LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Wednesday, May 18, 1994
The House met at 7 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.(e)(1) on page 41 of the Estimates book.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): In the absence of a strategic plan for labour
market, could the minister give us a summary of how he sees the characteristics
of the unemployed in Manitoba at the moment?
I am thinking in general terms of educational levels, gender and age.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I probably should have brought my labour force statistics
with me. They were in my book here
before.
I guess the gender breakout I have not looked at
recently. Certainly when one begins to
look at the full‑time employment beginning to creep up again to 500,000
Manitobans, I say globally that number is acceptable, given the reality of the
time.
I still am very happy when I look at those numbers and
recognize that fully two‑thirds of those who are eligible to work, and
yet who do not have work, are still being counted. That is about the highest participation rate
within the land, because if you go to other provinces there are a significant
number of people who are not counted within their unemployment numbers.
The youth number now being very close, or basically at the
national average around 16 to 17 percent‑‑16.2‑‑having
come down from 21 or 22 percent, is meaningful.
I talk to young people today in my circles, and nobody has to accept
this as fact, but there are job opportunities out there this year that were not
there a year ago. Many of our youth are
having more than one opportunity. Now,
nobody is terribly overjoyed with the level of wage and the wage rate being
offered, but there are positions there.
As far as those youth who are presently graduating from a
lot of our post‑secondary institutions, particularly universities in the
professional areas, I know there are jobs there this year that were not there
two years ago. Again though, the level,
as I indicated before, of wage being offered to them is considerably down from
where it was a few years ago.
Nevertheless, there are opportunities there.
If the member wants me to be more specific, though, across
the areas of gender, and I think‑‑would she also like to get into
sector review or not?
Ms. Friesen: No. At
this stage I am particularly interested in the characteristics of the
unemployed.
Obviously what I am interested in discussing with the
minister is training, education‑‑Department of Education. So what are the characteristics of the
unemployed, and how is the department setting about meeting the kinds of
training needs which are particular to each group, and how are they defining
those needs?
It is the kind of thing which one would have anticipated
would have been in the documents that we have been waiting for for some
years. Perhaps we can continue the
discussion on a more general basis.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, youth unemployment,
first of all starting there. We have the
programs, as I have referred to in the past, that we have carried over from the
former government, whether it is CareerStart, and I cannot remember the origin
of that. We have the other programming,
and I will not move into it but to say that we are doing what we can in support
of unemployed youth.
I do not think, though, that this is the long‑run
response that is acceptable necessarily to me.
I do not know, maybe it is acceptable to the member, our Youth Career
Development Programs. Certainly we still
have the STEP services that have been in place for several years, the Youth Job
Centres, of course, which are opening all across the province and have been
successful. Then we also offer in
government the Volunteers in Public Service, and there are a number of young
people who are coming forward and offering their services to the public and
are, of course, beginning to build an understanding of public service.
* (1905)
In the student youth areas, of course, CareerStart '94,
Partners with Youth which is a combination of two departments, Education and
Training and Rural Development, the special government initiatives, and I am
thinking here now of some exchange opportunities, Employability Enhancement
Programs and again, I know there will be further questions dealing with these
later on, the HROPs program, the HROCs program, the Single Parent Job Access,
and on and on and on.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
An aside, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, on the farm 20 miles
from here I was lamenting the fact that we were not getting any of this [rain]
exactly 10 minutes ago, and I am overjoyed.
Maybe we should take a recess.
The committee recessed
at 7:04 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
7:07 p.m.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): We will call the
committee back to order.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I cannot read
all of this into the record because we have program totals and of course we
have who it reaches, either social allowance recipients, youth, physically
disabled, mentally disabled, aboriginals, visible minorities, immigrants and
women. There are reams of data of who it
is we are trying to reach by way of all of the programming that I referred to
earlier.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the question
however was: What are the
characteristics of the unemployed? There
are different kinds of programs obviously one would want to offer, if a high
proportion of particular sections out of the unemployed have post‑secondary
education, different kinds of training opportunities which you would want to
open if they were illiterate.
I am looking for the characteristics in terms of education,
gender‑‑no, not that one.
That will not work. That is the
one you want.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what we know
in general of course is that the higher the level of education and training the
correlation is that there will be more likelihood that there will be employment. That is the general statement. If the member is referring to a document that
she‑‑I will quote from a public document.
This is April '94.
This is the Manitoba Labour Market Information Bulletin public document,
April '94. Unemployment rate among the
male population is 10.5, amongst the female population it is 9.6 in the
province of Manitoba. So that is one
breakout.
Then we have employment, full time and part time, by age
and sex. Let us go then by age. Manitoba Labour Market variables by age: unemployment rate amongst those 15 to 24
years of age, 16.2 as compared to 17.0 the year before; 25 years and over, 8.8
April '94 as compared to 9.3 the year before.
* (1910)
Again, when I was starting before, employment, full time
and part time, by age and sex‑‑I have global numbers,
percentages. These are just employment
figures. They do not mean much in their
absolute numbers. I am looking for percentages. I think they are more meaningful.
Here are some Manitoba employment, unemployment rate and
participation rate by sex, family status and composition. The family head or spouse 6.2 percent
unemployment compared to 8.3 the year before.
For those single with children, I gather, 22.2 percent April '94
compared to 21.3 April '93; an attached individual 16.6 versus 18.8 the year
before. That is all under the male
category. Does the member want‑‑
Ms. Friesen: I am looking for the educational levels of
the unemployed in Manitoba.
Mr. Manness: The Manitoba labour market characteristics
educational attainment by sex, if the schooling is zero to eight years of
schooling, 10.1 versus 10.3‑‑this is total across male and female;
some secondary education 13.7 versus 11.8; graduated from high school 15.8
versus 16; some post‑secondary 8.5 versus 10.6; certificate or diploma
6.8 versus 9.6.
That first 10.1, 10.3 I gave you is the total. Usually the total is at the bottom. In this document, it is at the top. So the 13.7, 11.8 that was zero to eight‑‑so
I have not changed the categories‑‑the graduated from high school
15.8 versus 16; some post‑secondary 8.5 versus 10.6; some post‑secondary
6.8 versus 9.6; certificate or diploma 8.3 versus 7.9; university degree 8.0
versus 4.7. If the member wants the
breakout by gender around those totals, I can provide‑‑
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I am
looking for is one of the rumoured categories of the Manitoba labour market and
that is that we have a high proportion of people with post‑secondary
education who are unemployed. Am I right
in assuming that would‑‑[interjection] Well, certificate, diploma,
post‑secondary, high school completion.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are having
a fair amount of sampling problem. This
is not even our methodology at work.
This is Stats Canada and there is a fair problem with methodology when
you take into account a population of 4 percent. That is why you have these major gyrations
from month to month which the NDP use to their advantage one month and then we
use to our advantage the next month.
That is all tied in to these numbers.
When we, for instance, look at certificate or diploma and
we talk about post‑secondary, as I indicated, 8.3 versus 7.9 across both
genders and university degree 8.0 versus 4.7, so if this is the aberration that
the member is referring to, I do not know whether or not it is a significant
change, an accurate reflection or not or whether it is just a moment in time.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I am
looking for is some discussion of who the unemployed are, what their
educational level or social position in the sense of single parent is and where
the training programs are matching up to that.
If, as for example, it is rumoured that we have in the region of 15 or
16 percent of our unemployed have post‑secondary education and if all of
our training programs are at the level of Grades 8 or 9, then there is
something wrong.
That is why I would have looked forward to a labour force
development plan which would have given us some indication of the existing
training programs, which needs they were meeting and who in the unemployed
needed other kinds of attention. So that
is really where the question is going.
Are there any documents, any material that the minister might have that
perhaps might be able to give some background on this question that he might
want to table at a later date?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
* (1915)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, without being able to
provide all of the analysis around that question, we recognize that there are
weaknesses in some broad areas, and that is why I have just listed the full
area of programming and attempts to reach out into those areas where it is
deemed that there are a shortage of opportunities. I have listed all of those. I indicated to the member per this table‑‑there
was a chart here, or at least a chart somewhere that showed specifically to
whom we were reaching.
Now you say, well, on what basis are these programs doing
their job? Well, that is an evaluation,
and we have done some of those. But more
importantly, I mean when we, for instance, have the Employability Enhancement
Programs, Community Based Employability Projects, Gateway Human Resources
Centre and all that, we have numbers to indicate who it is we are reaching
under these programs.
Ms. Friesen: That range of programs, as I understand it,
reaches people with less, probably around between a Grade 7 to Grade 9
education. Is that right? Okay.
We have a number of those programs, and the proportion of people in the
labour force that is addressing would be an interesting and important, I think,
understanding for people in Manitoba to have.
We also have a considerable number of people with post‑secondary
education who are unemployed. Many of
those people are finding it very difficult to know where to go and what to
do. That is what I am trying to address
with the issue of the Labour Force Development Strategy, if there had been a
process of public input, if there had been a document for discussion and some
sense of guidance or vision from the government of where the people are
unemployed, where the programs are meeting the need and what gaps there still
are.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have programs in
place, and they have been put in place to address, for the most part, measured
needs by way of the surveys which point out who today does not have as many or
as great an opportunity for employment as others.
We have got the programs in place. If the member wants to get into detail by
detail on all these programs, we can do so.
I mean, there is a section coming up that allows for that. If the member is saying, well, do you not
have an input/output model that measures minutely the balances between what the
shortage of skill is versus where the demand is within the marketplace as
compared to the basic set of skills brought along at this point in time by
individuals who present themselves for additional training, no such thing
exists, and it does not exist anywhere.
If you did build it, I can tell you the minute you had it built, it
would be out of date.
So I guess maybe I do not understand in totality what the
question is, but I can provide more information on some of the programs if the
member wishes.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I do not know how I can put it more
clearly. Perhaps there is no point in
belabouring it. The minister is prepared
to discuss the programs he has got on paper, but he is not prepared to discuss
a needs study of what is out there and who is unemployed and what the
characteristics are and whether in fact the programs that he has on paper are
meeting the overall needs of the Manitoba population who are unemployed.
That was really what I was getting at, and that is where
you know some kind of a strategy paper would have been helpful to people to
understand what is happening in Manitoba, because one of the difficulties that
I think people face is not knowing where to turn, not knowing which program to
go to, not knowing where the opportunities are, and not knowing what exists for
them in the ways of training and what proportion of people are moving into that
area, particularly for those people who have left school or have left college,
and where there are difficulties in having access to career counselling.
I think many people feel very alone in this situation. That is really what I am trying to reflect
and to see if there is any kind of provision or any interest from the
government's perspective in providing for these adult unemployed; some kind of guidance
as to the way in which Manitoba sees its future.
Mr. Manness: The member is asking for information. I gather that, but certainly behind the
provision of that information, of course, would be the belief, I would dare
say, by the member that you can socially engineer this. You can try and build upon the skill set that
exists now and provide for everybody at the same time that you have got a whole
new group of graduates coming through the course at the same time that the
general work numbers, the general opportunities to work, are not growing
significantly. That is not a Manitoba
statement; that is a statement of the western world.
* (1920)
I can say to the member to the extent that we can measure
some of these areas. We cannot set up a
bureaucracy. Stats Canada, for instance,
has access only to limited questioning as far as measuring month‑to‑month
activity for a labour force. We are not
going to replicate that.
I say to the member that I guess we are going to have to
live with the model of measurement that we have at the present. That is not, I guess, that acceptable to her,
but we are going to have to live within the means that we have and continue to
bring forward the programs that we think are going to hit the mark, and then
after a period of time, evaluate and determine whether they are or not. If they are not, then we will make
changes. No different than ACCESS
Program.
In some respects, they were missing the mark; we made the
change. We will do that with all of our
programs as far as trying to support those who want to have a share in the
labour market.
Ms. Friesen: There does not seem any point in belabouring
this anymore. I had hoped for something
different from a new minister.
Can we look at the branch role in international
education? When it says in Estimates the
review of this branch role, is that a particular document that we are looking
for? Is that the expected result that
there will be a review of international education, or is this a continuing
event for the department?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is an
interdepartmental group of individuals who, particularly through I, T and T, through Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship and indeed our department, are trying to determine what direction
the government wants to take in keeping with its commitment to international
education.
Ms. Friesen: How does the minister define his commitment
to international education?
Mr. Manness: Through the recognition that we are an
advanced country, that we have an advanced level of education to the extent
that we can share in a broader context with those who are not as advantaged‑‑firstly,
and secondly, of course, to learn, to learn from what is happening in other
jurisdictions because of course we do not have the final solution to all of the
evolutionary trends that occur in education.
This will be the thrust.
Ms. Friesen: So this is a sharing of information? This is not a sharing of programs or‑‑I
will come to another thing in a minute.
Is that what it is? The minister
talks about it in terms of information and this government learning.
Mr. Manness: Of course, the benefit not only to those
students outside of the province but indeed ultimately we would hope there
would be some benefit to our own institutions and of course wealth‑creating
sectors who establish, through this outreach, relationships that hopefully will
last a generation and ultimately will make Canada and Manitoba a favoured place
as viewed from the outside. I am, I
guess, as close as I have come to this in my outside activities other than
being a representative of the people. I
have seen it work first‑hand, for instance, in the International Grains
Institute where we have a location and we bring in many people from
outside. They learn all about our
tremendous quality of wheat and how it is milled and all that, and they take
that knowledge back. Not only do the
people from developing countries eat better as a result of it, but the contacts
made here represent an incredible benefit to our institutions and indeed to our
wealth‑producing sector. So it is
a model that we want to expand.
* (1925)
Ms. Friesen: Just for my information‑‑I
realize it is not on this line or in this department‑‑but what is
the provincial contribution to the International Grains Institute?
Mr. Manness: None.
Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am glad the member asked the question,
because here is the way things should work.
Who makes that contribution? Obviously,
it is housed in a federal building, but beyond that, you have many of the
associations that are direct or indirect funded by the farm community who make
a tremendous contribution financially, dollar contribution. Here is a case where the provincial
government does not have to help directly so we can have more funds to send
back into public plant breeding.
The reality is, it is that whole business community, plus
the federal government, who support that institution. It is a wonderful model, and I wish within
the areas of hydro generation and some of our other areas where we have
incredible strengths that we could continue to build upon that model. It is a wonderful model.
Ms. Friesen: I am familiar with the Grain Institute,
something that we looked at when I was on The Forks board. I was not aware that there was a Manitoba
contribution, so I am interested to have that confirmed. The model that the minister applies to hydro
is also an interesting idea. Does the
minister have any plans to develop that?
Mr. Manness: It is kind of a wish now but certainly I
could ask the former deputy minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism for a
comment. We have a couple of working
relationships with provinces in China‑‑Shandong and Shenyang in
Henan [phonetic] provinces in a training capacity.
Again, this is the great frustration that I have is
Canada. There are three provinces in
Canada‑‑B.C., Manitoba and Quebec‑‑who are known as
world leaders in DC‑AC technology or direct current, pardon me, technology. You would think we would want to work
together for the good of all, but we tend not to in this country. Everybody is sort of wanting to try and
protect their‑‑I would not even call it turf‑‑but want
to get one up.
In my view, that was one area after we had visited it,
after I was part of the Premier's mission in visiting China, that there
certainly was greater opportunity. I
think ministers have asked hydro whether or not we could develop a plan, but I
do not think it has gone very far.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister's model
then for international education is primarily‑‑I do not know if it
is exclusively‑‑but primarily that sense of a higher, of an
advanced society in educational technical terms transmitting technology and
ideas to others in Manitoba and overseas.
I know that there are other models of international education, and one
particularly which I thought might have interested this particular government
is the use of education as a commodity and its sale overseas. If the minister has been recently in
southeast Asia, he will know that the Australians have gone extensively into
that kind of commodity export.
* (1930)
Mr. Manness: I guess as compared to maybe Australia, we
are probably somewhat behind. Our own
public institutions have not been out really hard selling. I guess they have not felt the real pressure
on the revenue side yet to do that.
Again, that just does not become a government
outreach. There are institutions that
also could be part of that. Yet I am
mindful of some, I think, forward thinkers even within our public school system
who sense that we could begin to sell some of the great educational
opportunities we have for exchange students and supplement revenues to the
public school system. Of course, with
that comes individuals who have their own experience and their own culture, and
we learn too. It is a very good model.
So I am aware what the member‑‑at least, I
think I understand what she is talking about.
It has really just come to my greater attention over the course of the
last several months personally, and yes, to the extent that we can help and
promote, we will.
Ms. Friesen: What I am looking for here is the branch role
or perhaps looking from the overall government perspective of who does lead in
this area. For example, some of the ones
that the minister I am sure is aware of‑‑Assiniboine Community
College obviously has international programs, and I have asked questions in
this area before and to the college directly of how do they plan, in fact, to
market these overseas, and that does not seem to be the direction they are
interested in at this point.
The University of Winnipeg has brought entire classes over,
particularly with Malaysia and a joint connection with a northern Malaysian
university, and is delivering the courses onsite here.
Now Australia has done both. It has in fact established colleges overseas.
It has brought entire classes of,
particularly, Malaysians to high schools in Australia, and it also has a
marketing program essentially for its own university courses.
There are obviously pluses and minuses to this, but when
people talk about knowledge‑based industries, it seems to me that one of
the obvious ones is that which begins in the classroom. I wonder who takes the lead in this in
government? The minister seems to imply
that it is up to the individual institutions and, I assume he is saying, school
boards themselves.
Mr. Manness: Well, we cannot, nor would we want to, stop
institutions for doing their own thing in this area, although as long as we do
not have an awful lot of overlap, duplication.
I can remember the last time I was in Japan borrowing money‑‑this
always comes back to money, does it not, Mr. Deputy Chairperson?‑‑and
the Premier had a reception at the Canadian consulate. I can remember unexpectedly showing up‑‑Michel
Janisse showing up, Continuing Education, University of Manitoba. I asked‑‑[interjection] He used
to be what? You probably know him well.
Ms. Friesen: Oh, yes.
Mr. Manness: Well, he and I, it did not take long before
we got into a battle of words. I guess
it is my nature more than his, and I said, well, from where did you come? He said, I just came from Fiji. I mean, I do not know whether there are great
opportunities to do exchanges or to sell education in Fiji or not, but the reality
being, I mean, there are only so many resources that can go to this, and they
had better be spent very well.
What the government is trying to do in the committee I am
talking about, the interdepartmental committee, is to put exactly a focus, a
government focus, to our efforts at least, and to clearly focus as to who we
want to reach. That has to be done and
is being done.
Ms. Friesen: What I am trying to get at is which
department takes the lead in this? It is
an interdepartmental committee that looks at international education. How often does it meet, and who is taking the
lead?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, our government, under
the leadership of the Premier, has worked very hard to try and break down this
turf of taking leads. In this exercise,
the report we made to the Economic Development Board, in other words, the
Premier's committee of cabinet, deals with the economy. So again, it is not anybody taking the lead;
it is the deputies and, indeed, their delegates coming closely to realize there
is no lead, that this is going to be a co‑operative effort, reporting to
the Economic Development Board of Cabinet.
Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask about the Winnipeg
development initiative and the role of labour force development in that
agreement, and what part this government is taking in the labour force
development section of that proposed agreement, which is one of four sections
of the agreement, I believe.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is one area that
I do not have the lead. This comes under
the leadership of the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), and certainly
we are just putting the final touches right now to greater definition under the
agreement.
Certainly, we recognize there will be a training
component. How that will be manifest is
too difficult to say at this time. We
really have not moved as far along as we may have liked. Right now it is basically an umbrella
agreement, and as the member knows, we have set aside some funds or will be
setting aside some funds, reaching out to the community for their input into
this process, and determinations will be made after that process.
Ms. Friesen: I understand that Urban Affairs will be the
ministry which carries through on this program.
I am looking at the planning aspect of it, and as I understand it, there
are four sections to that development agreement at the moment: a labour force development section, community
development, sectorial development and then an agreement management part.
The minister said that there will be funds provided from
this department for public input into the labour force development
section. Is that correct? Did I understand that right?
Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would think to
the whole agreement, covering the basic three Rs of economic, labour force and
community development.
Ms. Friesen: Will there be money from this department
going into the labour force training initiative development section, whatever
it is going to be called, that one part?
Mr. Manness: Nothing within our Estimates, no. But obviously in the sense that there is
going to be training, I mean, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) will fund
this through‑‑well, obviously the funding will be shown in a line
in Urban Affairs, so the Minister of Finance has decided to allocate all of the
funding under that departmental lead.
Ms. Friesen: Which department is doing the negotiation for
this, and who would be dealing with the labour force development section?
Mr. Manness: The Minister of Urban Affairs is doing all
the negotiating, but certainly there are other ministers that are meeting on a
more or less regular basis to lay out how it is they would like to see their
responsibility area begin to take shape.
Ms. Friesen: What is the direction of this department and
the labour force development section of this department in looking at that
agreement? I assume then that you are
advisory to the Minister of Urban Affairs or a part of delegations, or
interministerial committees, or whatever you want to call it, but there must be
some input from this department into that Winnipeg development initiative in
policy terms. This is the policy section
of the department.
Mr. Manness: That is correct. I liaise with the Minister of Urban Affairs.
Ms. Friesen: And what proposals is the government putting
forward?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is an
awful lot of shadowboxing going on right now with respect to three levels of
government which obviously all have different priorities, not specifically in
the three areas mentioned, but maybe throughout the whole agreement, so that is
what we are presently doing right now plus preparing to go to the public for
their input, and until all of that comes, it will be hard to say with certainty
what anybody's priorities are.
Ms. Friesen: When the minister talks about the potential
for public input, could he elaborate on that?
This is for Winnipeg development initiative so that it will be Winnipeg
public input. What is the form that is
going to take? When will it be? I mean, are we looking at a year or six
months or what kind of time frame?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot scoop my own
minister, and I will not. I will just
say, for the record, conceptually, it has been agreed upon that there will be a
public process. I would think it will
not be a year; I think it would be much sooner than that. As a matter of fact, I fully expect this will
occur‑‑
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Before the election.
Mr. Manness: What election? The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says
there is an election. Did you hear one
being called?
If we are going to give meaning to this agreement, as all
three levels of government, obviously we are going to have to have in place
this process pretty quickly.
* (1940)
Ms. Friesen: The minister indicated earlier, I think,
there would be some money from Manitoba going into that public process. Was that correct and is it coming from this
department?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know. The member asks questions that I cannot
answer, and I do not think anybody can answer right at this point in time. I do not know which three levels of the
government would fund the process, maybe each of the governments would put up a
share. Certainly our share, if called
upon to put up a share, would come out of that same line in Urban Affairs.
Ms. Friesen: One of the proposals under the labour force
section of that agreement or potential agreement is for a downtown education
centre. Does the minister, in this
section of the department, or in which section of the department should we
perhaps discuss that proposal?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, this is the
place. When the member says a proposal,
at this point, it is hard to know who is bringing forward that proposal. It may or may not be part of the
agreement. It is just too difficult to
say, and yet the agreement could conceivably lead in that direction, but it may
not either.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
I mean, again, there is an awful lot of uncertainty around
where dollars should be best spent on training.
Ms. Friesen: The public process that the minister is
anticipating for the Labour Force Development program, will that include
discussions of a downtown Winnipeg education centre?
Mr. Manness: Again, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
cannot respond fully and satisfactorily to the question because, as at this
point, all we know is there probably‑‑most of them, well, there
will be a process of public input, and I would have to think it would be
nonrestrictive. People can talk about
anything they want. There is going to be
a sizable amount of money, and I imagine people will come in and talk about
social programming. They will come and
talk about community development; they will be talking about infrastructure
commitment, economic sector development.
I expect people to come in and present a wide array of
issues around what they would like to see these millions of dollars directed
either to do or to build or to provide for in the future.
Ms. Friesen: The minister is anticipating that sooner than
a year, he said. Then, presumably after
that public process, the three levels of government then go back and come up
with a formal agreement. Does the
minister anticipate that formal agreement will be reached within this fiscal
year?
Mr. Manness: An agreement this fiscal year? Oh, I would fully expect so. If we do not have an agreement by March '95,
I am sorry‑‑I would call into question the process of three levels
of government coming to an agreement on anything.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not
really have any questions on this particular line. The only thing that I would ask is, because I
know that the member for Wolseley virtually covered a lot of territory over the
last few hours, the minister had, in reference to this strategic plan, if you
like, that the member for Wolseley implied or asked in terms of, well, this is
something that has been ongoing over the last number of years, and she has put
forward questions.
I am wondering if in fact the minister could just indicate,
is right now the office operating under what sort of a plan, or is there a plan
that they are operating from?
Mr. Manness: For the record again, there is a divisional
plan and a strategic plan that the government is working on, and it has been
made public in the past. Again, Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, both of those are public documents.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Item 16.4(e) Labour
Market Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $479,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $70,400‑‑pass.
Item 16.4(f)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $419,400.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do have a
number of questions on this particular area because it has been a concern that
I have risen over the last number of months to the Minister of Education and
the former Minister of Education, and that is the whole question in terms of
literacy and the government's commitment to fight illiteracy.
Actually, I guess it would have been about a week and a
half, two weeks ago, in fact, I had brought up the example of New
Brunswick. The Minister of Education had
indicated that he did not need to look in terms of what was happening in New
Brunswick for the simple reason that we have an excellent model in the province
of Manitoba, indeed a model that was being copied from other provinces or that
other provinces were copying because of the results of this particular model.
I am wondering if the Minister of Education can give some
sort of a detailed explanation in terms of what his model currently is.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, our model is
one where we ask the community to take ownership of Outreach to those in their
community who with some special attention and through the contribution of time
and effort and some funding will be successful in upgrading some basic literary
skills of our citizens. We have had the
model in place for some period of time with it.
We act as mentors, facilitators.
We monitor the program. We try
and make sure it moves off to a good start within the community, and we sort of
back away and just then watch.
I saw an incredible example of that recently in Winkler
where not only were there those who were contributing time and effort under
this program, but they came together with respect to Manpower, whatever the new
term is now today, Human Resources Development, and they came together also
with those who were trying to match supply and demand or the market of jobs,
but Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what struck me in that community, of course,
that where we did an opening of a learning centre and all of these various
groups of people and the programs that were in place and the people, of course,
who day to day administrated these programs, what we could not get over was
that they were outnumbered at this opening two to one by employers‑‑I
stress the word employers‑‑within that community.
The only point I am trying to make is that within the area
of literacy, within the area of training, within the area of trying to see
upgraded sets of skills so that individuals can make a fuller contribution to
society by way of their energy and/or their talents, however defined, that
through it all, the community better be actively involved or it does not work.
* (1950)
That is the model we have adopted here in Manitoba. It has been extremely successful in those
communities where individuals will take the challenge for the greater good of
humanity in their immediate district.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate how many, using the
minister's words, communities have in fact taken the challenge over the last
year?
Mr. Manness: 32.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister give an indication of the
number of students this would be applied to?
Mr. Manness: 1,085.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate how that compares
to previous years?
Mr. Manness: The year previous, 1,043.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister give us some sort of‑‑over the last four years. It seems that in the last couple of years the
government has made a commitment to fighting illiteracy. If he could just go back, it would be nice to
go back from '88, but that is fine, just a few more years than just the two.
Mr. Manness: The base three or four years previously is
around 650 students.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister‑‑and I am going
to go back to the community models‑‑he makes reference to the fact
that the private sector, if you like, is very keen and interested in
participating as an integral part to the success of some of these communities
that are taking ownership of the fighting of illiteracy. How is the government facilitating or
promoting or encouraging these communities other than to say, here is a program
and there are some dollars there? How is
the government promoting this program?
Mr. Manness: