LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, May 24, 1994

The House met at 8 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(continued)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(h)(1)(a) on page 42.

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we recessed at five o'clock, I was asking questions about the GWE, and I was wondering if, including the program that the Assiniboine Community College is assisting GWE in, could the minister give us, including that amount, the total amount of dollars through incentives or grants for that particular company?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): From memory, I cannot. I am not the lead minister, obviously in that file, so I cannot. I can probably address Workforce 2000, but I cannot talk with any degree of certainty with respect to the total level of support to GWE.

* (2005)

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Just on a point of order, not to interrupt the questioning, but I would suggest that this line item should be passed. The question is really relating to the operating nature of Workforce 2000. It probably would be more appropriate under Other Expenditures, some of the other line items rather than strictly staff. So, just as a point of order, it may be a way of dealing with it. Once again, not to interfere with the questions.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order, but I would advise the committee that we have been dealing with (a) and (b) basically, Other Expenditures at different points. So the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) has not had an opportunity yet to ask on either line.

* * *

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the Workforce 2000 program‑‑and I know that our Leader had sent a letter to the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) asking for some details on Workforce 2000 of which, I think, most of the information was provided to us in regard to that‑‑the industry‑wide partnerships, the 26 individuals, does the minister have information on the nature of those partnerships?

Mr. Manness: Yes, I read those into the record, I thought; but, if not, we will undertake to provide that information. I am sure it is part of the record, but the breakout, the 26 or 27 agreements break into the following sectors, and I repeat this: basically, nine sectors, and they are manufacturing‑goods producing; construction; agriculture‑related; transportation communications; business community services; financial insurance; realty; wholesale‑retail, primary and other; businesses relocating‑expanding to Manitoba.

Within those general breakouts or sectors in 1994‑95, I will talk about the 26. Ten are expected to be in the manufacturing‑goods producing; one in construction; six in agricultural‑related; three in transportation communications; six in business community services. At this point, we do not see any candidates in the last four areas.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with the 26 that the minister has indicated in the breakdown in the various categories, can the minister tell us: Is there any particular prioritization that is done in terms of deciding with whom in industry these partnerships should be formed? Is it based on industries that actually come forward to the government, or is there a particular prioritization that the department is using for 1994‑95?

Mr. Manness: There are basically two criteria at work: the first priority would be directed towards those sectors that align themselves very closely with the strategic areas as laid out in the framework for economic growth; secondly, manufacturing, our primary industry where obviously there is a tremendous contribution in wealth generation for the province.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under this program, Workforce 2000, does the department advertise to various industries, and does it indicate to them, this is what the criteria are? Does it assist the industries so that when businesses are applying for incentives through Workforce 2000 they might have an idea if they are going to be successful or not?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, like all government programs, there are brochures available which lay out the criteria. In this case, I guess we do not do broad advertising as such, as I have indicated to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), and yet we expect others to help carry the message. Those others include industry associations, chambers of commerce, the CMA, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and, because many of these sector agreements are in partnership with the federal government, Human Resources Development. We expect them, of course, in their contacts to also provide some information to the people who approach them. So we honestly believe at this point that there are very few businesses and/or sectors that are not fully aware of Workforce 2000.

* (2010)

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister mentioned this afternoon that his department or he as minister does not direct the Provincial Auditor in terms of audits; however, there are regular auditing functions that go on within various departments. There used to be an audit group attached to each department. I do not know if Education and Training had one, and now they have centralized the audit function. Certainly there are regular reviews that do go on. Can the minister tell us, has Workforce 2000 as a program had any internal auditing done in the last couple of years?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, internal review at this time is doing an internal review as to process and administrative processes that are in place. The only area of specialized audit that was done, and I cannot say very much about this, was done in accordance with an article that was written maybe a month ago, that did come to light basically a month ago. So that is the auditing that is taking place or has taken place to this point in time.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister elaborate on, when he talks about special processes, what he is referring to?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are trying, again, to make our administrative procedures fit into the overall program. I mean, we are reviewing criteria. We are also trying to look at the screening process on entry. We are also trying to make sure the evaluation procedures that we have in place, although they, by definition, cannot be exhaustive‑‑again, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and I engaged in a long debate on that. We just have no opportunity really to go through all of the files, and yet we want to do a survey and put surveys into place to make sure that we are evaluating in a scientific fashion the program. These are the processes to which I refer.

Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us how his department defines a small and medium firm versus a large firm?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it basically is a rough estimate in association with the payroll tax cutoff. Right now we have no payroll taxes paid below $750,000 payroll, and we sense that that must be approximate, depending on what divisor you use, 135 employees.

* (2015)

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the program administration, the changes to the Workforce 2000, the two SYs' reduction, can the minister explain what happened in that reorganization and why?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we did a combination of Youth Programs and Workforce 2000, and we had a situation where a manager was reporting to a director. We sensed there was overlap and duplication, and in our attempt to streamline and in our attempt to reduce hierarchy of positions, we sensed that we could save a position. Secondly, a data entry clerk, that position was one that we sensed that we could reduce.

Ms. Gray: What was the classification of that particular position, and how many other positions were in the same classification within the Workforce 2000, if any?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am led to believe the classification was a program director and there were no other positions of that nature within this branch.

Ms. Gray: Has that position or that person as well as the data entry clerk‑‑have those two individuals found other employment within the Civil Service?

Mr. Manness: The first position, the manager position, the individual has found a position in Industry, Trade and Tourism as a consultant within that department. The other position was vacant at the time.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in this particular section, the Workforce 2000, with the one manager and about 18 SYs in Professional/Technical, are there any outstanding grievances in regard to staff in this section?

Mr. Manness: I can say there are a number of outstanding grievances within the whole department, but I think protocol would dictate that I do not comment upon them because that would certainly be highly improper.

Ms. Gray: I wanted to know basically if there were outstanding grievances. I was not about to get into details on what they were. I just want to know the number of outstanding grievances and what the relationship was of those grievances in relation to other parts of the department, and so I had no intention of getting into individual grievances with the minister.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

Item 4.(h)(1)(b) Other Expenditures $4,040,900.

* (2020)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask the minister about some double entry on some of these grants, and I notice that, if I compare '93‑94 list of the individual grants to the payroll tax deduction grants, there are several names which crop up on both lists: Inventronics, McMunn and Yates, Mediacom, Regal Furniture and Bedding, Faroex, Russelsteel, and I think one or two others. What distinction does the minister make in his mind when he is recommending these grants? Why are some people applying under both? Are they not receiving enough money under their payroll tax deduction fund?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is correct. The general rule is that the maximum per employer under Workforce 2000 under all its programs is $10,000, and in some cases the payroll offset does not add to that, or come to that total. Consequently, the employer makes application under one of the other two programs.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, does the minister have an estimate of how many companies have done that in the history of the program?

Mr. Manness: No, I would not estimate, but we can provide that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, well, the minister has the numbers. He could provide it. Will he provide it?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I said I would. I said we could provide that.

Ms. Friesen: You said you could not.

Mr. Manness: No, I said we could provide that, but I cannot do it now until we do the count, but we could provide that, yes.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, would the minister just clarify and tell me whether he is going to provide it or not? Will he provide it?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not much trust left at this table. I am shocked. I am really, really disappointed. I did not know that this professional relationship between myself and the member for Wolseley had deteriorated to a point where there is absolutely no trust. When I said we could provide it, my interpretation was that we would provide that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am glad to hear that. So the minister will provide that.

Can the minister tell us at this sitting how many companies have done that in this past year?

Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot, and when I do give the result, it will be for the past year, because I cannot speculate as to how many it might be in the present year until the present year is over, and that will not be until April '95.

Ms. Friesen: My earlier question was directed to the minister over the history of this program. Will he provide that information for all the years of this program?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are back into history again. The member is asking me to drag up years of history. This is not the place to do that.

Ms. Friesen: No, I am just clarifying what it is the minister has undertaken to provide, and it is my understanding that the minister will provide a list of companies that have enjoyed the benefit of both the payroll tax deduction and an individual grant.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am beginning to feel like I am on the witness stand here and that the member is thinking I am playing loose with words. As I have said before, we will provide this information and we will do it. We will go back into the past year, the last year for which we have records, that being '93‑94.

Ms. Friesen: Is the minister indicating he has no records in the two years before '93‑94?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think we have given all that information to the member. She can do her own counts to see how many of the companies are coming under two of the programs. We have given her all the raw information. What more does she want? She can do her own count for the years prior to that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there have been instances in the past when the information the minister has provided to me has been incorrect: the companies, for example, which no longer exist; indications where the minister has said later that training did not occur, and that abuses have occurred. So I wanted to be quite sure that the information I got was correct, that the minister agreed with it, and that it was in fact the right information. So that is all I am asking. Over the last three years, how many people have enjoyed the benefit of both types of grants? I know that the minister has the information, and I am asking him to provide it.

* (2025)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because I do not want to cause problems, I am not going to raise a point of privilege and indicate that the member is imputing motives. She is indicating by inference, she is saying that I am leaving information on the table, as I had walked over to the NDP caucus room, that was not in keeping with the actual fact.

The information that the member has been given to her is exactly the information that we have available to us. So, for sure, I have no alternative but to again ask the member to do her own counting to see what firms are on both lists. She can do that just as well as I can. For '93‑94, we do not have the information collated at this time, but when we do, we will share it with the member.

Ms. Friesen: Obviously, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I am trying to do is to be quite specific about the minister's apparent generosity, and whereas his claims are for an open, accountable system, there are severe limits upon that. A minister who will one minute propose that he will in fact provide information over three years, in the next sentence then says, no, it is only going to be in one year, and then only when he has it collated. At other times, he has provided us information that has not been correct. Now I am sure it was the best information he had at the time, but then he turns around and then criticizes others in Question Period for not putting on the record correct information which is exactly the information he had given us two days earlier.

So I am not impugning motives in any way. I am simply indicating the kind of experience which we have had with this program and my desire to have exactly the same information as the minister has‑‑public information, publicly arrived at, publicly paid for and publicly accountable.

So I do not think the minister has to really be too upset about professional relationships here. This is really just an attempt to ascertain the same information as the minister.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know why the member plays revisionist history one minute after she has made the first statement. She never did ask for three years of data, and if she did, I never consented to providing three years of data. I never consented to providing three years of data, at no time with respect to the overlap and whether or not two firms or firms were eligible under two of the programs to take their employer value up to the maximum.

So, if the member is going to correct me with respect to specific commentary and challenge me as to the accuracy of my statements, I am afraid I have to do the same thing with respect to her.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will certainly have to check the record.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to make a motion. I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that

WHEREAS the minister has not provided adequate public information on the curriculum, effectiveness and educational outcomes of the many training grants and millions of dollars spent in the Workforce 2000 program;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 16.4(h)(1)(b) Other Expenditures be omitted.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am just going to take it under advisement, and we will carry on in a few minutes.

Motion presented.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The motion is in order, and it is debatable.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I must tell you, I am very disappointed‑‑not surprised, but very disappointed‑‑that the member would see fit to bring forward this motion.

The member throughout the review of Workforce 2000 has gone on and on again and said‑‑the last time being about four o'clock this afternoon‑‑Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to repeat for the fourth time, I am not against workplace‑based training. What the member did not say was that she is totally against Workforce 2000. She has been. It has been the thrust of her questioning in the House now for the basic of two months.

What we have, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the protectionist, small "c" conservative approach from members opposite, of course, who do not want to see changed the whole training regime in this province. They want to see it maintained within the institutions as we know it‑‑universities, community colleges‑‑and no changes.

* (2030)

Now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, members opposite were totally against governance when we brought it into the college system when my colleague the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) was the Minister of Education. Members opposite, of course, did not want to see the changes that were encompassed within that change. Once and for all, the bureaucracy that had encumbered community colleges, particularly in some respects the department, was finally taken away, and colleges now could react to the marketplace. They could listen quickly and make changes with respect to the requirements of the employers, people who create, in combination with employees, the wealth of our province.

So the NDP were opposed to that, because I can remember sitting in this very committee room when Bill 70 came in and Bill 22 came in and, indeed, all of the questions surrounding that public policy, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that the members were at that time, when they were giving some input with respect to that bill, always talked about how it was we were providing greater governance to the community colleges.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is in keeping with their reaction to some of the recommendations that came forward in the Skills Training Advisory Committee report.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the STAC committee had canvassed all of our employers, had asked for input from the community at large, had asked for input from the education community, had tried to find a method of bringing into the modern age training within our workplace. So what did this government do? Well, it could have listened to the NDP. It could have maintained the level of funding, and, therefore, maintaining the same courses that had been in place within the community college for basically 25 years. It could have followed the approach of, through Treasury Board review, reducing a course here or there every year, and then trying to build in a new one; or it could have come into the modern age and recognized that the aerospace industry, recognized that the health products care industry, recognized the telecommunications industry‑‑

An Honourable Member: And the chicken industry.

Mr. Manness: The member says, the chicken industry. Well, the member has got a fixation with chickens, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I do not why the member for Wolseley is so against chickens. Now I know the NDP. They hate rural Manitoba, and they hate the farm, but I did not realize they hated chickens, so I know there is a resentment towards anything that‑‑

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): You do not know that.

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we just had one of the better contributions from the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) of this whole debate, but the reality is the NDP has been totally opposed to a change in training regime in this province, so what we have here is obviously a clash of philosophy.

The members opposite, of course, want to maintain the status quo. They want to see, first of all‑‑and I sense, of course, it is to their political agenda, that every time when we ask them where we can find millions of dollars to help them with their spend‑more slogans, which, of course, occur daily in the Legislature, they can always point to Workforce 2000 as some programming that possibly the resources supporting should be directed elsewhere.

I wish at times, though, the members would realize whom they are attacking. I can remember just a month ago when the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) on public radio attacked one of the staunch corporate citizens of our community‑‑

An Honourable Member: Which one?

An Honourable Member: Accused him of being a Liberal‑‑or a Conservative.

Mr. Manness: No, Birchwood motors. He went after the Chipman family, Mr. Deputy Chairperson; he called them a bunch of Tory hacks in essence and offended them greatly.

Then you realize what is at work here. What you realize is that this is now taking on overtures of becoming a class warfare issue, because, of course, the members want to be able to talk about, they want to be able to relate this to the corporate welfare bum themes‑‑the last time that they were anywhere in double digits in the polls in the country. So the members opposite are desperately trying to make an issue around Workforce 2000.

What does Workforce 2000 try to do? It has tried to take the focus away from those who are the professional educators, those who think they know everything about the economy, those that think they know the world, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and say what courses are important and what priorities. They have shifted that focus of training to the employer, because the employer in large measure was turning away from the formal institutions within our community, saying they really were of little relevance to the modern, day‑to‑day decisions that had to be made.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a government came along, after having canvassed the wealth‑producing sector, saying, what is it that we should do to bring training into the modern age, to cause an awareness of how important training should be? What is it that the government can do?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in loud chorus, the members of the community said this: Focus the training on the employer. Let the employer decide in conjunction with the senior management, in conjunction with the supervisors, in conjunction with the employees as to what basic skills are missing, No. 1; what areas of management capability are missing; and, thirdly, what areas of communication skills and other skills are missing.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the community also said, do not drive us into the formal institutions for this type of training. Let it happen at the workplace. Let it happen without an incredible bureaucratic association. So this is what we endeavour to do, so we took, some would say, a smaller amount of money, $4 million to $5 million depending on what fiscal year we were in, and we directed it to the workplace.

I know the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) felt offended. She sensed that her institution and, indeed, the formal post‑secondary institutions were under attack, that somehow they might be suffering long term over this.

An Honourable Member: I just want accountability.

Mr. Manness: The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) wants accountability. The members opposite by virtue of their questions made public, the Provincial Auditor looked into this program, and what did the Provincial Auditor say?

I quote, Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In 1993‑94 the Workforce 2000 program was cited by the Provincial Auditor as a positive initiative of government, and I underline positive initiative. Positive initiative. It did not say negative initiative.

But the Auditor went on to say, concluded: "The program objectives are: clearly defined"‑‑I have never seen that stated before in a Provincial Auditor's report on any area of programming‑‑"and consistent with the mandate; linked to key result areas; and reflected in the plans and organizational structure." Listen, and I repeat, "linked to key result areas," meaning evaluated. Evaluations‑‑meaning the evaluations.

These are the Provincial Auditor's words, not mine: "Linked to key result areas; and reflected in the plans and organizational structure." So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what the Provincial Auditor said is that, as regards the program as conceived, as the plans and organizational structure put into place in support of the program, the linkages were there.

Furthermore, and I quote: "The training activities are appropriately organized . . . ." Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, who is doing the training activities? Well, the Train the Trainers‑‑the people that are hired to be the consultants. "The training activities are appropriately organized and controlled, . . . ." Well, whose responsibility is to control that process? Well, obviously, it is the department's.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to go on then, the Provincial Auditor says: "Performance criteria are in place. . . ." The member has been hounding us and dogging me day after day on accountability. What does this mean when the Provincial Auditor says that performance criteria are in place?

Does that mean the evaluation process, the standards for measurement is against that process, the benchmarks, that some evaluations are‑‑that the evaluation processes are in place? To me, that means exactly that; "performance criteria are in place to monitor achievement of results, . . . ."

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what the Auditor is saying is that the evaluation process is in place. Furthermore, management decisions are timely and relevant. The 12 rules of effective attributes of effectiveness accounting, the Provincial Auditor, from my memory, has said already this program has hit on half of them, on half of them. There is not a program in government that does that well.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I quote: "Performance criteria are in place to monitor achievement results, . . . ." Management decisions are timely and relevant, and, furthermore, the program provides accountability reporting on financial activities, which means that you do not get your money if you are an employer unless you have spent it in a manner in keeping with the commitment you made with respect to training.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member now wants us to do a better job of riding herd on 2,800 files. As a matter of fact, she wanted me to drag the 50 filing cabinets we have‑‑she wanted me to bring them here tonight; she wanted to have them here tonight so that I could talk about every one of those 2,800 files.

* (2040)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what nonsense, what abject tomfoolery. The member is being mischievous. I gave the member more credit. I thought she was seriously interested.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Hansard is having a little bit of trouble picking up the minister, so could I ask the honourable members to keep it down just a little bit?

Mr. Manness: I am very disappointed in the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). I thought that this was an exercise of sincerity on her part; I thought it was an exercise of trying to find out all the information that we could impart with respect to Workforce 2000. I realize now, by virtue of this motion, that the member is just trying to make a political issue out of Workforce 2000. It is obviously going to be a major plank of the NDP election thrust, and they are going to, obviously, totally ignore what the Provincial Auditor said.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have also indicated because the member‑‑I am growing a little bit sensitive to this charge of no accountability associated with this program. I said in coming to office that I had concerns about some of the criteria around Workforce 2000. I have also laid those concerns on the record. I have said what areas have concerned me. Now the member says, which companies are you going after? I have shared them. For the record I will state again: The greater concerns that I have are related to those industries that are purely within the service sector, and which may not be contributing any greater to the provincial economy as a result of the training than they might have before that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have also said, because the service sector is so wide in its description and its definition, there are significant portions that rightfully should be included. There are some others that we should look at in a second look. My department has been doing that over the course of the last several months.

A year from now, when we review the list, when we share the list, which we will do again because we are an open and accountable government, just as I did for the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) when I sent the list for '93‑94 up to a point in time‑‑I believe it was February or early March that was the cutoff date because I know that the member wanted to have this information before coming into the House. I sensed that it was the proper and responsible way to be open and accountable. We will do that again.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is no doubt in my mind there will be some businesses that have been on the list for the last two years and will not be there in terms of '94‑95 final results, and that is because we will have changed some of the criteria.

I recognize, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I say to the member for Wolseley, I still take sincerity out of some of her statement. I am trying to reflect some of the good parts of her commentary into decisions around criteria.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to move on with respect to evaluation. An evaluation that was done internally of the Workforce 2000 program was completed in late '93 and the key findings included, and, again, I indicate this, and this has been shared with the Provincial Auditor‑‑well, we will share it with the Provincial Auditor if we have not. [interjection] This is open. When the Provincial Auditor comes and asks for evaluations, they are shared. For the record, they were shared with the Provincial Auditor because I mandated that be done on coming into office.

Now, what they really said. Key findings included that 85 percent of businesses surveyed in October '93 stated that training increased their productivity. [interjection] The survey was scientifically conducted. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 71 percent of businesses increased their competitiveness, and 64 percent of businesses increased their profitability. [interjection]

By the tone of the remarks from the members opposite, they seem to be referring that all business people are crooks, and anything for a dollar, they will do anything for a dollar. To them, I say, shame. [interjection] I sense that the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) believes that everybody that is in business is basically a used‑car salesman. That is the picture; he tries to paint everybody with the same wide brush.

Other results, Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 78 percent of the companies surveyed indicated that their company's investment and training would have been less without the participation of Workforce 2000.

An Honourable Member: Of course.

Mr. Manness: Well, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says, of course. By that, he means, naturally, they are receiving government money. So he thinks, even though they have had to put in many cases two dollars, three dollars for the one they got from the government.

* (2050)

Of course, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I found out one thing about socialists. Socialists will take money, but only if they do not have to put up a dollar. That is one thing about a socialist. Socialists will only take it if they put up nothing.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 97 percent of employers stated‑‑

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We are getting a little carried away again. Do you want to get it out of your system now? The honourable minister to continue.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it also found, and I am talking about the evaluation, that the program's approach to restructuring Human Resources committees was endorsed by industry and sectoral clients‑‑to structuring Human Resources committees. You know where the thrust is towards Human Resources committees.

An Honourable Member: Where?

Mr. Manness: It is directed towards quality control, Total Quality Management. Today, if one wants to believe anything they read, and if anyone wants to believe that to be part of the globalized world today, you have to put forward a quality product and service. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that starts right on the workplace floor. It starts right within the office. It permeates every dimension of the workplace, and yet the members opposite say, no, we want this training to be within the institution. If it is a six‑month or eight‑month course, so be it, because what we want for sure is we want jobs for those instructors, those instructors that belong to the MGEU. That is what we want. I know where the NDP is coming from.

There are achievements in '93‑94 that should be again noted for the record, 992 contracts with small‑ and medium‑sized businesses providing training to 3,021 employees. Members opposite do not even know how many businesses there are in Manitoba. The members opposite have no clue because, of course, they have no regard whatsoever for the total number of businesses. They just assume‑‑you see, the difference between the NDP and the Conservatives, they assume that business will be there to create wealth. That is their basic assumption.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 992 contracts with small‑ and medium‑sized businesses. I go on to point out 27 sectoral activities initiated, providing training to 2,563 employees; 14 courses developed and delivered through province‑wide special courses. The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has really grilled me on these special‑courses component attended by a minimum of 44 businesses and a minimum of 243 employees.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the members of the NDP party are totally against workplace‑‑

An Honourable Member: The Liberals are not against this.

Mr. Manness: Well, I am not sure about the Liberals, but, of course, the Liberals, as they have said many times, like to ride that fence in the middle and have it both ways. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no doubt the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) will want to put the Liberal position on the record.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 267 companies submitted training plan applications, representing approximately $8,760,000 in workplace training to 31,792 employees. That is the pent‑up demand for workplace training.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one can read all of the commentary by the Economic Council of Canada in the past, and the C.D. Howe Institute, and everybody will tell you that within Canada there is a void with respect to training culture in our private sector.

The member opposite says, it is true. Do you know what the NDP did, what their solution to it was? You tax the devil, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, by way of payroll tax out of the company; you take that money and you put it over in the institution and then you force the companies to buy places in the institution. Whether or not they had the right mix of jobs, whether or not it was market‑related, whether or not it was in keeping with the demands of the workplace or not, it did not matter.

What mattered was you had to have that staff there, who were part of the MGEU; you had to have them employed. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was the modus operandi of the NDP.

So I say to the members opposite, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that we can see what the essence is of this motion. The members opposite really could care less about the training aspect of it. Really what their big issue here is to force training back to the model which worked well 25 years ago, but which has been reluctant until we gave it governance, been reluctant to change in a fashion that was necessary.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I suppose I should leave my commentary there, other than to say that the government remains very supportive of this program. Yes, there has to be some fine tuning. We will do that fine tuning, and a year from now, I know the members of the NDP party will applaud, will absolutely applaud Workforce 2000, having taken into account some of the changes that we are contemplating.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is very interesting sitting here in the committee listening to the formal debate that is going on that will be on the record and the informal debate that is going on, and I sometimes think that the real people out there in the world, whether those individuals are small or medium employers or whether they are individuals who are looking for retraining, really want to ensure that government does provide leadership and that government is there to initiate and assist businesses where possible and to create jobs. I am not sure most of them would appreciate a lot of the particularly informal comments that have gone around this table tonight. When we think about the real people out there, I think it is very important that we keep that in mind.