have
provided to the member by way of the overview, and as the member points out, it
is Category 3 that the support was provided.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
tell me something more about the basic education which is involved in Workforce
2000? It is Category 2. For example, National Typewriter this year
had basic education, so did McMunn and Yates, MacMillan Bathurst, Lemique
Enterprises, Valmar Air Flo, Warehouse One Limited, Stylerite Department
Stores, Redfern Farm Services, Unisource Canada Incorporated, Export Packers
Company Limited, Carte International Inc.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, remember the history
of this. It is more than Workforce
2000. The government has for many years
been wanting to roll back the payroll tax, that most vexatious destroyer of
jobs anywhere on the face of the earth.
We have taken thresholds forward.
Today 90 percent of the firms no longer pay the tax. We did not have the money available to us, we
could not forgo the revenue, so what we decided to do was to offer, as against
the rate of 2.25 percent, a refund of 0.3 percent for those who had eligible
training.
We talked about, in the first instance, recognizing basic
skills, Category 1: literacy, numeracy,
communication skills, problem solving, critical and analytical thinking, and
learning to learn. That was our
contribution through payroll tax offsets to the recognition that there is a
minority, but still large element within the workforce, who have to have improved
basic skills.
Secondly, technological skills. We said, okay, let us then provide relief in
training for those companies who go through programmable factory automation,
quality assurance, blueprint reading, technological upgrading, and computer
skills at all levels, and that is a worthy skill to see build within the
workplace. Our contribution to that
would be, again, a fraction of the total payroll tax paid.
The
member, of course, has talked and had some fun in the third area of human
relations general skills. Again, the
areas have been time and stress management, enhanced presentation skills,
negotiation and teamwork skills, so on and so forth. That was done to try and complement our
desire to see this payroll tax reduced completely. So that was the genesis of how we got into
this program under Workforce 2000, the payroll tax refund program. That is the starting point, and every
decision hence should be based at that starting point.
Ms. Friesen: As I understand it then, what the minister is
saying is that the first priority was to get rid of the payroll tax. The second priority was to find something to
do with it, something to offset it against in government programs. I may not have listened closely enough, but
my understanding of the minister's use of tenses in that last answer was that,
essentially, programs which were already in existence in adult basic education
could then be funded through a payroll tax deduction plan. So these were not new programs. These were continuing programs. Was that the case in any of these, that these
were continuing programs?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the answer is
yes. The only reason I say yes is that I
am thinking particularly of Versatile.
When they were doing in‑training they were strapped and they were
still paying this tax. That is what sold
me on the offset, because I saw a company that was striving to maintain their
payroll. I saw a company that was
exporting an incredible amount of activity to outside areas and yet still was
strapped by this payroll tax. So in some
cases, yes, there might have been an offset as against existing training. Whether there needed to be a change, I do not
know.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, here was a case in point, and I can
even be more definitive with respect to the Versatile situation. They had an element of the workforce that was
very short and basic needs, and they were spending a lot of time trying to
bring their employees‑‑and they either had to have greater support
in doing that or they would have to replace those employees. So it was sensed that given that there was a
level of experience that was obviously contributing greatly, that it would be
better for the government to offset the payroll tax and let the training continue
in the basic skill set of their employees.
* (1600)
So this is where Finance‑‑I can remember as the
Minister of Finance, this is where I came in on this program and was very
supportive.
Ms. Friesen: So the argument that it attempted to be a shock
to the manufacturers of Manitoba to put in place a training culture is not
always the case. It is true in some
cases, but not in all.
Mr. Manness: I did not say manufacturing. I said the business. I said the total private sector.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, I should have rephrased that‑‑to
the employers of Manitoba so that the argument that Workforce 2000 is intended
to be a shock to create a training culture is only true in some cases.
Mr. Manness: No, by way of the review that was done on the
Skills Training Advisory Committee report, it was not some; it was the vast
majority. Maybe that fits into the
member's definition of some, but indeed the industry as a whole was calling for
this and the representatives of the industry.
It was happening in some cases where already people understood the
importance of training but not near enough.
There was not a majority.
Ms. Friesen: The minister or this department, I should
say, over a number of years has promised a report on adult basic
education. Could the minister tell us
where that report is and how the workplace training in adult basic education
fits into the directions of that report?
Has that report been tabled? Has
it been completed? Where is it sitting
at the moment?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some work has
certainly been done on that report, a fair amount. Right now the department, under my direction,
is waiting to see how it fits in, firstly, with the basic ed reform document
and process that we are engaged in at this time and, secondly, with the whole
federal review of the social safety net and training areas. We are trying to make sure that what we have
done is in keeping with the general thrust in the other two areas.
Ms. Friesen: That report has not been tabled, has not been
completed.
Mr. Manness: Not sufficiently, and in terms of making sure
it is not outdated at the moment it hits the table and in the sense that it
does not take into account what is happening within ed reform, and also within
the federal strategy of social reform that would be the case. If it were true it would be tabled today.
Ms. Friesen: After four years, one would be interested in
any report that came forward in that area which might indicate the department's
overall conception of adult basic education.
It has been a long time in coming.
Here we have a series of grants going out to particular companies. I mean in another area of the department the
minister talked about community‑based literacy education as the way this
department was going, yet here we have a series of workplace‑based
literacy programs which are of quite a different nature, require different
kinds of evaluations and have different needs to fulfill. So the idea of having an overall argument on
adult basic education, one which might look at some of the cuts which were made
last year in areas of adult basic education and which might have a sense of
what the needs of the province were, would have been very helpful.
I sense the minister is using the same argument that he has
used in other areas: What a relief,
quote, unquote, that we have not actually done a report, because it just might
be out of date now that we have a federal government that might be interested
in doing something in the educational area.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Manness: That is nonsense. All governments across the land are trying to
deal with the literacy problem within the resources they have. We have talked previously about‑‑when
I was under questioning by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)‑‑with
respect to our thrusts within the literacy area, whether it is at the workplace
or within the community at large, or what strategies are put into place to
first of all reduce its numbering as a result of better standards and
uniformity of standards in the public school system. We all are working on this, and the member
for Wolseley can try and say that it all is dependent upon a report. That is nonsense. I mean if a report in itself would guarantee
that we would have instant success in this area, then obviously it would have
been tabled long ago. It is much more
complicated than that.
Yet I ask the member to be mindful of many of the
statements that have been put on the record previous with respect to this
year's Estimates.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the issue with
every report of course is its availability for public discussion and for policy
direction. It is the same with the Hikel
report. It is the same with the adult
basic education report. It is the same
with the absence of follow‑up in many areas from the STAC report that we
have looked at throughout these Estimates.
It is not a question of success or not success or absence
of success. The issue is, how do you debate
public policy when there is no information available on the direction that the
government is taking or the evaluations which it has done or the policy options
that it is looking at for the future?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, nothing is
further from the truth. We have been
debating public policy now for the last several hours, and all the additional
information that the member would want, firm by firm by firm, which we will try
to provide, once she indicates the firms that she wants, is not going to change
the public policy discussion that we have been having over the last number of
hours.
The member is opposed to this type of training. The government proudly supports it, with some
of the changes that need to be made around the criteria. Those are being made. So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member
is not going to back us off our support of Workforce 2000, and the member may
bring in questions of accessibility, may bring into question whether or not the
training reaches or ultimately delivers, in her terms, anything more than a
smile. The reality is, well, when the
member says, if the member, to paraphrase her, uses the term: is that what they are teaching, a smile? That means, in my mind at least, she senses
they are not learning anything more than that.
It may be to her political advantage to try and put that
spin to those examples. The reality is
she cannot argue with the fact that 78 percent of the companies surveyed
indicated their company's investment in training would have been less without
the participation of Workforce 2000. She
cannot argue with the fact that 71 percent of businesses increased their
competitiveness, and 64 percent of businesses increased their profitability as
a result of Workforce 2000. She cannot
argue with the fact that 97 percent of employers stated the Workforce 2000
training had been either very effective or somewhat effective in developing
skill requirements of workers.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, she cannot argue‑‑and
this is the one number she cannot argue with is‑‑that 85 percent of
businesses surveyed in October '93 stated that training increased their
productivity. These are all part of the
record, so the objective as studied by the Provincial Auditor is clearly
defined and consistent with the mandate, linked to key result areas and
reflected in the plan's organizational structure. The training activities are appropriately
organized and controlled. Performance
criteria are in place to monitor achievement of results. Management decisions are timely and relevant,
and the program provides accountability reporting on financial activities. This is what the Provincial Auditor has said.
* (1610)
Yes, the member would like us to provide more detail. Another year when we table the plans or
indeed the annual report associated with this program, we will endeavour to try
and provide greater evaluations at that time.
There is no way we can table at that same time filing cabinets full of
all the information and the detail which the member asks me to do today. I cannot do that. That is physically impossible.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, well, perhaps
I should indicate to the minister then, now, on the record, that I would like
that level of detail on every one of the '93‑94 grants in both the
payroll tax deduction and in the individual grants and in the industry‑wide
programs. I would be quite satisfied to
ask of individual cases, but the minister really leaves me no choice in this
matter but to ask for every one.
So I will put, now, on the record, that request for every
one of those grants which I believe the majority of are now complete. It is not a question of ones that are in
progress. These are ones that the
minister has completed, should have the information on, should have some
evaluation of and should be able‑‑and as the Provincial Auditor
recommended, he should be beginning, in fact, to put together his annual report
that will accompany the departmental annual report next time. So I would like, first of all, to suggest
that to the minister.
The second was the minister put a number of percentages and
numbers on the record just now. One of
them was that 85 percent of businesses surveyed in October '93, increased their
productivity. I wonder if the minister
could tell us how many. What proportion
of those people getting grants were, in fact, surveyed, 85 percent of what,
since in the first place the minister has indicated that only 50 percent of the
companies do evaluations or at least submit their individual evaluations. Was this 85 percent of 10 percent of the
companies that are monitored? Is this 85
percent of the 50 percent who provide their own self‑evaluations? Is this 85 percent of the 20 percent who
might have an evaluation tabled by the same person who did the training?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
mixing up evaluation with monitoring, so she is inaccurate in her claim. The member, on her first point, says for the record
she is now going to request all the information that she can get with respect
to all of the firms. I am saying that if
she wants that detail I think she should, by Order for Return, then bring it
forward into the House and make it a debatable motion.
I cannot give her any type of a guarantee as to when all of
this information might be ready. This
could take several months, because I am not going to, for her request, pull
staff off of trying to continue to meet the training needs of Manitobans. I am not going to have them pour through
paper as a first priority when, indeed, they should be trying to reach out for
the training needs of skills development of many of our citizens.
Ms. Friesen: The minister knows from my questions in the
House that what I am interested in are the curriculum and the outcomes, exactly
the same things which the minister is interested in, the public education
system. I was quite prepared and came
here with the lists underlined of the particular ones that I wanted to ask. I assumed that since the minister had his
staff here that those kind of summary reports might not be available.
The minister said, first of all, that they are not
available. Secondly, he said that he
would be prepared to answer any questions individually at later dates.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
I have now made that request, and now he has backed off and
said that this must be asked for by Order for Return. I will point out to him that we do have
Orders for Return still on the Order Paper from the member for Osborne who has
since departed this House. Those have
been on there for nearly 12 months as far as I know. I will be delighted but very surprised if the
minister provides any answers to any of the questions which I will ask for a specific
Order for Return.
The minister also said that he had 150 pages of briefing
notes with him. Are there any particular
answers there which he would like me to phrase questions to and that he will
then answer? Presumably he came prepared
to answer some of them. Well, I am
prepared at this point to ask the questions for which he has brought the
information.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all the member needed
to do, as I have said on several occasions in response to questions in the
House, was indicate to me prior to today's sitting, prior to last week's
sitting, which firms she was interested in.
Given that the number was not all, and given that the number was
workable, we would have tried to provide a synopsis, an overview similar to
what I presented with respect to Northern Blower and IBM.
Now when the member is saying no, that she expects me to
have all of this information at this sitting and that she was going to try and
surprise us, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have that information. Again, I could not ask staff to bring over
all the files.
The member cannot have it both ways. If she wants to try and catch the staff by
surprise‑‑all she had to do was to tell me which companies she
wanted additional information on for this sitting. She chose not to, and so she is upset now and
indicates that she is going to now want the full information on everybody. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that will take
considerable time, unfortunately.
Ms. Friesen: This is the first time, this is the first
meeting in which the minister has indicated that he is not going to answer
questions on specific cases. I will say
that for the record. There was no
opportunity to provide the list beforehand.
We had been discussing specific cases of industry‑wide applications
of this program at the last time we met.
This is the time at which I began to raise the specific questions, and I
am now told that he is not going to answer any of them. Now I am told that we can go to Order for
Return, but as I said, the record in that of this government is not very
promising.
Now the minister is saying that it will take a great deal
of time to provide all of the information on all of the ones that I am asking
for. That is quite true. It will.
I would be prepared, and as I say again, I would be prepared to ask
specific ones.
My intent is not to catch the department and is not to
catch the minister. The minister has
given me a list. He knows what
information he has. He knows what list I
am asking from. It seems to me that
there should have been better preparation on the part of the minister to at
least bring some of the information.
Let him say now. I
have said which ones does he want me to ask on.
I will ask on those now. Has he
brought any information with him, question one?
Question two: If he has not
brought any information with him, how many questions is he prepared to answer
on a case‑by‑case basis? If
he says all of them is too many, it would take a great deal of time, how many
can be done by next week? Would it be
10?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, let the
record show that any of the questions that have been posed with respect to in
the House, we were prepared for those. [interjection] I cannot remember
Kentucky Fried Chicken. I apologize if I
missed it. Let not the record show that
I have failed to detail, with some sufficient detail, certain of the firms that
have been focused upon by the member for Wolseley.
Here is the totality of contracts entered into under
Workforce 2000: 992 contracts under the
small‑medium section; 27 sector initiatives industry wide; 1,815 payroll
tax reduction applications. So the
totality is somewhere around 2,800‑plus of files that we have under
Workforce 2000.
I say to the member, if she wants response on all of those,
it is going to take us a long, long, long time.
Now the member says, well, tell me how many you can do. I am saying to the member, tell us which ones
you want us to do. I am not going to
make a commitment of time. I am not going
to get into a horse‑trading exercise here. I asked the member to focus in on those firms
that she wants specifically, and I will endeavour to try and provide, as I have
previously, a synopsis of the type of training that was done, the number of
participants. The member has the level
of participants, and she has the total amount of public funds that were
directed. I will try to provide that
same information as I have with respect to IBM.
* (1620)
Ms. Friesen: I would remind the minister that he has not
given me the job classifications in IBM, that he has not been able to tell me
whether the training took place here or somewhere else, very limited
information. He has given me a list of
topics covered, but that is not a curriculum, and the minister knows it. He is not even prepared to table the training
plan which IBM submitted The minister's
professions of openness and the minister's pride in this program ring very
hollow with me.
Would it be reasonable to suggest to the minister‑‑and
I find it abhorrent that I am entering into this kind of question and this kind
of negotiation. Is it reasonable to
expect of the minister and his department to provide 10 answers in the next
week to questions on specific cases?
Mr. Manness: I think that we certainly could do that in
the next week.
Ms. Friesen: Would it be reasonable to expect 20 from the
department?
Mr. Manness: You see, now the member is starting to push
beyond limits.
Ms. Friesen: What are you saying?
Mr. Manness: We could do 20 in two weeks, I am sure.
Ms. Friesen: So we do now have a principle that the
Minister of Education, whose most important program, his initiative in
Education, his Workforce 2000, which he claims is accountable, which he claims
is publicly open, is now prepared to provide information on curriculum and on
outcome, the very principles which he is interested in in the public education
system. He is prepared to provide
information at the rate of 10 per week, which I think might take us 280 weeks
to get through the amount that has already been distributed. That is approximately, I believe, about five
years.
So over five years, the minister is prepared to deliver
this kind of information. He has still
not made a commitment to fulfill the Auditor's request which would go some way,
not all but would go some way, toward meeting some of the requests which I am
making, and that is to publish an annual report, an annual accounting of this
particular program. He has still not
agreed that he is going to do that. I
find this all very surprising, and clearly there is not any point in continuing
this kind of discussion with the minister.
But I do have one question, and that is to ask him about
health and safety programs under this particular program. What kind of training has been done in the
area of safety? The minister does not
have a classification for it. We have
technical, technological, basic education and human relations; and safety, it
seems to me, follows a number of those areas.
So I wonder how that has been classified.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the payroll tax
area, it would probably fall under the third classification, as a reduction to
stress, with the greater comfort knowing that training is in place.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member went on and on and on
talking about how long it would take. I
remind the member that this department has a total expenditure of $990
million. We have spent considerable
hours on one line of $5 million. I
indicate to the member unabashedly and say that my main priority as the
minister of this department is ed reform.
I will say that I will direct all of the time that I have, discretionary
time, and indeed the time of staff, to that greater priority.
Now, the member may not see the importance of that. She may not believe that reform of the public
school system is relevant or important, but I say to you, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, and to members of this committee, that is what will be consuming
virtually all of my discretionary time and indeed that of staff.
So the member can make light of the fact that there is not
a quick enough response to her questions of detail, but we will try to do what
we can in the time we have available, given an annual report, starting to be
filed with Workforce 2000. We will
provide again some greater evaluations and trying to keep with the Auditor's
recommendation. But other than that, we
will have to agree, I guess, to disagree on how important and how successful
Workforce 2000 has been.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is
attempting to divert the issue by talking about public education. We are on a line which is dealing with grants
to employers for education. My concerns
are what the effectiveness of that has been and what the accountability is and
what priorities have been developed within that and how it fits in the broader
sense of education in the province and whether there is equality of access
within those programs.
There are two other things I wanted to come back to, one is
the minister's response on the safety issue.
I believe that he is classifying safety as human relations. Does the minister want to confirm that?‑‑because
I find that rather odd.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think it
would be fair to consider it as basic skills, and so that only leaves then the
second or third area. I mean, those are
the broad groupings that we have.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have an example of the kind
of safety training which has been done under that Category 3?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, not with us, not
offhand, no.
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister aware of any safety training
that has been done in Category 3?
Mr. Manness: Not under payroll tax offset, no, but under
industry‑wide, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are trying to determine whether
or not there has been a subset of an application that would apply to industry
safety standards training.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that earliest
statistic which the minister veered away from when I raised a question about
it, the 85 percent in October '93 who indicated they had increased
productivity, 85 percent of what? What
proportion of people were surveyed at that point?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that evaluation
involved 55 payroll tax refund employers, 161 small and medium firms under that
classification, and six focus groups were assembled. Of course, there were related interviews with
many of these very same players. So
those were the groups of people who were part of the evaluation.
Ms. Friesen: So in terms of survey I do not think we can
count focus groups as part of the 85 percent.
I think they do give you some qualitative responses, but in terms of
numbers, we are looking at essentially just over 200 employers who were
surveyed out of 2,800 grants. So that
for the minister to use the 85 percent number may be, strictly speaking, quite
true, but perhaps is not an indication of a full evaluation of those who are
satisfied by this program.
The minister talks about increased productivity. Were any questions asked about increase in
employment, how many jobs were created under this program?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, the
member is a student of statistics.
Certainly she realizes that to make the comment she does, she has to
pass judgment on whether or not the numbers that I have presented to her have
been chosen on a scientific basis and are representative of the global
number. She, in her judgment with
absolutely no facts, says that there is no way that can be the case.
Well, these were statistically chosen, scientifically
chosen, and I say to her do represent a very good reflection of the global
training under this program.
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I forget the member's
second question.
Ms. Friesen: My first question dealt with the 85 percent,
whether in fact that indicated a scientific‑‑well, actually I did
not ask that, whether it indicated a scientific survey, but I thought the 85
percent number indicated perhaps a broader support than might be warranted
given the number of people actually surveyed in a program that has had over
2,800 grants.
* (1630)
My other question dealt with productivity and whether, in
fact, the question was asked about job creation in that survey. Did job creation have anything to do with
productivity, or has there indeed been a question asked of any of the employers
about job creation and how many jobs have been created as a result of this
program?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as best as we
can determine, the program was caused to come into being, and again, now the
scientific basis of this is in greater question because it was not tied into
the evaluation, but the best we can determine, the Workforce 2000, besides
maintaining so many of the jobs as a result of 40,000 or 60,000 being trained,
has probably caused to come into being in addition anywhere from 200 to 400
jobs, depending on the methodology in place in the existing firms.
Now, the member asked a question about safety
training. I just want to give an example
of how it might be that this category in itself may not be set aside, but how
it is that skill training and safety could become elements of Workforce 2000.
I think specifically under the industry training program,
the Western Fertilizer & Chemical Dealers Association, we sponsored a
pesticide dealers' training project.
Here the focus was to develop and deliver a pesticide dealers' training
project for up to 500 employees of 402 independent fertilizer and chemical
dealerships located in rural Manitoba.
Training will ensure that standardized practices related to ag chemical
storage, handling and distribution are introduced within the industry. ACC will deliver the program utilizing the
Distance Education model.
Now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a prime example, and
most of that thrust would be, of course, towards safety. So although it is not easy always to
categorize under neat labels how it is that these programs will relate to some
of the traditional program areas that we have in our minds, here is an example
of one program training area that obviously had quite an emphasis, but not
totally, on Workplace Safety and Health.
The other comment dealt with job creation, and I have answered that.
Ms. Friesen: The minister did give me an answer on job
creation. That was that 200, perhaps,
had been created. Last year I think the
Minister of Education was less certain.
I think the number she mentioned was in the 80s. I wonder if the minister has any
evidence. He seems convinced that jobs
were maintained by this program, and that is possibly true in some areas, but
there has also been a number of these large companies which have downsized in
this period. So is the minister
convinced that the net result is a 200 increase in jobs?
Mr. Manness: I did not say net increase. How could I say that? I said increased jobs, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. I mean, some of these might
be new firms that have come here and never had jobs here before, so the reality
is, it is hard to know, except what again that the employers tell us, if this
had not been in place, the reduction in jobs within their industry or where
their firms may even have been larger than they might have otherwise been.
Ms. Friesen: Does that type of question compose or
comprise any part of the evaluations or questions that are asked of the
companies?
Mr. Manness: Well, I am generalizing, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, but, again, through the surveys taken within the program grouping
areas and industry‑wide human resource planning, when we posed the
question, again with the respect to employment, the general statement is that
Workforce 2000 is having a positive impact on employment within some
participating sectors, obviously, not all, but within some. When we asked the same question under the
payroll tax refund, we were told that the payroll tax refund has only a limited
effect on employment creation. However,
this incentive has had a positive impact on job retention. That is the same point I was trying to make
earlier on with respect to its being hard to measure, but we do not know, that
in many cases it has caused jobs to be retained that otherwise would not have
been. Again, there is no science that
can really measure this in a macro or global sense.
Ms. Friesen: I agree with the minister; it is difficult to
evaluate those comments on retention.
There are obviously too many areas there, of those kinds of statements,
which are not measurable, but could the minister tell us which sectors have experienced
job creation or job additions as a result of this program? I think that was the first part of his
statement.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, general areas, long‑haul
trucking under the transportation industry, sewing machine operators under the‑‑and
this was supported by the Manitoba Apparel committee, under agriculture, swine
technicians, Manitoba Pork. These are
three of the sectors I would focus on, and some under tourism in the guides
area under the Northwest Communities Futures.
Ms. Friesen: So the minister's general summary then would
be that in the industry‑wide approaches there have been productivity
increases, and there has been job creation.
Does this indicate to the minister any direction for future policy?
Mr. Manness: Well, I guess it does, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. As I have said earlier, we
have touched upon it coming from a number of different directions over the
course of the discussion. Whether we
talked about the efficiency argument, whether we have talked about trying to
have more firms enter by way of umbrella sector or industry agreement as
compared to coming in with their individual set of circumstances, the thrust is
still the same. We think there is
greater efficacy of the program when there is an agreement struck as between
the program and industry as compared to industry and firm.
Ms. Friesen: Yet I believe over the three years or four
years of this program, we have only had 27 sectoral programs. Is that the case? Could the minister give his‑‑first
of all, maybe the minister should confirm that‑‑but my second part
of my question is: What are the goals
for this coming year? How is that to be
expanded or increased?
* (1640)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we sense that we are
static around the 26‑27 number, at which level we have been over the last
two years, but of course, what we expect maybe is the number of employees
within those sectors may trend slightly forward. As importantly as the sector initiatives is
the total number of employees. We may
have had a higher number at the very beginning, but obviously, there was not a
maturity within the sectors or those sectors did not see the benefit of
continuing. So we would sense we would
not be increasing the level, as far as sectors, that we are at at this point in
time.
Ms. Friesen: What has been the average experience over the
last few years of the number of people trained in that program annually? The minister is looking for that to
stabilize. I am looking for what level
it is going to stabilize at.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 2,500 roughly in the
year just completed, and hopefully, an expected 2,600 this year.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister anticipate advertising any
of these programs in the same way that Industry, Trade and Tourism advertises
its small‑business programs?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have answered this
somewhere along the line, at least I think we have, because we said that we
would expect the industry associations to carry out the messages so that we do
not have to rely on the same level of advertising. It is better to deliver programming than it
is to buy advertising.
Ms. Friesen: So this is one of the most productive, in the
broadest sense of the term, areas of the program, and the minister expects it
to continue at the same level of participation.
He also anticipates that it will remain essentially by subscription, by
membership, so that people who are members of the association are primarily the
ones who will know about these programs and who will select the people to
participate in them from their own companies.
Mr. Manness: Obviously not, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
because there were 992, as I indicated to you, specific contracts, individual
contracts, between Workforce 2000 and individual firms. Nobody is going to tell me that there is not
a knowledge that this program exists.
Sixty thousand people have been trained. There are only 500,000 full‑time
equivalent positions or full‑time jobs in our province, so nobody is
going to tell me for one moment that employees and employers do not know that
this program exists.
Ms. Friesen: I think the minister misunderstood my
question. I am speaking specifically in
the context of the industry‑wide initiatives, the 27 agreements that the
minister said have been made annually, of the 2,500 employees who were trained
annually in that program. That is the
one that seems to me, from the minister's responses, to have been the most productive,
the one that he might be the most interested in, as perhaps he suggested in an
informal way.
One of the drawbacks of that program seems to be that
participation in it is limited to members in particular associations. The government itself has decided to allocate
the responsibility of advertising those to the industry itself. So again, I am concerned about accessibility.
Mr. Manness: I have said over and over again that firms,
first of all, are not members or, indeed, the firms that do not have a sector
which lends itself to an association still can make application to the
government. The member seems to be
suggesting that if you are not part of the 27 formally, if you are not part of
the formal structure, you will not know about the program. I am just indicating that 992, the vast
majority of which, I would think, have to fall into those 27 sectors.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this proves the statement of the
member for Wolseley. I mean, how many
sectors do we have in Manitoba? We do
not have many more than 27. Obviously,
the vast majority of the small‑medium firms, who are in direct contract
with the program, indeed are part of those 27 sector structures.
Ms. Friesen: So the minister then is quite confident that
those sectoral programs are well known across industries in Manitoba.
Mr. Manness: We encourage other sectors to come forward,
but we will not do all the work for them.
I mean, they have to take ownership of this, and to the extent that they
do, we will encourage and foster additional sectors that will come on. But there is no use doing all the work for
the sectors. They have to, again, have
an ownership by us.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a number of
questions, a few anyway on Workforce 2000, but I am wondering if the minister
would indulge me to ask a few questions on the ACCESS Program?
Mr. Manness: I am prepared‑‑I do not have
ACCESS staff with me at this point in time.
I am prepared to take questions, but can we leave it until sometime when
we can bring back some of the questions in the Workforce? If they are general in nature I will try to
answer them, but if they are specific, I probably do not have the information
the member seeks.
Ms. Gray: They are general in nature. I have faith that the minister can probably
answer the questions, and I apologize if some of these questions have been
asked before. I am wondering exactly,
with the report from Peat Marwick, if the minister has read through that report
and what exactly he intends to do with it?
I know he has indicated here in Estimates that he considers
it a draft report. Could he tell us
exactly what he intends to do with it and if he has had a chance to read
through the report?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Before the minister answers that question, is
there leave of the committee to revert to dealing with a few questions from
ACCESS, because we do need leave of the committee for that? Is there leave?
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member's colleague,
the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), did ask a number of questions on
this. As a matter of fact, the answers
are already printed in Hansard, and I think that the member, the critic for the
Liberals, at this point would be well advised to read that first and then see
where there are some holes that have to be filled in.
Then, if there was a very limited time spent on this‑‑you
know, I am hesitating to say this, because we have taken all afternoon on the
right line at this particular time, I might add. We do not want to see us going over ground
that has already been covered and passed by the committee. So I would not want to see us revert formally
to ACCESS. If there is some leniency
given for a couple of questions and then move back to Workforce 2000, I think
my colleague the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) would not object too
strongly to that, but not to have it revert formally.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not believe I
asked for it to revert back formally. I
asked the minister if he was prepared to answer a couple of general questions
related to the report, and the minister had kindly agreed to do that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Just to inform the honourable member for
Crescentwood, we do need the leave of the committee to revert to any items that
have been passed. That is why I was
requesting leave.
Is the committee willing to give leave for the honourable
member to ask a number of questions within ACCESS? No?
Leave is denied.
Ms. Gray: Madam Deputy Chairperson‑‑Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry. I have
been in the Health Estimates for the last two weeks and we had a Madam
Chairperson there, so you will have to excuse me.
I would ask the Minister of Education if he sees any
relationship between Workforce 2000 and the ACCESS Program that he provides
funding for.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry, I do not
understand the question.
Ms. Gray: The question is, in the Department of Education
and Training there is a focus not only on education but on training
programs. The Workforce 2000 program
specifically provides training to individuals who are currently, in a lot of
cases, in the workforce. The ACCESS
Programs, which are part of the institutions, provide education programs to
oftentimes those individuals who have been employed in the past or who are now
unemployed.
* (1650)
I wanted to ask the minister, as the minister who is
responsible overall for the Department of Education and Training, and who likes
to focus on the training component and also the training component of
individuals who may be in a workforce or who are older individuals, individuals
who may have worked in a particular company for five, 10, 15 years, and there
are now requests for training dollars to go into that business‑‑does
he see a relationship between that and the ACCESS Program, where a lot of the
individuals who are involved with the ACCESS Program as well are individuals
who have been out of the school system for a number of years who may be
unemployed or in a certain line of work and are now going back for what I would
call retraining through the ACCESS Program.
As well, a number of the individuals in the Workforce 2000 are receiving
retraining.
My question would be, does he see a relationship between
those two programs which come under the jurisdiction of his entire department?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I see a lot stronger
relationships between other programs, because there is a myriad of programs, as
the member knows, under this training section, and there is a much stronger
interconnectedness or relationship between many of the other programs than
would exist as between ACCESS and Workforce 2000.
Workforce 2000, of course, is employer driven. It is driven for the needs of the
employer. I mean, the employer and the
firm of the employer, if it can be made a better firm because of new skills
provided to the employee, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then that is good for the
economy and indeed for maintenance and job expansion as a whole, but the focus
is on the employer.
ACCESS Program, of course, the focus is on disadvantaged
people in our society who are seeking to have higher education and levels of
training.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has
indicated that he is going to have the Auditor take a look at the Workforce
2000 programs. Can he indicate, is this
standard procedure in his department, and did he ask or has he asked the Auditor
to look at the ACCESS Programs?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have no power, nor
would I want it, to direct the Provincial Auditor to look at any programs. The Provincial Auditor is a servant to the
Legislature and looks at any programs they so choose.
Ms. Gray: Has the Auditor indicated to the minister if
they plan to look at the ACCESS Program, or is it in the plans of the regular
audits that are done on a yearly basis?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess the question
would probably be better posed to the Provincial Auditor. At this point in time, we are not mindful of
a specific program review of the ACCESS Program by the Auditor.
Ms. Gray: One of the questions I want to ask before it
is five o'clock, because we are resuming this evening, is: Can the department or the minister provide us
with information on the antistacking regulations?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the member is
referring to government incentives with respect to drawing business to our
province, I mean that is a general plan that is in place with respect to all
considerations around economic development projects that go before EDB of
cabinet, chaired by the Premier. That is
a general statement, but I am aware of it because I am a member of the Economic
Development Board of Cabinet.
Ms. Gray: Would that general policy or those
regulations then apply to the Workforce 2000 incentives as well?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think I know where
the member is going. The 50 percent
antistacking is the general rule.
Special sets of circumstances start to move into those industries where
you do not have near the degree or any hard assets. The asset becomes almost intellectual, an
intellectual reserve, and there have been some circumstances where we have gone
beyond that, taking into account that no hard assets have been brought into
place.
Ms. Gray: Is that a yes or a no in response to the
question? Do those antistacking
regulations or if it is a general policy, does it apply to the Workforce 2000
incentives and grants?
Mr. Manness: It is yes.
They are in place with respect to the traditional businesses and that
traditional businesses are in the area of manufacturing and transportation and
primary‑‑where we think of buildings and hard assets and production
machinery, where there is a specific economic development initiative. Once we begin to move into some other areas
where there are not bricks and mortar and steel and production machinery, but
indeed we are dealing more specifically with intellectual property, then at
times, it depends on the set of circumstances surrounding the issue.
Ms. Gray: So if a company was involved in
telecommunications, as an example, would that policy apply there?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if they were in
telecommunications, and, again, the greatest asset was intellectual property,
there could be certain circumstances which would dictate the easing of the 50‑percent
rule.
Ms. Gray: Has the minister to date, in Estimates, been
able to table or indicate the various grants or business incentives through
Workforce 2000 that have been given to GWE?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have tabled all
the grants to both parties, but we are certainly prepared to accept questions
with respect to GWE.
Ms. Gray: Were some of those grants through Assiniboine
Community College and then directed to GWE?
Mr. Manness: Yes, some of the money went to the
Assiniboine Community College to respond to the training needs of GWE. As a matter of fact, I know that ACC has
staff or has had staff as recently as a week ago searching out call centres in
other parts of the United States to try and build a curriculum that reached out
to this whole new sector so they could do some generic training in support of
the industry.
Ms. Gray: Would that be common or how often would it
occur that you might have businesses who would be receiving dollars through
Workforce 2000 but also were receiving assistance, either financial or other,
from either universities or in this example, our community colleges?
Mr. Manness: Well, it would not happen often but it
happens now and then. Again, you are
moving into the area of intellectual property.
You are not talking about production machinery. You are talking about a new sophistication
within the telecommunication industry.
Obviously, if there is no training culture in place, you
may very well want to help that whole initiative by drawing upon some funding
in Workforce 2000 and that has happened in a couple of instances, GWE being one
of them.
* (1700)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour is now 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour. I am interrupting the
proceedings of the committee.
The Committee of Supply will resume consideration at 8 p.m.
this evening. Thank you.
FAMILY SERVICES
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with
the Estimates for the Department of Family Services. We will begin with a statement from the
honourable minister responsible.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): I am
pleased to present to this committee the 1994‑95 spending Estimates for
the Department of Family Services for consideration. I look forward to a meaningful dialogue and
positive recommendations as we proceed through discussion on these Estimates.
I do want to say out front, too, Madam Chairperson, that
this being my first set of Estimates for the Department of Family Services and
my first opportunity to dialogue with the NDP critic and also the first
opportunity for the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) to have the opportunity
to participate in an Estimates debate in this Legislature, I want to indicate
that I am looking forward, with anticipation and excitement, around hearing
constructive, positive recommendations on how we deal with the issues in the
Department of Family Services.
Manitoba, as is the case with all governments in Canada,
continues to face a difficult financial situation. In order to support our economic strategy of
fiscal responsibility, we have directed our budget decisions towards ensuring
that vital social services are maintained for Manitobans most in need while at
the same time freeing resources for new initiatives that will foster self‑reliance
rather than dependence.
I feel that with this budget, totalling $660.2 million for
Family Services for 1994‑95, we have accomplished this difficult balance
of priorities. While this amount
essentially maintains last year's funding level, it should be noted that it
represents a 58 percent increase in total spending by this department since
1987‑88. This increase is more
than double the rate of inflation over the same period.
During the past seven years we have increased our support
for crisis shelters and related services by 148 percent. During the same period funding for both child
day care and social assistance has grown by 73 percent. These statistics underscore the commitment of
this government to maintaining and preserving essential social services in this
province.
During this period the demand for services has risen
considerably. We have responded to meet
that demand. The number of subsidized
children in daycare has grown by almost 80 percent since 1987‑88, and
there are almost 3,000 more licensed daycare spaces today than there were six
years ago.
As a result of the recession and federal unemployment
insurance changes, there are more Manitobans on social assistance. The municipal assistance caseloads have more
than doubled during the past six years, and provincial social allowances
caseloads have increased by about 20 percent.
Madam Chairperson, I would like to indicate that Manitoba
is not alone in this situation or circumstance.
Right across this country, we are seeing higher and higher welfare
caseloads.
More women and children have needed to use crisis
shelters. These shelters have received
the necessary resources to respond to increased demand and have been able to
accommodate 58 percent more clients.
The funding increases that have occurred since 1987‑88
have, in part, been to meet these greater demands. In addition, many program enhancements have
occurred above and beyond the simple volume increases. For example, over $30 million in enhancements
have been made in the social assistance area alone since 1987‑88.
The Income Assistance for the Disabled Program was
introduced in 1992 and expanded in 1993.
This initiative has involved a commitment of over $9 million in
additional benefits for disabled Manitobans on social assistance. Every major program area of this department
has been the subject of significant new initiatives and funding increases over
the past seven budget years. However, we
are all coming to realize that funding increases cannot continue
indefinitely. Government revenues are
not at the same levels as they were when many of today's social programs were
designed in the 1960s and '70s, and they will not be increasing at the rates
they did in the '70s and '80s.
The '90s pose a new set of challenges for governments, and
we must be willing to reevaluate the programs we have in place. Are they meeting their original
objectives? Are they creating unintended
problems or difficulties? Can we do a
better job with available resources? By
asking these questions, we may be able to redirect and refocus existing dollars
in different and innovative ways.
I am confident we can be more effective in meeting the needs
of Manitobans. I have spent much of my
time as Minister of Family Services asking questions like these when I meet
with service providers, clients, community organizations and those in the
private sector. Some of the answers they
give are remarkably consistent. They
know that changes are needed in our current set of services. They also know that government cannot act
alone in making the necessary changes.
I believe that an important role of government is to foster
and mobilize partnerships. There is a
lot of interest, energy and willingness in the community to work with
government in redesigning our existing programs and in working together to meet
the most important needs of vulnerable Manitobans.
In the 1994‑95 budget for Family Services, you will
see this refocusing reflected in some of our spending decisions. To illustrate this, I will outline the major
activities by each major program area of the department.
Within this year's budget allocation, we are continuing to
ensure that social assistance is available for all Manitobans in need. I am pleased to say that the Social
Allowances Program caseload has decline slightly. In the rate of growth in the municipal assistance
caseload, growth has moderated considerably.
Nevertheless, with caseloads totalling over 49,000 across the province,
welfare rolls remain unacceptably high.
To deal with these unacceptable caseload levels, we are endeavouring to
shift our focus towards initiatives which strengthen incentives to work, remove
some disincentives and increase work expectations for employable Manitobans on
welfare.
Accordingly, we have established a new $3‑million
Welfare to Work appropriation. This
appropriation will fund a series of pilot projects to test innovative and more
cost‑effective methods of reducing social assistance dependency through
employment.
One of the first pilots will focus on single mothers. It will provide a co‑ordinated package
of services and programs to help them enter the workforce. Single mothers are a growing sector of our
population. Younger moms, in particular,
are highly dependent on welfare. We will
work closely with the federal government to develop other major pilot projects and
proceed in consultation with the private sector and community organizations. The new $3‑million Welfare to Work
appropriation along with the earlier announcement of $10 million over two years
for infrastructure projects employing City of Winnipeg welfare recipients is
expected to have a significant and positive impact on caseloads and
expenditures.
* (1440)
In the area of Rehabilitation and Community Living, we are
responding to the needs and wishes of Manitobans living with a physical or
mental disability by changing the way we relate to persons with a
disability. Services now give a new
emphasis to community living and greater control by the consumer over support
services. The 1994‑95 budget
provides an additional $4.5 million for Community Living and Vocational
Rehabilitation Programs. These new funds
will provide care and support to allow additional numbers of adults with a
disability to live in the community.
Support will be available to more families with children with a
disability, and day services and transportation services will be provided to
more adults with mental disabilities.
Furthermore, the 1994‑95 budget provides for funds
related to the new Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner's Office. Recruitment of the commissioner will take
place in the very near future to allow for the commissioner to prepare for the
implementation of the new vulnerable persons legislation. Our government is also providing an
additional $6.4 million in support of this province's Child Welfare
system. We are coming to grips with the
long‑standing problem of increasing numbers of troubled children coming
into care. We need to focus on early
intervention and early childhood development to avoid placing children in care.
In 1994‑95, Child and Family Services will focus on a
strategic shift in service priorities to emphasize family support, family
preservation and family responsibility.
The shift is intended to support families at risk so that the movement
of children from their natural homes is minimized while their safety and well‑being
are protected.
In support of these new directions, the Family Support
Innovations Fund of $2.5 million has been established. This fund will be used to develop innovative,
new ways of providing up‑front supports that will prevent children from
coming into care. In addition, the fund
will be used to allow and encourage the reunification of children currently in
care with their own families. To further
support these new goals and to make funds available for new services, the 1994‑95
budget includes several initiatives that are designed to reduce the costs of
providing substitute care for children and to redirect funds to family support
programs.
Before concluding, Madam Chairperson, I should note that we
are discussing the 1994‑95 Family Services Estimates at a time when
Canada is entering a period of public debate on the very nature of the social
security system we want and can afford for future decades. The federal government has launched an
ambitious social security review process which is intended to culminate in new
legislation later this year. To date,
there has been only a limited opportunity for public input into this reform
process through the parliamentary standing committee on human resources
development. That committee plans to
continue public hearings through the summer and early fall after the federal
government releases a public discussion paper.
Since provinces are responsible for delivering many of the
social services that have been included in the scope of this reform initiative,
we are very interested in the upcoming release of the federal discussion paper
and in the ensuing public debate. The
federal government has indicated that federal‑provincial discussions will
be an important part of its reform process.
The provinces provide an important perspective and are able to offer
their analysis of current programs and options for the future. The Manitoba government will be an active
participant in these discussions.
In closing, Madam Chairperson, I emphasize that by refocusing
some of our programs and redirecting our available resources, we have presented
a very balanced approach to meeting the social service needs of
Manitobans. We have structured a budget
that is directed towards improving the quality and effectiveness of our social
programs.
This year's budget promotes employable welfare recipients
and helps them gain financial independence.
It provides additional supports to allow persons with a disability to
live independently in their community, and finally, it places more emphasis on
family support and preservation to keep families together. These goals are particularly relevant as we
participate in this International Year of the Family. I look forward to questions and comments from
critics in both opposition parties in the ensuing days and weeks ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: We will now have the customary reply by the
critic from the official opposition, the honourable member for Burrows.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Chairperson, I note with interest that
this is the International Year of the Family which the minister referred to,
and we know that several hundreds of thousands of dollars have been committed
to staffing for this office. They are
spending a lot of time and effort in promoting things like posters and pins and
sweat shirts and in promoting the International Year of the Family.
However, and I am not allowed to use the word
"hypocritical" here, but if you contrast this government's rhetoric
with their actions, I think there is a lack of credibility here with the
government's commitment to the International Year of the Family, because even
though they talk a lot about their commitment to the International Year of the
Family and to families, there have been numerous budget cutbacks, even in this
budget, not just in last year's budget, but in this year's budget; for example,
the cuts to foster family rates of almost 52 percent which will be a particular
hardship on aboriginal families, 80 percent of whom are placed with relatives,
and the Child and Family Services per diems for 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds
has been reduced by 25 percent, and there have been social assistance cutbacks
which took effect April 1.
In fact, instead of the usual increase to keep up with the
consumer price index on January 1, the government announced last November, I
believe, that there would not be any announcement for January 1. Instead, the changes took place on April 1,
and there was no allowance or increase to take account for the increase in the
consumer price index, but instead, there were cuts, particularly to single
people on municipal assistance. Also in
this budget, this minister has taken $300,000 out of the Child Day Care office
budget. All of these things refer to
family. That is why I selected them.
So we are disappointed that this minister, who talks a lot
about her government's commitment to the International Year of the Family,
would make these cuts that I have enumerated, all of which negatively affect
families.
At the same time, her government gives grants to
corporations under Workforce 2000, and some of them, I acknowledge, may be good
and may be justifiable. We in our party
are in favour of training and retraining workers where it is justifiable, but
we have great difficulty with some of these individuals grants, particularly
grants such as one to Northern Blower of $80,000 for worker training while
their workers are on strike, grants to companies like Birchwood Motor Sport,
$10,000, and all of their subsidiary organizations‑‑Birchwood
Pontiac Buick, $10,000; Birchwood BMW $10,000; Birchwood Saturn Saab Isuzu
$10,000; Birchwood Honda Centre $7,750; and Birchwood Honda Centre $1,800; for
a total of $50,000 to train 29 people.
The list goes on and on.
Centra Gas