LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

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 Canada.  Over the weekend, one commentator noted the remarkable unanimity in the communiques, and it is remarkable indeed.

 

          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 Manitoba which our visitors took away with them at the conclusion of the conference.

 

          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 Saskatchewan co‑host the discussions on health care reform.  When we consider the Premier's own Estimates in this Chamber, he was able to confirm that the federal government's reduction in EPF has continued past the Mulroney years and on now to the new government's years and budgets.  This means that we are going to be down to about 70 percent of funding of health care from the provincial governments and down to 30 percent and less in declining amount of money from the provincial [sic] government.

 

          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 Manitoba retailer over the weekend and, of course, we are suffering because of this change in policy.  I am sure the government feels it in their revenues or will feel it in their revenues over time.

 

          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 Manitoba I believe continue to be committed to a strong national government, and I personally believe that we in Manitoba should present that view to the other western Premiers who have traditionally had a more decentralist view of the national government.  I hope Manitoba continues to have a strong voice for the presence of a strong national government.

 

          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 Oldman River in Alberta for more unilateral provincial powers in the environment, I believe we should have a stronger national and international view of that position.  I would urge the provincial government to take that to the table, rather than the watered‑down, shared position they have in the communique.

 

          The whole issue of taxation is a very important issue.  Manitoba has not presented a report or a position paper yet to the federal government on the GST.  Saskatchewan has and the whole issue of fair taxation, I believe, will be a major issue in Canada as the GST debate continues.

 

          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 Canada does finally resolve.

 

          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 Manitoba?  What will it mean for western Canada?  What will it mean for our producers?  We wish the government well in their ongoing dialogue on some of these areas of activity.

 

          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 Wanipigow School twenty‑five Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Marion Taylor.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).

 

          From the Country View School, we have sixteen Grades 5 to 9 students under the direction of Mr. Brian Reimer.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger).

 

          From the Ralph Brown School, we have thirty‑four Grades 5 and 6 students under the direction of Ms. Cora Duffy.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

 

          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 (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing boards have played a very important role in the farming economy of Canada, as well as the economy of all rural communities.  However, we learn that at the Western Premiers' Conference, there were some Premiers, particularly Premier Klein, who would like to see marketing boards gone and would like to see the Wheat Board monopoly gone, as well.

 

          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 Canada?

 

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 (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that, and I hope that someday we can get this Premier to encourage the federal government to add more crops under the Canadian Wheat Boards's mandate, as farmers would like to see.

 

          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 Manitoba group must have some positions, as well.

 

          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 Winnipeg.

 

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 Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we are having a common fire tack for early identification of fires so that they can then take action on the fires regardless of which side of the border they occur on.  As soon as the fires are identified, these crews‑‑the first group, for instance, is at Bakers Narrows, and it covers the northern Manitoba area near Flin Flon and Creighton, Saskatchewan.

 

          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 Canada and the territories.  We have gone some distance in one subject area, particularly in mathematics, and we are working collaboratively in the area of science.

 

          I would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that we have some distance to make up.  Manitoba is driving that process more so than any other province in western Canada.  I expect as a result of the meetings in Gimli that there certainly will be greater desire from our provinces to the west to move on even more quickly.

 

          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 (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

 

          Despite the hopes expressed by the Ombudsman in his 1992 report and promises by past Ministers of Justice, the Maintenance Enforcement Program in Manitoba is now apparently functioning even worse than ever.  In the last couple of weeks alone, I am aware of several cases where recipients are not even returned messages; for example, one case where eight messages were left over 11 weeks, another case where seven messages were left over seven and a half weeks.

 

          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 Canada.  If the member has other information that would actually help Manitobans and help make this Maintenance Enforcement office function more efficiently, if he believes that there are always ways to make offices more efficient, I would be happy to hear that.

 

          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 Pine Falls that were totally untrue.

 

Hay Report

Implementation Report

 

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the Hay report on the Civil Service Commission was completed at a cost to taxpayers of $140,000.  Following the public announcement of the audit, the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission set up a committee to oversee the implementation of those recommendations and also promised an interim report as to the status of the government action on the recommendations.

 

          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 Wellington.

 

          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 Manitoba deserve an interim report on what is happening‑‑

 

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 Wellington raises today, that it would be on a regular reporting basis.

 

          I can tell the honourable member for Wellington that many of those recommendations were implemented immediately after the process, which the Manitoba Women in Government were well aware of, and that we have ongoing programs or that they host ongoing programs that are improving the ability of women to advance in senior positions in government.

 

          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 Manitoba than any other previous government including the NDP, more appointments as judges, more appointments as Queen's Counsels, more appointments to positions of responsibility than any previous government, particularly the New Democrats.

 

          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 Manitoba.  Perhaps one of the most significant findings presented in this report indicates that the program has suffered because of the indecisiveness of government with respect to their commitment to and the vision of the program.  The program environment remains unstable because of a lack of funding commitment.

 

          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 Manitoba that his decisions that he made are, in fact, accurate and based on‑‑

 

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 Manitoba have indicated their willingness, and we have asked them in large numbers to assist us.

 

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 Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Family Services.

 

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