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: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, within the limits of the resources that are available, of course, we build on what we have. People come forward, service groups, primarily, come forward and make application to provide some instruction within their communities, and to the extent that they provide the best proposal for their community, if indeed there are more than one, then a judgment has to be made. In some areas where, of course, already volunteer groups are in place, we will have to say no in those cases. In some cases where they exist in point A but in the community point B, nobody really wants to take the lead, we may ask the leadership in point A to share their expertise, in a sense reaching out to another location and providing their leadership.

So it is a combination of ways we handle the decisions around those who apply to come forward and contribute their time. I mean, there are a number who want to be added to the total list of those who are outreaching.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate in terms of the demand for literacy courses. Is it being met in his opinion?

Mr. Manness: In terms of individuals, yes, there is a very large demand. As these become successful in their own communities, of course, word spreads very quickly. The examples that I am used to, certainly there is a strong expectation of the students, and most students respond. They realize that this is an opportunity that may not be provided again, and so there is real learning that takes place. So in the communities where the model is working extremely well, we probably could reach more people if we had more resources.

In other cases‑‑he talks about groups coming forward. Last year, I think, we had a half dozen new groups come forward, and there may be more. Again, the restraint around resources maybe has curtailed the number of supporting groups within communities who might have otherwise come forward.

Mr. Lamoureux: What would be the financial breakdown or the dollars that are actually put towards these groups?

Mr. Manness: Almost two‑thirds of a million dollars, $650,000.

Mr. Lamoureux: Does the community itself participate financially and, if so, to what degree?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I forgot the first response I was going to make, but many of the communities contribute greatly in kind, whether that is heat, light, power or buildings. Some others, I do not know how many in number, also raised funds locally, through fundraisers, to support the general course, although that is not required.

Mr. Lamoureux: So there are no private dollars. It would be strictly donations right from that particular community, from volunteers?

Mr. Manness: No, not donations from volunteers, donations from people in the community during fundraiser time. I imagine businesses and individuals and other service groups, probably, if they sense it is working well within their community and they want it to continue to work well, if their is an appeal made, they will come forward and try to meet the specific goal in mind at that time.

Mr. Lamoureux: What sort of an impact would that have on‑‑if you have 32 different community groups that are out there currently, in terms of their abilities? No doubt some would have better abilities than others to be able to raise additional dollars in order to provide possibly better teachers for these courses. Is there any concern in that area?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we, in our mind, provide adequate resources, and to the extent that some communities want to go beyond that and raise money locally, obviously then it is an enhanced service, and many of the teachers to whom I have spoken are just incredible. They have sort of become a love of learning almost, and there is such a wealth of experience. These students who come along, of course, are just so willing to learn in many respects that there is a tremendous atmosphere developed within the classroom.

Mr. Lamoureux: What would be the actual cost of having one group?

Mr. Manness: The average cost is around $22,000.

Mr. Lamoureux: For each group, they go year long, or are there a certain number of weeks, a break, then they are back at it for another period of weeks? Are these ongoing groups, or are these more so one‑time groups that will take a look at the community and then dismantle after they have provided one course? How does that work itself?

* (2000)

Mr. Manness: Well, we generally recommend, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, a 35‑week programming period, and although that varies depending on the course of study, that is the general guideline.

Mr. Lamoureux: Now, if that would be a 35‑week, that would be just for one group then, and that would be a cost of, on average, $22,000, and the only dollars then are strictly virtually provincial dollars, which would be adequate enough for them to provide that full 35 weeks for each group.

Mr. Manness: I think it varies. There is part programming time here. I mean, not all programs run 35 weeks. It varies from program to program. I guess the basic literacy times‑‑I mean, if you are taking some heavy remedial language arts or math, that would tend to be, I think, a fuller portion of the 35 weeks, but it is not that uniform across all these program areas.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister can give us some sort of indication of the amount of or the percentage of the population being illiterate. I know through Statistics Canada they have thrown a number of different percentages. I have heard it as high, for example, as being up to 70,000 in the city of Winnipeg, but there is a number of things that are taken into account which do not necessarily reflect that particular number that was suggested. I am wondering if the minister can give us some sort of an indication of just how severe a problem illiteracy is in the province.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have just been presented this material by Mr. Devron Gaber. I am sorry I did not introduce him earlier.

All we have to go by is Statistics Canada numbers. Certainly, for some period of time, many of us have felt that the 30 percent statement that has been made has been overstated. As a matter of fact, I have taken a severe kicking around from the public school system which said: Well, you did not stand up and say that it was much lower. Really, basically, it is 2 or 3 percent. Well, I mean, how do you know with certainty what it is?

I will share with the member what Stats Canada says. This is the results of the survey using a functional literacy continuum with four levels, and it says: 7 percent of Canadian adults have difficulty dealing with printed materials. That is Level I. Nine percent can use printed materials for limited purposes only, such as finding a familiar word in a simple text. That is Level II. Twenty‑two percent can use reading materials in a variety of situations provided the material is simple, clearly laid out and the tasks involved are not too complicated. These adults generally do not see themselves as having significant reading difficulties but tend to avoid situations requiring reading. That is Level III. Sixty‑two percent meet most everyday reading demands. That is Level IV.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

So those are the level breakouts and the member can put his own interpretation to them, but, I mean, this is the StatsCan overview of literacy. But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before I close, certainly they are going to another survey as this particular statistic is drawing an awful lot of attention these days.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister give some sort of indication of where geographically in the province there is a higher need for literacy courses?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, without knowing with certainty, we would have to think that northern Manitoba would have a higher incidence of those without the ability to read certainly at Level IV.

Mr. Lamoureux: Would that be the greatest breakdown that the minister would actually have in terms of illiteracy? For example, I would cite possibly the inner city of Winnipeg might have a problem with illiteracy.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have that because Stats Canada does not have it. I mean, the information which I provided is based on a survey of 9,500 adults between the ages of 16 and 69 across Canada, 4 percent‑‑if the survey has been done right‑‑of that total have been surveyed in Manitoba, and whether you can draw any trends or not region by region in the province of Manitoba, I would question whether there is any scientific validity if you could.

Mr. Lamoureux: Was there not a Literacy Task Force that this particular government did have a few years back, and would they not have looked into that?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, and certainly that group interviewed people far and wide across the province, but it was not based on a scientific survey of any means, one that could allow anybody to draw objective conclusions.

Mr. Lamoureux: So the minister does not have really too much of an idea in terms of where the greatest potential demand for fighting illiteracy is in the province other than the statement that, well it could be, we suspect, in northern Manitoba?

Mr. Manness: The demand comes forward from the community groups who want to sponsor, and I dare say my greater responsibility right now is to try and stop the trend increase in this area, if indeed it is trending upward, by way of making improvements in the public school system. Surely that is a better way, a much better way to address this situation in a meaningful manner.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are a number of generations that in fact are not going through the public school system right now, and the minister refers that this is actually through the community groups and where the community groups come to the Minister of Education or to the department.

I am wondering if the minister believes that there are some areas where you maybe do not get the same sort of community support as other areas of the province of Manitoba. Does he not believe that would be the case?

Mr. Manness: Well, remember that the target groups are basically two, those who are studying English as a second language and the aboriginal component of our society. I mean, those are the basic target groups. That is what the report says, and as far as community groups coming forward or not, well, that may very well be the case, but I do not know what the member is inferring here.

The community will always do it better than government, and, of course, it is the challenge of every community to look around and see if they can help those who basically are short of some basic literacy skills at this point.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, out of the 32 groups, for example, how many of those groups would actually be in the north end of Winnipeg?

Mr. Manness: Five within the core, four within the greater definition of the north end.

Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister in fact provide for the committee or for myself a copy of where all of the 32 groups are throughout the province? I wanted to comment because on the program or the model that the minister himself talks so very highly of, opposition has continuously been criticized, particularly from this minister, in terms of always wanting to see more dollars being spent and never coming up with ideas or alternatives or better ways to spend money.

An Honourable Member: That is right.

* (2010)

Mr. Lamoureux: From his seat he says, that is right. A couple of weeks ago, I had asked specifically a question with reference to the New Brunswick model that was there. The minister's response to me was that Manitoba's model was in fact good enough, that it was being copied. Before I go on to the New Brunswick model, I would ask the Minister of Education if he is aware of any other provinces that are following Manitoba's lead on fighting illiteracy?

Mr. Manness: Right today Nova Scotia and the Yukon are shifting over to a community‑based model. Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territories have a similar community‑based model.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do believe that the minister is right, that the best way to do it is through a community‑based model. The model that I had pointed out to the Minister of Education goes a bit beyond in terms of not only being community‑based but also providing a manner in which the private sector in the community itself can get directly involved in the promotion and in ensuring that where there is the highest demand that in fact there are better opportunities for these groups to get up and running.

I know, for example, in New Brunswick, we have seen, I believe it was approximately over 4,000 individuals that went through literacy programming. The province itself contributed approximately 50 percent of the funding for these particular programs, and the private sector got involved in a very significant way. The national government also contributed a significant amount, but it is in fact community‑based, driven, and members from the community as a whole, through business and management, virtually runs the corporation.

I am wondering if in fact the Minister of Education has given any thought whatsoever to moving towards that sort of a model, or does he feel his model will suffice for the up and coming years.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one thing you had better do when you are a critic and you are trying to dialogue with people in other provinces, particularly when you are of the same political stripe and they give you information, is you better be very careful how it is you ascertain or determine the validity of this information. The member threw out a number the other day in the House when he said there were 2,900 students in one year. We tried to verify that. We know that in '93‑94 the New Brunswick program started with about 1,665 students. So maybe he has the latest information, I do not know.

The member challenges then to put up a program, and that causes to be generated within the local community some money. Well, the New Brunswick model did that. They thought that they would enter a model where communities were expected to contribute $3,000 each. The fact is, the communities did not come up with $3,000 and the government had to find another $94,000 because there was a shortfall.

So I only caution the member that when he says that there are models out there that are better than what we have, that he fully explore to what end they have delivered. We have done evaluations on ours, and of course I am almost certain that no evaluation has been done on the students who have graduated or come forth from the New Brunswick model. We have done evaluations on our students. Other provinces do evaluations.

So, again, I do not have to have the New Brunswick model thrown at me as being leading in this area, because I honestly do not think it is. Yet I recognize it too as a community‑based program. I have spoken to the individual‑‑and I am sure, because I spoke to him in Victoria about a year ago, who is a Manitoban and as a matter of fact worked in our department I think about 15 years ago‑‑who has gone and designed this program. I forget his name right now, I think his name is Smith or something. I am not going to run down anybody else's program, but similarly, when the member jumps up in public profile and says, hey, here is this wonderful model out there, why did you not think of doing this, in a sense being critical, I am saying, no, I do not need to take that when we are starting and maybe being a little bit less flamboyant than New Brunswick tends to do things.

Yet I do know that we have a pretty fair model, and let us continue to build on it. Let us continue to entice the community groups that come forward, not by way of money, but by way of the satisfaction they receive from contributing of their time and energy. We ultimately will end up with a better model, and that will be proven more importantly by the evaluation that is performed with respect to the students, and that is all we really care about, is it not?

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that would in fact be first and foremost on everyone's minds, is students. That is the reason why in a discussion that I had with the province of New Brunswick, the minister could say or attempt to say that I am giving it 100 percent full endorsation and say that we have to move in that direction if he so chooses.

I compare the model not in depth. I do not have the same resources as the Minister of Education has. My resources are much more finite as a critic, but I do believe that the concept that is being used over in the province of New Brunswick is a viable concept in that the Minister of Education, when they were talking about literacy, I believe it was their 1991 throne speech or it could have been the '92 throne speech, made a commitment to combat illiteracy in the province of Manitoba.

If they are serious about this commitment, one would think that they would in fact be reviewing other models that are out there and picking up. I would ask the minister, does he feel, for example, that the private sector is prepared to put in dollars towards fighting illiteracy, or would he oppose the private sector getting involved to the same degree that they are in New Brunswick?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is an awful lot of workplace literacy training going on within our province. The federal government for the most part picks up the tab of that, but we do the co‑ordinating. It comes under this branch and this division. So we have an effective and real involvement. It is occurring, and it is far beyond the discussion we have had on the 32 groups who are presently providing service at this time.

But further to his point about dialogue, there will be a meeting in Winnipeg in June of all provinces who are engaged in this area of programming, and at that time, there will be a sharing of, I will not say resources, but certainly a sharing of what each is doing and the reflections on what is working and what is not working, as well.

That is what we try to do during these times because we no longer can guarantee that we will all have the best solutions, and during this time, we at times have to share responsibilities and information, particularly information. It is just so essential today in Canada.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister give us a couple of examples of some of the workforces that actually have a literacy course being taught to the workers?

Mr. Manness: I could give the example of Fort Garry Industries. I can talk about Westeel, Canadian Liquid Air, Chemcrest, North American Life, Kitchen Craft, Dominion Bridge, Motor Coach, Winnipeg Hi‑Therm, Manitoba Pool, Versatech, Labatt's Brewery, Atom‑Jet, Qualico homes, Salisbury House, Great‑West Life, again. So we have a listing at this point of 38 projects within the private sector.

Mr. Lamoureux: Does the provincial government have any role in those projects?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have the full‑time co‑ordinator who puts the programs together for these hosting employers, and then, of course, we go in and do a monitoring and an evaluation. So yes, we have a big role to play.

What the employer, of course, provides is half the payroll cost to the employee during his period of training. I suppose the other half comes from the employee, and then the federal government pays the teacher. So that is the split. The employee in essence works for half wage. The employer pays the other half. The federal government pays the trainer, and we contribute the program development, monitoring and evaluation.

* (2020)

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate the success rate, like how many numbers of individuals is this reaching out to?

Mr. Manness: At this time 234, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

Mr. Lamoureux: That is 234 with all the businesses that the minister just listed off. Would that include ESL, English as a Second Language?

Mr. Manness: No, that is separate, beyond that. Of course, that program, as the member knows, is housed in Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.

Mr. Lamoureux: Through the Literacy line, does this department deal with at all English as a Second Language, other than possibly indirectly through the school division?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, within the formal setting of the school divisions, particularly Winnipeg School Division No. 1, that does not involve us. I mean, there is a separation as between our outreach here and the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and/or Education per se.

Where we get involved with ESL again is within the community‑supported program where roughly 34 percent of the students we are talking about, totalling a little over 1,000, are basically ESL students. It is that group, that roughly 350 that we deal with under ESL programming.

In the workplace also, there is a dimension of outreach ESL on an ESL basis. I mean, there, it is writing skills that are a shortcoming, as compared to speaking and communicating skills.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mostly just for clarification, no dollars from this particular line would go towards ESL.

Mr. Manness: Not in the generic sense, no, because that is funded out of Culture. I mean, our contribution is within the programming area by way of staff time, and this is grants that go out to the community groups, a good portion of this, and, of course, some part of that goes to ESL in the more narrow definition.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the only other thing I would like to get is just, again, going back to the community groups themselves, to get some sort of an idea, if there is a community that would like to establish one, can the minister go through what would be the process of actually establishing one of these groups?

Mr. Manness: Well, I imagine, first of all, coming down and making contact with the branch, getting a feel for the program, and then deciding whether or not wanting to proceed and filing an application with the‑‑[interjection] That is right, in conjunction with the needs assessment, and making application to the branch, and through that convincing the branch that, first of all, the needs are there and, secondly, that it is a group worthy of taking on this onerous responsibility, and I guess once that match happens, and within the funding available to this program, ultimate acceptance and then the beginning of the program.

Mr. Lamoureux: The group is anticipated to form a board‑‑is that the idea?‑‑which would be elected from that particular community.

Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, somebody has to be ultimately responsible and held accountable. Of course, this would be a nonprofit group, but nevertheless it has to be formally structured.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate if in fact the number of groups that are actually applying‑‑are there groups in fact being turned down?

Mr. Manness: I guess it depends what words we use. Some are turned down, yes, because of the reasons I have mentioned before, particularly if they come forward in an area where already a need is being addressed. In some cases, they are turned down because of greater requirements elsewhere, and obviously resources might cause the turndown and the placement on a waiting list for some others. Again, I remind the member, it is a geographical issue. It is not like first come, first served, or we have one here, but somebody else wants to rush in with a good program. It would be more like, well, where is the deficiency right now? Where is the greatest need? Is there somebody prepared to do that? That would, of course, jump the queue, I would imagine, come to the front.

Mr. Lamoureux: So that if in fact there were additional resources, we would see more of these groups out there. I am wondering if one says, for example, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that we have a finite or this is how much in terms of dollars this government or this minister is prepared to allocate out towards these groups, does he feel that there are other means that the government might be able to get involved and to assist in generating additional dollars to meet that demand that is apparently out there, because if in fact you are turning down groups, it would seem that it would be the case?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member's point reflects some of my own concern and certainly another year we will again, as we have, try not to starve this branch. It is one that is very important.

To the extent we can find any additional dollars, we would want to favour this group, and this year we had an 11 percent increase. It was one of the few lines in government in 1993‑94 that experienced this level of increase, so we are not disagreeing here. It is a very worthy area of programming and one that we are going to continue to try to foster, because again, so much of the time and effort, indeed the result, is of course because of the giving of local individuals.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister indicated that some would be turned down because of priorities, in the sense that a greater emphasis elsewhere because possibly, again, he made reference to geographics, or demographics if you like. That indicates to me that the department would have some idea in terms of where it is in fact most needed. I am wondering what they would be using for statistical information to reach that.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is no different than Manitoba Telephone System deciding to put up towers in support of cell phones. I mean, you geographically look at your major centres rurally, and you know that you try and have a presence scattered throughout the province in keeping where the populations are, and therefore the overriding criteria is that one will not be any closer than 25 kilometres to the next in a rural context. Of course, once we get into the cities of Brandon and Winnipeg, then it is a different approach.

That is the overriding criteria, but certainly, I mean, we have no statistics, as I have indicated before, that suggest that three‑quarters of the community support groups should be in the city of Winnipeg. We sense, though, that of course to the extent that there are more community‑based groups in the city of Winnipeg who would like to come forward in support, I would have to think there certainly would be a greater opportunity for them to be part of this program. So the issues are, of course, needs assessment, the local effort being put forward‑‑[interjection] That is right; and of course after a local needs assessment has been conducted.

* (2030)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so the priorities would be population based more than demographically based in terms of economics.

Can the minister indicate how many of these groups that have met the criteria through needs assessment and the local input of active boards and so forth, but would have been turned down, let us say over last year and the previous year, how many would have been turned down?

Mr. Manness: Last year there were four applications that were not funded.

Mr. Lamoureux: Those four groups, that would have been because they did meet the criteria?

Mr. Manness: A combination of funding and the fact that there were other service providers within that area. In other words, somebody was already there.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister indicate which four would have been turned down, not necessarily the names of the individuals or the community group, just more so the general regions, whether it is in northern Manitoba, or Winnipeg or Brandon.

Mr. Manness: There was a support group in the Seine River School Division. I do not know based in what towns specifically. There was a group in southeast Winnipeg. There was a group just outside of Portage, and there was another group in Winnipeg in the Shaughnessy Park area.

Mr. Lamoureux: The Shaughnessy Park really interests me. That is the area that I represent.

An Honourable Member: Oh, so that is why you asked the question.

Mr. Lamoureux: No, that is not‑‑well, it is not why I initially had asked the question, but it is definitely worth pursuing.

Again, the minister indicates that it is strictly based on population or that that is one of the primary reasons why they decide to accept or turn down, because they do not want too many around one specific area or in rural Manitoba within the 25 miles, as he had made reference to.

I am wondering if he can indicate where the literacy course is in the Shaughnessy Park area.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is one in the King Edward School, but, again, to the extent that there are well‑prepared applications and there is a comfort zone around the host group and finance has come available, we understand there will have to be a broadening of this in the city of Winnipeg.

So if that is the point that the member is trying to draw, I have no problem supporting that.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the minister, because the minister had made reference to the fact that they are not too sure of the actual number or the percentage of illiteracy in the city of Winnipeg, that they do not know how they could go about tracking it or they might know how they could go about it, but they have not tracked it before. So it might be an appropriate thing for me to be able to comment a bit about Shaughnessy Park.

Shaughnessy Park is an older area of the city of Winnipeg. If you take a look at the demographics in Shaughnessy Park, especially if you go towards Gilbert Park, which is a nonprofit housing complex, which houses approximately‑‑I believe there are about 240 units and a number of them are vacant. Eighty percent, I hope the minister will not quote me on the actual percentage, but I believe around 80 percent are single parents. Illiteracy is in fact a very serious problem. There is, and I do not know if this is the same group that in fact applied, but I do know, for example, that we did get a resource centre over the last couple of years put up in Gilbert Park. I am sure the minister being the former Minister of Finance might even be aware of the resource centre coming up.

An Honourable Member: We did that for you, Kevin.

Mr. Lamoureux: I appreciate the minister doing that for me. [interjection] I am glad it would be mainly for my constituents.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the things that we want to be able to develop in that area is some programming that would see the community be able to address some of the social problems that are around it. It is not to say that just Gilbert Park would be in need of a literacy course. There are a number of families that I have met with first‑hand that have expressed concerns with educational opportunities. It is very affordable housing in this area of the city, and you will find that in fact there is a very high demand, I would imagine, for a literacy course. It would be interesting, and I know the minister made comment that he will provide for me a listing of all the different literacy programs, the 32 of them that are scattered throughout the province of Manitoba.

I guess it would be somewhat advantageous for the minister to be able to sit down, to look at those 32 groups, and to look in terms of the communities that they are serving and compare them to Shaughnessy Park and see where he feels the demand is most needed.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Shaughnessy Park is a wonderful place to live. I do not believe it would rank right at the bottom in terms of illiteracy in the province of Manitoba. I would likely argue that Shaughnessy Park is a community that could use a program of this nature, more so than many other communities that are out there. That is why it would be interesting to see, in terms of where the other 32 programs are. I am aware of at least one community, the Gilbert Park Tenants' Association, I am sure, would be more than happy to take on some of the responsibility of ensuring that the course could in fact be implemented.

What concerns me first and foremost, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is not because I represent the area of Shaughnessy Park, but it proves a point that I tried to make earlier, and that is that there is a responsibility of government, of the Department of Education, the provincial government, to find out where these services are most needed. So that, if we are talking about a finite amount of resources, we are serving those communities that need it the most. I am not convinced that has in fact been happening.

The minister has talked about doing what he can to increase the levels of literacy. I would argue, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that there is a considerable amount more that the minister could do, right across.

For example, from Shaughnessy Park we have got industrial parks in which there are a number of businesses that, I am sure, would be able to contribute, if in fact it is just a question of dollars. I do not think that the private sector is the only group that has to get involved in this. Government has to lead. Government has to take on the responsibility of providing these courses.

If, in fact, they are not able to provide the needed amount of financial resources to be able to facilitate individuals from acquiring the ability to read and write because of a philosophical bent, in the sense that they are on the side of minimal government involvement, well, they still have a responsibility to do what they can in terms of what dollars they do allocate for programs for literacy, allocated where they are most needed.

* (2040)

I would ask the minister specifically, because the minister and the department is not aware of the demographics or the social demographics of the areas in which these 32 groups are currently in, will the minister review those 32 groups and at the very least sit down at a table and get some sort of an assessment, if he feels that the demand, because of the finite amount of resources, that we are putting all the programs in the ideal places?

I might not have had as strong a base to argue from if Shaughnessy Park did not apply for this particular program, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but Shaughnessy Park did apply. So even using the minister's argument by saying it has to be community driven, well the community of Shaughnessy Park is driving it. They are saying that we do want to have a course, and the minister says, good, and yes I am very glad to see it. I am sure I would likely even know a couple of the individuals who are driving it, but that is all that much more reason why it is the Department of Education should be better able to make the decisions in terms of where these programs should be approved.

Again, the Minister of Education could likely prove me wrong by saying, well, we could only afford 32 this year, here are the 32, and I look at the 32 and you find that 20 of them are northern Manitobans in some of the remote regions where there is very high demand, and you have‑‑well the minister indicated that there were, I believe it was, four in the inner city. But Shaughnessy Park in particular, if you talk to, for example, the principal of Shaughnessy Park high school‑‑this particular individual has a great deal of experience with inner city schools. This individual would be able to indicate to you very clearly, I believe, the needs of the community when it comes to literacy because he is dealing with the children of the many single parents who are out there and shares the frustration, I am sure, that I have with trying to ensure that programs are in fact made available for where they are most needed.

That is one of the primary reasons why I have been, I like to believe, a very strong advocate of government playing a more active role in fighting illiteracy in the province of Manitoba. Having said that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be interested in hearing what the Minister of Education has to say.

Mr. Manness: The member put some good comments on the record. Naturally he will now be able to take them out to the host group there and show his strong commitment to the program, and I think he wants to make the same remarks with respect to the King Edward Community Group.

I will just say that I agree with what he said and we are trying to find additional resources that we can. We did a year ago and will continue to try and see this program grow within the limits that are obviously imposed on all programming these days.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister mentioned that there are 32 groups currently. Is he anticipating the number of groups to increase for '94‑95?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is where it becomes more difficult because one thing we know, you cannot start one group and then have it working well like most of these are‑‑I gather they are all working fairly well‑‑and then say ah, we are going to stop the level of support and now move the money from here and start a new one. So I do not know whether there will be room for significant increase in term of '94‑95, but hopefully there will be in the year following.

Mr. Lamoureux: Out of the current 32 groups, is this something that is approved annually, so, for example, if it is demonstrated clearly to the Minister of Education that the demand is very strong in the Shaughnessy Park area, that the minister would be prepared to bump if necessary in order to get Shaughnessy Park involved in this particularly program?

Mr. Manness: Unless we have performance problems associated with some of the existing 32, or something collapses and resources are freed up, the answer is no.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the future is not bright then for areas similar to Shaughnessy Park in the sense that they are being told that we have 32 groups that are in place right now; it does not appear that we will be able to increase the number of groups in the future. The government, albeit gave an increase on this particular line, it is abundantly clear that the band is not even closely being met for the need of additional community groups.

I would then, again, ask the minister, does he believe‑‑and again it is not to say that we would not want to commit more dollars to this, but does the minister himself believe that there are other things that could be done to enhance the amount of dollars going to combat illiteracy in the province of Manitoba?

Has he explored the possibility, for example, of getting the communities, where some communities can afford to pitch in‑‑where other communities cannot afford, well, you cannot draw blood from a stone‑‑but to look at something that would enable the private sector to get involved, unions possibly to get involved.

Maybe there is a role for the community outside of the politicians, outside of the provincial government to start participating because this government is not prepared to throw in additional dollars yet. When we are saying no to areas like Shaughnessy Park, the long‑term costs of not providing a literacy course is going to be significantly higher.

So I would ask the Minister of Education, what is he prepared to do to ensure that additional resources in the future will be coming to combat illiteracy, to ensure that areas like Shaughnessy Park will be given the opportunity to be able to have programs of this nature?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a year ago, when I was the Minister of Finance and I brought down my last budget, I put a list out of receiving groups which were no longer going to receive grants, and I can remember the members opposite chewed me out almost for every one of them. But at that same time, we provided an 11 percent increase in this line, and I cannot remember one word of tribute or indeed commendation coming to the government for the increase. So the member does not have to tell me as to what the priority is that we have put on literacy training within our province.

* (2050)

Do I wish I had more money to reach out in larger fashion? Of course I do, but I do not. Yet, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we tried and made all the changes we did and increased funding in this line last year, it drew not a note of comment from the member opposite.

So I say to him, you know, if he wants to play fair here, then recognize what effort has been provided in support of this line. Do I wish we could double it? Yes, I do, but the fact is it is going to have to be subject to the same pressures around all areas of programming that we have in government. It certainly is on the favoured list. I say that in all sincerity, and to the extent that we can find any additional dollars within the department, certainly this area of programming will be a high‑level candidate for receiving those extra dollars.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister says that if he could double it, he would double it, but because of financial constraints he is not prepared to be able to enhance it any further in terms of financial resources from the government.

The question that I had asked him was, what about looking at groups, whether it is the Manitoba Federation of Labour, the chamber of commerce, the private sector that is out there, some of the very strong social activist groups that are out there, getting them around the table and seeing if we can come up with a model that would see more participation? Monetary participation would be one of the major objectives of this group of individuals that would be sitting at the table.

(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

I would argue, and I am sure the Minister of Education would agree with me‑‑maybe put it in a few different words‑‑that the more literate our society is, the better quality of life all of us will have, because through a literate society, ultimately you will be able to have an impact on things, whether it is the GNP or the quality of life, if you like, as a whole, to allow more individuals to participate in society.

So I would ask the minister specifically, is he prepared to meet with individuals, groups, outside of government to see if they have a role to play in combating illiteracy?

Mr. Manness: In a broad thrust, I do not, but what I do have, and indeed my predecessor set this in place, is an advisory council on literacy. That council, although not overly active this last year, is reconstituting, and one of the challenges that we will give to it is exactly what the member indicates, to approach the community as to how it is we might bring in additional sources of revenue and/or maybe even setting up a foundation which will spin off yearly revenues or dividends to help. So yes, we will put that challenge out to the council that is constituted.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am encouraged to hear that, and I will look forward to hearing about the advisory council actually getting together. I do not know when the last time it was that it met, but I do look forward to hearing something in the not‑too‑distant future with reference to the government taking some form of action on that.

The other aspect is of course the methodology in determining which community groups will get these programs. I would ask the minister if he would also be prepared to have the advisory council review how the different community groups are in fact prioritized.

Mr. Manness: When my predecessor, the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) was the Minister of Education and put into motion this whole process, the Literacy Council of course was instrumental in helping him forge policy in this area. So the government did not just develop this model on their own, and that is why it has been bought into by so many groups because there were outside resources and highly motivated individuals who helped design it. This just was not designed internally. The community does have an ownership to the model that we have in place.

Again, it rose out of the task force report which sought the views of the wider community throughout Manitoba. So it is the perfect process. It is what members have been encouraging us to do in all dimensions with respect to public policy: say generally what you want to do; go out to the public for feedback; see how it is; what methodologies they might want to see encompassed within a policy; and ultimately, build a plan and see it implemented. I mean, this is a textbook case. The community has ownership of this model.

So I do not know, I hope he is not being critical and I hope he is not sensing that it has just been developed under some monopoly of the human mind trust within the department. It is beyond that. It certainly is a community project.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would be somewhat concerned if the Literacy Council, going through that entire process that the minister just finished talking about, came back and did not give any consideration to the need to have some sort of socioeconomic database that would allow the Department of Education to determine where these programs would be most needed. I am wondering if in fact that is the case.

Mr. Manness: Does the member want us to spend money measuring or getting on with the job? Because I can tell you, two‑thirds of a million dollars could be spent overnight in support of StatsCan doing a more in depth measurement and analysis. That would be spent overnight. I know the member does not want to believe that, but two‑thirds of a million dollars does not go very far when it gets taken to the bureaucracy for the purposes of measurement, scientifically. And I underline the word twice, "scientifically," because that is what he is asking us to do. And I say to him, no, let us spend the money right now where we are pretty sure the needs are, and let us deliver the program. And that is what we are doing.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not think it has to be scientific to get a better idea of where the demands are potentially the greatest. I think that just by looking, for example, at the‑‑I believe Statistics Canada gives some sort of an income base‑‑not evaluation, a report on income of the average family through postal codes, for example. I think by spending 20 minutes of looking at those sort of statistical‑‑or that sort of statistical information‑‑I should not even say 20 minutes‑‑spending possibly a day or two from the literacy office analyzing that sort of information would, in fact, give the Department of Education a fairly decent idea of where it is that literacy programming is needed more than other areas.

I do not believe‑‑you know, at least that would be better than what the department is currently doing. Again, you know I have to say it with some reservation in the sense that I have not seen the 32 groups that are currently going in their actual locations. So everything that I have said I would have liked to believe is fairly accurate in terms of just with the minimal information I have been provided. But that is why I do hope that the minister will get me that information relatively soon, and define soon, before we get out of session anyway. If not, even in the next couple of days would be wonderful, because even when we go onto the ministerial salary, if the minister can give it to me by then, it might be either a good opportunity for me to do a bit of back‑tracking possibly, but I think that what it will do is likely reinforce what it is that I have been talking about.

Again I would emphasize to the minister that the minister should be establishing priorities in terms of the selection of programs or communities, not only strictly on population density or, in rural Manitoba, a radius of 25 miles or whatever it was that the minister made reference to, that there has to be more of a scientific approach to just‑‑there are 600,000 people in Winnipeg, so they get 60 percent of the programs, and north Winnipeg has this.

* (2100)

Mr. Manness: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, it does not work that way. This is a community‑based program that says that if the community base wants it, they will get it prior their needs. I am sorry, I cannot help that sponsoring groups in the city of Winnipeg have chosen not to come forward. They exist everywhere. They exist everywhere within the city. [interjection] Well, there were two rurals that were turned down, too. So the member is trying to already make this a political issue.

I will give him the list, and the list is this: Brandon Friendship; Camperville Adult; Dauphin Friendship; Salvation Army of Winnipeg; Russell‑Binscarth; Lord Selkirk School Division, Selkirk; Pembina Valley Language Education, Pembina Valley; The Pas Friendship Centre, The Pas; Ka‑Wawiyak Friendship Centre, Powerview; Aboriginal Literacy Foundation, Winnipeg; Pluri‑Elles, St. Boniface; Swan River Adults, Swan River; John Howard, Winnipeg, Headingley; Stevenson‑Britannia, Winnipeg; Samaritan House, Brandon; Agassiz Independent Learning Centre, Beausejour; Central American Literacy Program, Winnipeg; Ma‑Mow‑We‑Tak Friendship Centre, Thompson; King Edward Community Group, Winnipeg; Transcona Literacy, Transcona; Association of Parents and Professionals for Literacy Education, Virden; Lynn Lake Adult Education Program, Lynn Lake; Pluri‑Elles, St. Malo; Central Manitoba Literacy Association, Portage; Journeys Adult Education, Winnipeg; Winnipeg Volunteer Reading Aides, Central Winnipeg; Flin Flon Adult Literacy Committee, Flin Flon; Steinbach and Area Language and Literacy Adult Service for Adults, Steinbach; Pluri‑Elles, St. Claude; Interlake Region Adult Basic Education, Gimli; Garden Valley School Division, Winkler; Rhineland School Division, Altona.

Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member may want to take fault with the list. I think that is a pretty good representation across the province and the city of Winnipeg. To the extent that there are other sponsoring groups strongly in Winnipeg wanting to do this and funds become available, that will happen. I do not need to sit here and listen to the member try and leave the impression on the record that this is favouring rural Manitoba.

He is saying, do the needs assessment. Can he tell me any one of those communities that does not have the need. Two things have to line up: the needs, No. 1; and No. 2, a community‑sponsoring group coming forward. If one of them is missing, then obviously the community‑based program cannot work. So then he would say, well, the government should take a more active role, it should fund more, it should, what, entice somebody to come forward from the community. This is nonsense, Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson.

I think this is a good program, and I am very defensive with respect to the methodology put into place for selection. It is not government imposed. We took the views of the community at large, representatives from the city of Winnipeg who sit on a literacy council. The methodology is in place. The locations to date are in place. If we had more money we would even do a better job, and we will try and find more money.

Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry. I rest my case on this. I have nothing more to add for the record.

Mr. Lamoureux: One final question and that is: Would the minister agree that, yes, there is a need in all of those that he just listed off, but does he not also agree that in some areas there might be more of a need? Is that a fair statement? It is not to be antirural or anti one end of the city of Winnipeg than the other. Does he recognize that there is a difference between need in the sense that some areas there might be a higher need and still the community groups are still there saying we want it but they have been turned down?

Mr. Manness: With the mechanisms we have in place today to measure that need, in our view, we have done a wonderful job and we have reached out into the areas of greatest need, because there is great need everywhere.

When you start to measure 20 or 25 percent, obviously it just is not located in pockets. It is obviously a problem that is pretty uniform across the piece.

The member can shake his head off till the cows come home. I am telling you, Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the reality is, this program is reaching out in a fairer fashion. I agree with him to the extent we can find more money to make it even better, we will.

Ms. Friesen: The member for Inkster's questions about need in establishing priorities are interesting ones. Some years ago this department did have a report by Arthur Mauro and I understand the present new deputy minister, which did indicate other ways of establishing community needs. It talked about developing a labour force development strategy, of which the second step was community committees which were going to establish the skill needs and training priorities of particular regions. It does not necessarily involve the kind of expense which the ministry immediately looked at, but it is an alternative way of ensuring that the community can become involved in defining the need and does it on a systematic basis. Since we never saw the first step of that labour force development strategy, it is unlikely that we are going to see the second step.

I am trying to follow some of the financial lines over the last three years here, and I am not quite sure what I am seeing so I am asking for some assistance here. Under the current line that we are looking at, 16.4(f), it is identified as Literacy and Continuing Education.

Last year, it was also identified as Literacy and Continuing Education, but the year before, the one that the minister I think identified as the base line, when he was trying to show the increase in funding for Literacy, Continuing Education was not included. I am wondering if the actual money follows that line.

There seemed to me to be three terminologies that are used in the current explanation of this line, basic education, adult education, continuing education and literacy. So I am trying to follow how much money has been devoted to Literacy specifically, which in 1992‑93 was $909,500, in 1991‑92, it was $891,000, and then it does take a jump with the expansion, the addition of Continuing Education in '93‑94.

So I wonder if the minister and his staff would have the material here to try and sort that out, the responsibilities for this particular line.

Mr. Manness: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the total under Grants/Transfer with respect to this area of programming represents $812,000, of which $650,000 is Literacy and $167,000 is Continuing Education; $167,000, Continuing Education, made up of two components, Continuing Education grants‑‑this is for evening school, evening classes, roughly $110,000 within school divisions‑‑and $52,500 for special needs senior citizen grants.

That is the base breakout in terms of '94‑95. The $167,000 we are talking about came from the Special Skills Training branch.

(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, so is it fair to say then that in fact Literacy allocations have declined over the last three years, beginning from '93 when it was $909,000, down to $600,000? Is that what this means?

Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Literacy grants continue to grow. It is the Continuing Ed side that slid slightly.

* (2110)

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then, for the record, indicate what the last four years have been in Literacy grants?

Mr. Manness: Purely on the Literacy side, there was a base level of funding of $587,000 for basically three or four years, and then that moved up to $650,000 in '93‑94, and in '94‑95.

Ms. Friesen: When the minister was responding to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), he read off a list of Versatech, Labatt, Qualico, Salisbury House, et cetera‑‑I did not get them all down‑‑but it was the workplace‑based literacy programs. I could not follow from his discussion whether these were the ones which were funded by the federal government or whether this also included Workforce 2000.

Mr. Manness: These were ones purely funded by the federal government, but as I indicated, there were four partners, obviously, making contribution to the program.

Ms. Friesen: The federal government funding then applied to the 38 projects and includes 200 people?

Mr. Manness: 234 people, correct.

Ms. Friesen: What component of the Workforce 2000 grants are for comparable literacy programs?

Mr. Manness: There is some overlap. It is very complex and complicated and depends what course skills we are talking about. We are talking about basic problem solving and talking about greater contribution to total quality management, but again, trying to encourage employees to use their basic set of skills better.

Again, I want to indicate there is not a focus on the employer. It is a sector approach that comes forward. If there is an identification of basic skills that are not evident in sufficient fashion in a significant number within that industry, then some support will be coming forward from Workforce 2000 in support of the industry. It is hard to break out exactly what percent of the total is directed towards trying to improve the quality of skills by sector.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Ms. Friesen: There is a category under Workforce 2000 of what is called basic education‑‑I forget which number you assigned to it‑‑so it would presumably be easy to pick out the number of employers who have that particular category applied to them. Then, perhaps the minister could tell me what in fact is meant by basic education in the context of Workforce 2000 and how is that different from what is meant by literacy in the context of this program?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot answer those specific questions here, because I do not have Workforce 2000 staff here at this point. Certainly, I will entertain that question at that time. But I acknowledge that there is a collaboration effect here and work that is between the Literacy Council and at times Workforce 2000 seeking, I guess, input from this branch as to what really qualifies under that program.

Ms. Friesen: Perhaps if there were community training committees in place, there might be some combinations that might be made here, some collective action on behalf of communities.

I just wanted to check. The federally funded programs that are listed here are not included in any budget line here. There is nothing. That is just an information line.

Mr. Manness: No recoverables directly from Ottawa, no.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us a little more about what is meant by literacy in the context of this program? What level are we aiming at?

Mr. Manness: We do not use grade equivalents. We use Levels I to IV, but if somebody wanted a proxy, I guess, those levels might represent a range from Grades 1 to 9.

Ms. Friesen: I was concerned by one of the statistics quoted in the Mauro report, and that was that 45 percent of the Manitoba labour force does not have secondary education. I wondered how the minister saw the literacy programs possibly beginning to make changes in that. Will it make any changes in that? What level is below the Grade 9 education and how is that contribution?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the reason I have become a strong supporter of the program before even seeing the results is not the initial imparting of knowledge; it is my belief, because many people have told me this, what happens is that you have a location of learning when all of a sudden the students who, I guess in many respects, realize maybe this is the last chance, are just so desirous of knowledge and wanting to learn.

From that, upon achievement and after the achievement of some level under this, they realize that, first of all, they have got the basic ability to learn, and secondly, in so many cases, then set aside and make learning their priority and now develop the confidence to go beyond and to enroll on their own in other post‑secondary institutions or train in other respects.

To me that is the great success of the story, not that it ultimately‑‑there is an equivalent to a Grade 12 standing, that it brings you out skilled ready to do a job, but what it does is develop a sense of confidence that, my goodness, I can do it, and I can on my own now hopefully enter other avenues of post‑secondary training.

Ms. Friesen: I expect the minister is aware of the corollary to that. That is, long‑term unemployment in fact decreases your literacy skills and that the loss of confidence for long‑term unemployment or even relatively short‑term unemployment does have an impact on literacy skills. In fact, people who had them, lose them.

I would like to ask the minister, is the Literacy Council, is the labour force development strategy, is his skills training strategy looking at that in any way?

Mr. Manness: We are talking about adult education in an area of basic skills. There is no way the province has the capacity to take that on itself and yet we are mindful of again‑‑and we get back to Axworthy's social reform changes associated with unemployment insurance and any other device and/or method that may be available to encourage adults to again refocus in a learning sense on their basic skills

This is not purely a Manitoba education domain. This is the essence of the training reform, the social reform process that we are engaged in, in this nation at this time.

Ms. Friesen: How is Manitoba engaged in this? I am speaking specifically about the training and the literacy skills of people who have been long‑term unemployed.

Mr. Manness: Whether they have been long‑term unemployed or not, we are dealing in illiteracy, and the fact is that we are trying through our various programs and indeed through the various programs of some school divisions, we are all out trying to reach‑‑trying to improve the basic foundation skill set of our people.

* (2120)

Whether one is unemployed or not, obviously we have some task to do because, if the numbers are right, between 20 and 30 percent of our population, by some measure at least, are being measured as not being literate and the level of unemployment in this province is 9 percent, obviously the issue is much greater than the unemployed.

Ms. Friesen: Well, it goes back to my earlier comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, about the economic implications or long‑term implications of unemployment. It is the issue of retraining and the loss of skills that people once had. Whereas I share the minister's enthusiasm for the confidence that new learners have, I want to draw his attention to the fact that there is another side to that, and it is one of the long‑term costs to the province of unemployment.

I wanted to ask about evaluation of literacy programs. In the grants to community agencies, what kind of evaluation is conducted?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the assessment is based both qualitatively and quantitatively on a number of criteria. First, Literacy and Continuing Education Branch staff have developed a good practice guide, which has been used to assess the success of community‑based literacy programs from a variety of perspectives, including those of the learner, the community, the teacher and the funder. All literacy programs funded by the office were assessed by the good practice guide in April '93 to determine their success. The information gained from the assessment was used in part to determine whether or not to recommend continuing funding of the programs in '93‑94.

Statistical return that was completed by the various program areas gathered information on student enrollment levels, student goals and achievement of those goals, students' literacy levels, the age, gender and language background of students, the extent of literacy provision, the number of volunteers and ways in which they were used, and training activities attended by staff.

In '93‑94, statistical return results showed that total enrollment was, as I indicated before, 1,085, with 419‑‑39 percent‑‑being aboriginal, 346 speaking English as a second language, and 109‑‑10 percent‑‑being Francophone. Questions on stated goals revealed that 34 percent stated direct employment, 31 percent stated further training, and 34 percent stated personal goals. Results showed that 90 percent of students from the '92‑93 academic year either achieved their goals or returned for further training in '93‑94.

Ms. Friesen: The staff guide that was prepared, I was not sure from the title of it what exactly it was. Is it the format for a questionnaire, or is it the evaluation of this type of community program?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a guide to allow any program to do a self‑examination, and it lays out a format for, I guess, providing questions that groups can ask themselves.

Ms. Friesen: So the group takes the self‑evaluation guide and evaluates itself and its teachers and then submits the result to the department?

Mr. Manness: Yes, although the evaluation and, I guess, the questioning and the setting in which this occurs, certainly allows the presence of staff to help in going through this process.

Ms. Friesen: Is it possible to have a copy of this evaluation guide?

Mr. Manness: Yes, we will attempt to provide a copy at the next sitting.

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

Item 4.(f)(2) Other Expenditures $118,200.

Ms. Friesen: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you can rule this out of order, but I did notice there is a considerable increase in the managerial salaries here and a decrease in the Professional/Technical salaries, but we have passed that line and so we will let it go, but I put the comment on the record. I am on page 91.

Mr. Manness: I am just having some fun with Mr. Gaber, of course, who has put his heart and soul behind this program and is one individual, if there is any one individual and, of course, there is not, this is a community effort, but certainly has provided incredible leadership to this whole program, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for all his efforts and contributions to what I still consider a very, very good program.

Ms. Friesen: I think the minister knows that I never deal in individuals. The issue is the relative change in salaries here, and I do not know the individual involved. I accept the minister's reference, but that was not the issue at all.

Mr. Manness: I understand that, and maybe some day soon, the member will understand why I made the remark. It had nothing to do with her comment or her question.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4.(f)(2) Other Expenditures $118,200‑‑pass; (3) Grants $812,100‑‑pass.

(g) Employment Development Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,101,700.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not sure how you want to proceed on this. In the extended Estimates that I am looking at, we go from page 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 which are explanations of a variety of programs, and then we have only one page of numbers. So I would be prepared to go through each of these programs, or we can move around, or what is your wish?

Mr. Manness: My wish is that we pass the section right now and move on to Workforce 2000.

Ms. Friesen: I never suspected this minister of utopian dreams.

Well, perhaps we will start then with the Employment Development Centres, the single wicket approach offering a spectrum of employment and training services.

I understand that this is the federal proposal, or this is part of the joint federal‑provincial initiative. I wonder if the minister could give us some sense of the amount of money on this general line that is being appropriated towards that and what the time frame for discussions is, and I would be also interested in knowing a little more about what is meant by a single wicket approach.

* (2130)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have to indicate to the member, having been on Treasury Board for all the years that I was and going through all these myriad programs that were once housed in another department, the Department of Family Services, it became evident pretty quickly that in a sense, a lot of the programs were distinctly different from each other, and there was not in some cases continuity, and I guess there was the realization in some cases that there were clients who were moving from program to program and starting over and over again.

We sensed it would probably be better and more efficient that there be a single stop to provide access to these different training opportunities after assessment, so we began to build on this concept, tried to define it, and, of course, we gave it the function to provide a co‑ordinated access point to employment and training opportunities for unemployed Manitobans who require assistance in securing and sustaining employment, and that is the general thrust.

At the same time that we were trying to give greater effect to this concept, the federal government under Mr. Axworthy indicated there was $800 million in place for pilots that would be used as models to determine whether or not they had a place as we restructured the $65 billion, $67 billion social safety net of our country. So he was seeking pilots from provinces, ideas, germs of ideas, anything‑‑I would even say in some respects a sense of desperation‑‑to come forward. We sensed that this was a good candidate to try and have the federal government support under a pilot basis.

So presently, discussions are taking place with our federal and municipal partners. Obviously, there are issues of co‑location, sharing of staff, program resources, administrative efficiencies. These are all under discussion, and we honestly believe that if we combine the staffing and training expertise of the former Human Resources Opportunity Program, the Manitoba Human Resources Opportunity Centres, the Gateway Program, New Careers program, Single Parent Job Access Program, that we will provide better programming and service to our unemployed.

That is the concept at work and what will happen basically, individuals requesting service from the centre will participate in an in‑depth assessment of their current marketable skills and labour market prospects. Upon completion of the assessment, recommendations for training options will be made, and referral will be made to the resource that will enhance the client's marketability in the most efficient manner.

Of course, the Special Employment Initiatives program, whether it is in pre‑employment skills or skills training will then come to bear to try and help those enter the labour market.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will not go on and on, but this is the germ of the idea that we are now giving effect to. Of course, hopefully, they will be followed by employment connections, which is a replacement function, then will follow hopefully in terms of job finding club services. Employers, of course, will be actively recruited to assist the unemployed and partner with employment development centres. Information training services will be provided to employers to enable them to train, evaluate and offer job opportunities to unemployed Manitobans.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in theory this will become the nerve centre for matching training needs after assessment with what it is employers require and hopefully also will encourage some to begin to do some of their own employment on a self basis.

Ms. Friesen: Is the goal to assist just the disadvantaged or is it all unemployed?

Mr. Manness: Basically, the disadvantaged. The Canada Employment Centres will continue to deal with the general unemployed.

Ms. Friesen: It is clear that those people who are on a program such as we have now, UIC will be dealt with by Canada Employment Centres but what about that next level? How are you defining disadvantaged and those people who have moved from UIC onto welfare?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, UIC exhaustees, social assistance recipients or any of the special targeted groups that the government wants to focus upon in a policy sense.

Ms. Friesen: So these centres will deal with anybody who is not on UIC?

Mr. Manness: Right.

Ms. Friesen: What proportion of this is going to be‑‑well, no, let me start again. How many Manitobans are in that position?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have an exhaustive number but certainly we sense today there are 40,000 on social assistance. There are 40,000 files.

Ms. Friesen: That would not include reserves I assume?

Mr. Manness: No. We are not responsible for Status Indians on reserves.

Ms. Friesen: Would Status Indians be eligible for any of these programs?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess they are. If they have left the reserve after six months, and, I mean, this was a major offload by the federal government about three years ago, of course, where they refused to share. Two years ago they refused to share 50‑50 funding. This was a big issue and after one year, one that is still very sensitive in my mind from a financial point of view.

Ms. Friesen: So the 40,000 number, in terms of the likelihood of people who might apply to these kinds of offices, is actually a considerable underestimation, because if you have 90 percent unemployment on northern reserves, could we double that number?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a year lag. There still is a significant count of aboriginal within the . . . but furthermore, certainly not everybody under social assistance would require this service.

Ms. Friesen: So 40,000 then is the base number, but it could include all status Indians who are unemployed and not on UIC and who for other reasons are unemployed.

Mr. Manness: And are unemployable. There is obviously a group here that is unemployable, too.

Ms. Friesen: The term "unemployable," as the minister uses it, was not one that he used earlier in defining access to this service. It was all disadvantaged. That came to mean, as we followed it through, anybody who is not on UIC. So is there a new selectivity being introduced here?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are confused. The member asked how many were on social assistance, and it was from that that I indicate, obviously, there are a number there who are unemployable, too.

Ms. Friesen: How is the minister using the term unemployable?

Mr. Manness: I do not want to draw too fine a point here, but the reality is there are certainly some who are severely physically handicapped and have other handicaps that do not allow them, in today's context, to be considered employable.

Ms. Friesen: How are these offices to be regionally distributed? If we are looking at a 40,000‑base population for use of these centres, where are they going to go?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is no final determination yet. Obviously, of the list, I can tell the member regional offices today exist in Brandon, Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie, Gimli which includes Selkirk and Beausejour, The Pas, Thompson. Obviously, Winnipeg, Brandon and Portage would have to be considered prime centres, but whether or not ultimately these centres will exist in all the locations where regional offices are today is too soon to tell. I would think there would tend to be a match, but that has not been decided.

Of course, the federal partners obviously will have some influence in location. If it becomes a shared program as we think it will, then obviously it is not our say totally.

* (2140)

Ms. Friesen: The minister expects 5,760 persons to use this service. Where does that number come from? What experience is that based on?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is no great science behind this. It is based on the referrals that we see today and our best guess. It is based somewhat on historical data. We keep track of Family Services reports. Again, this information can be found in annual reports of the Family Services department where it was once lodged. I am talking about this training area.

Ms. Friesen: I am sorry, but I missed a number that the minister gave earlier. Was this an $8‑million pilot project on the part of the federal government?

Mr. Manness: No. What I said was that the federal government had $800 million to direct towards strategic initiatives throughout Canada. That was announced by Mr. Axworthy on coming into office, $800 million to be divided across the country. Of course, the member asks sometimes what happens at the meetings with respect to labour market development and much to my frustration a lot of the provinces, of course, just want their percentage share of the $800 million and say, well, take off, we just want the money. It is very disconcerting at times to watch this process in action.

Ms. Friesen: How much federal money has been identified for this pilot project?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no commitment yet because there is no agreement yet. It is under discussion, but this is not a model that only exists here. We do not have an agreement. We are pushing hard though to try and strike one.

Ms. Friesen: Where is the innovation in this project? What would happen under the new model that is not happening now other than the sense of one stop? Are there new services? As I look at it, it is assessment and referral. Presumably, that is happening now.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the evaluations of the programs indicate that although we are strong up front with respect to receiving and assessment, towards the back end‑‑to use a term‑‑as far as finding the employment opportunities in matching and placement, we were not terribly successful. So that is the area that we will focus on in an integrated concentrated approach.

This model can be different and will be different to the extent that the community and the employing community buys in, and if they are strong contributors in providing training opportunities, workplace training opportunities, then obviously it will be a more successful model than it was in the past.

Ms. Friesen: We do have community training opportunities now and they do involve, under the New Careers program, payment of wages, a portion paid by the province, in some cases 100 percent at least in the past. What does this program involve in terms of payment of wages?

Mr. Manness: There is a myriad of programs here. It depends exactly where you are and which ones you are slotted into and what your basic requirements are? Some are wages, some are a day‑to‑day stipend. I would have to go through these programs one by one. It depends where you are slotted or where you fit.

Ms. Friesen: The new federal program, or the new pilot project then, does not involve any new types of programs. It is simply a co‑ordination, an assessment and referral of existing programs.

Mr. Manness: The pilot we are talking about is an integrated approach in the city of Winnipeg to try and see if it works. We do not even have an agreement yet. If we do have an agreement, then obviously it will be piloted to see how it works as a single wicket opportunity.

But there are other areas in which we are working. There is a single‑parent initiative where another department of government, particularly the Department of Family Services, we sense we might be close to an agreement as a pilot. Again, that is an extension of an existing program.

I am sorry for being so vague in this area, but I can tell you I am almost as frustrated as the member asking me the question. I am the minister who is supposed to have the answers, but the reality is, if the member does any reading, she is beginning to see that some provinces are beginning to balk. They are beginning to back away. They are beginning to lose a little bit of faith in this process, the federal process. They are beginning to question whether or not there will be anything there at the end.

We had a meeting cancelled as Ministers of Labour, Market Development ministers, here two or three weeks ago. As a matter of fact, the Liberals gave me a pair to go to it. I got on my hands and knees and got it, then I said I do not need it anymore. I think the federal minister asked the Liberals to give me the pair so I could be there.

Well, then some provinces started jumping off; they did not want to be there. Manitoba was not one of them. No, it was more than the Province of Quebec‑‑as a matter of fact, the NDP Provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario and B.C. in conjunction with Quebec. Manitoba still wanted to be there because we still sense that the federal government has something at the end of the day, but a lot of people are beginning to question whether there is something. [interjection]

No, because I have got faith in Mr. Axworthy. [laughter] The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has told me to have that, and I always listen to the member for Inkster.

I guess I have been at these conferences for so long, and I so badly want to see a national perspective as compared to provincial jurisdictional problems, I want to see something work. Therefore, I am not going to pour cold water on any of the attempts of our initiatives to try and bring the federal government around to understand that they are worthy of being considered a candidate for pilots and, secondly, worthy of some support and ultimately study and evaluation. So that is a long‑winded answer, but I indicated to the member that we do not have an awful lot to show for a lot of the discussions that have been going on, but that is what happens when you try to bring together several levels of government.

* (2150)

But still, Employment Development Centres‑‑it is an approach that we are going to move on, whether the federal government is part of it or not. We have to, because we, under the social program and this employability enhancement area, whether we are reaching out to equity training or whatever definition you want to give to it, right now‑‑and staff will not appreciate me saying this‑‑I have to say that we have to do a better co‑ordinated job, if we are going to maintain them. They cannot continue along in the fashion that they were, and there have been changes made, and they have had some impact. Some would say some negative impact, and there has been fallout all over.

The reality is, we think it is time now to begin to rebuild, take the best of what is left but centre them under one co‑ordinated unit and therefore try and maintain the good that still remains. That is what we will do. We sense that the federal government should partner with us, though, because we have a lot of experience in these programs‑‑the member knows that well‑‑there is a long‑standing existence of these programs within Manitoba, but again we are still going to have to try to reach out to a maximum number of people, but the evaluations and the success stories are going to have to be there and possibly in larger measure than they have been in the past.

Ms. Friesen: The issue of what is left is certainly an important one. I noticed that there is a difference in the layout and reporting of the amounts for each of these programs, and that is partly why I am having some trouble following these lines. In last year's Estimates, there was on page 98 a financial summary by program. We do not have that in the current year's Estimates, and we do have the addition in the descriptions of programs which do not exist and for which no agreement exists. So could the minister perhaps give us something comparable to last year's financial summary by program?

Maybe first of all we should identify in the descriptions of these programs which ones are contingent upon federal participation.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, everything that we have built into these Estimates I will break down this way: the old HROP Program, $1.3 million. Is that noted somewhere, or am I‑‑

Ms. Friesen: It is not in the current one. It was obviously in last year's.

Mr. Manness: And then HROC, the old program, $3.1 million, coming to a total of $4.46 million, and now that would then become Employment Development Centres, a combination of those two totals. New Careers, $1.9 million; Single Parent Job Access‑‑

Ms. Friesen: New Careers, $1.9 million, down from 3.45?

Mr. Manness: 3.045 is correct.

Ms. Friesen: So it is now down to 1.9‑‑

Mr. Manness: 1.928.

Ms. Friesen: Under the other two that the minister mentioned before, Human Resources Opportunity Program which last year was 1.130‑‑

Mr. Manness: This year that is increased to $1.321 million. Under the HROCs program, last year it was 3.451; that decreases to $3.139 million.

So the total of HROP and HROC, whereas last year the total was $4.582 million, this year the total, as I indicated before, is $4.461 million.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, that is helpful. Could we then go down the list of the Single Parent Job Access Program, the Gateway Program, Community‑Based Employability Projects, and look at what the amount in each of those is this current year?

Mr. Manness: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable members, if they are going to go through the numbers that way, if you will come through the Chair, because it does get confusing for Hansard when you start barking numbers back and forth.

Mr. Manness: My apology, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I will give a whole listing here so we do not have to go back and forth. Under Single Parent Job Access, last year $1,694,000; this year that number is $1,572,000. Under the Gateway Program, last year the figure was $1,596,000; this year the number is $1,431,000. Community‑Based Employability Projects, last year $729,500; this year $635,800.

There is a new line this year called Welfare to Work of $1 million.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, that is helpful. The other question I asked was which of these programs indicated in the introduction to Employment Development Programs are contingent upon federal participation. The minister indicated that, as I understood it, what he was saying was the single wicket approach one would go ahead in some form. Are there others which would also go ahead in some other form?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Employment Development Centres that are our own will not be federally cost‑shared, but those that are‑‑the one in Winnipeg, indeed, if it is accepted as a pilot by the federal government, there would be some federal money coming in support of it.

Ms. Friesen: I am beginning to get a better picture. There will be a variety of single wicket offices. The one in Winnipeg will be jointly funded, and if there is no federal funding then that will revert to the province and the project will go ahead in some form. Okay, thanks.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister is just going to be replaced for two minutes. Is it the will of the committee that we allow the honourable minister to sit in for the honourable Minister of Finance.

Ms. Friesen: It would be a pleasure‑‑no, the Minister of Education.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: For the Minister of Education. He has always wanted this job.

Ms. Friesen: It is a revolving door, I am sure it is open. Three in six years. [interjection] It was humour. Relax, relax. It could come your way.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know if the minister was following the line of questioning, and it was, which of these programs identified under Employment Development Programs are contingent upon participation by the federal government?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): These programs, I am advised, can all proceed. They have some federal funding attached to them already. The Welfare to Work new initiatives are kind of separate from these particular programs. These all have some federal money, a little here, a little there, that will allow them to proceed as is, so for these programs, you know, they are all basically a go.

However, the new initiatives that will come through Welfare to Work and other changes that are proposed by the federal government, or are at least being looked at by the federal government, will be separate and apart.

Ms. Friesen: So the Welfare to Work program then is the major innovation here?

Mr. Ernst: By and large, the answer to your question is yes, that is the new initiative, the new program, although the consolidated assessment centres, I guess, still will form part of that process as it unfolds.

Ms. Friesen: Now, this is done in conjunction with the Department of Family Services. Could the minister outline for us how those responsibilities are being assigned? Is there a committee that organizes this? What is the relative responsibilities of each minister?

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Family Services is working on a single parent access kind of pilot project at the moment. The rest of it, by and large, falls in the purview of Education, although there is a lot of interaction between the two departments: client referrals, information transferring back and forth and so on.

* (2200)

Ms. Friesen: So this is presumably a longer program. The first phase is the single mothers program which is being organized by the Department of Family Services.

Mr. Ernst: As a pilot project.

Ms. Friesen: So the $1 million in this budget for that program, what is that going to be spent on?

Mr. Ernst: There are a number of issues presently being worked on with the federal government covering a number of areas, one being, for instance, youth on social assistance, as an example, but some clearer delineation of exactly how these things will unfold will have to take a little more time to be fleshed out and to have appropriate programs detailed sufficiently enough to be analyzed by information available to yourself.

But there is work being done between the department and the federal government to try and flesh out some of these programs.

Ms. Friesen: Where does the $1 million come on this budget line, that is, the contribution of the provincial government, and what other contributions from other levels of government does the minister anticipate in this program?‑‑because it does indicate that there will be federal and, I assume, municipal contributions in here.

Mr. Ernst: I guess the money was gathered up here and there from a variety of other programs to put into the million dollars. I do not think there is a magical number but there was a significant thrust, I think, aimed at trying to do something in this area and to put some significant resources towards it.

The federal government has anticipated that we will be matching on an equal basis, and what benefit will come from municipal governments is yet unknown, but they may well want to participate or be asked to participate in certain levels, as well.

The current schedule is about‑‑social assistance cost sharing is something like 20‑30‑50, so at some point there may be some municipal cost‑shared portion, dependent again on the program and how it impacts on municipalities.

Ms. Friesen: Which line is this million dollars applied to? Is that Personnel Services? Where does it come?

Mr. Ernst: Line (g)(4) Welfare to Work, $1 million, is the line, in the Estimates book, page 42.

Ms. Friesen: In the Supplementary Estimates that I have, it is not broken out by each program. The minister has just done that for existing programs, and he indicated that there was a new line, Welfare to Work $1 million, and in the Supplementary Estimates under Sub‑Appropriation 16.4(g), I have Salaries and Employee Benefits and then I have Other Expenditures, so I am asking if it is coming under Grants/Transfer Payments, or is it coming under Personnel Services? Where is this $1 million?

Mr. Ernst: At the bottom of the page, Social Assistance $5,191,300, it is included in that line, although in the Estimates book itself, it is shown as a separate line and identified earlier by the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) as being a separate line.

Ms. Friesen: The identification of this activity talks about working with the private sector community groups and other governments.

Could the minister give us an indication of the relationships that are anticipated with the private sector and the community groups? Are these going to be in a sense comparable, say, to the literacy program in which the community initiates the program and then delivers it?

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are preliminary discussions going on at the present time, and no models have been established. There is not even a formal agreement yet. Discussions are ongoing, but it is still pretty preliminary. So nothing is finalized, and no particular model has been set based on discussions to date.

Ms. Friesen: Is the minister considering that kind of subcontracting of this program to community groups or to others?

(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this item is still under discussion with the federal government. We have not been pushing for subcontracting, but the federal government seems to want to introduce a component of third‑party contracting under the single parent program if we can enter into an agreement.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain why this government is not in favour of that model?

Mr. Manness: It is hard to know really how to answer the question. I mean, what we have here is, I guess, a request by the federal government that third‑party, nonprofit community groups do assessments, and there is so much detail around that. It is such a different model that‑‑we have to see what is being proposed in detail. Right now, it is just, I gather, a concept that is being pushed by the federal government. So we have two different views and there is no agreement at this point.

* (2210)

Ms. Friesen: What is the time frame for this particular agreement?

Mr. Manness: I will be very disappointed if we do not have an agreement within the next two months.

Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us how much training is anticipated as part of this program? Are we looking at‑‑how should I phrase it?‑‑assessment, job search, what I would say job search techniques as opposed to training and the adding of skills?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again it depends on the client, and we would expect the employer also to have some influence on setting the training program into place which best suits not only the needs of the student but also ultimately the employer.

Ms. Friesen: Will there be a wage assistance component to this?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it has not been determined, but what is becoming more evident‑‑and I say this from the couple of meetings I have had with Mr. Axworthy and indeed observation maybe a little bit from a distance‑‑the more we come to the final hour, the more there is a realization that we have not really come across anything too startlingly new and that there will be more wage‑‑basically, we are talking about wage assistance.

So there may be new names, and this is the federal government I am talking about, there may be a whole host of highlights, but when you get down to it, we are beginning to realize that a greater emphasis in every discussion seems to be moving towards wage assistance by the federal government. Now, whether that ties into the unemployment insurance program or whether it ties into their share of commitment under‑‑well, let us leave it at that.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister describe the community consultation process which is going to take place under this program, and will it take place in the next two months?

Mr. Manness: It was just a week ago or two weeks ago tomorrow I can remember walking through the Convention Centre one Friday evening and it seems to me there was an employer group seminar at which Lloyd Axworthy, our Premier and Ethel Blondin spoke, and part of that whole process was reaching and seeking views leading to the Single Parents Job Access Program, or maybe that is not the right terminology‑‑single parent pilot, to use the euphemism. We are sort of in that process right now of trying to, through testing, deal with clients, employers, service providers and the aboriginal community, trying to give greater definition to that program, so that is happening with respect to that program area.

What I was talking about previously was under the Winnipeg Development Agreement. I gather then, the general format is, and even though, particularly this program, there is a track record here in the sense that the federal government says if they are contemplating being part of it, they still want to go out to the community. I would think the drive probably comes from there more so than maybe even ourselves, because, again, this is a program that has been relatively successful in the Manitoba context.

Ms. Friesen: Before the agreement has been concluded then, there is a form of consultation going on initiated by the federal government, or is it a joint program?

Mr. Manness: It is joint and the municipal government.

Ms. Friesen: The municipal government of Winnipeg?

Mr. Manness: Yes.

Ms. Friesen: These are consultations by invitation with, presumably‑‑well, I have not seen them advertised‑‑by people who might be expected to employ single parents?

Mr. Manness: Yes, they have been by invitation.

Ms. Friesen: So these are not open consultations? These are particular client‑group consultations?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Winnipeg Development Agreement, to which we referred before, will be open. These were trying to reach out again to the four broad areas that I have talked about. An honest effort was made here by levels of government, through invitation, to try to hit all the people who legitimately should have some input.

The Winnipeg Development Agreement, because it is such a higher profile, because indeed at this point I would even say that the areas of programming are even less definite at this point in time. Of course, we will call into‑‑by way of open address to the public, greater opportunity to give meaningful input.

Ms. Friesen: I am talking specifically now about the single parent Welfare to Work program, and I am again asking questions on the consultation process. As I understand it, it is a joint consultation process which has involved so far employers. Has it involved aboriginal people? Has it involved people who will be in this program, that is single parents? Has there been any consultation with community groups and has there been any opportunity for public input? If there has not, does the minister anticipate any one of those types of consultations?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that program will not be housed in this department, but the answer to the question is yes, clients were invited to be in attendance and have been trying to determine where this program should go, employers are also invited; service providers, in other words, sports groups in the community and aboriginal representatives.

We have covered jointly‑‑not we, as the province, but we jointly as senior levels of government have tried to cover in an honest fashion all those who would be interested.

Ms. Friesen: How many meetings were held and over what period of time?

Mr. Manness: I cannot answer that question. It is not our program. It is housed in Family Services.

Ms. Friesen: We will ask those questions in Family Services. The minister seems convinced that these have occurred but does not know where, when, how many, and what the results have been. So we will pursue that in Family Services.

Just for the record, I notice the minister has been speaking of "single parent." It does say in the Estimates book, "mothers," and there is a small difference. Is it generally applicable to single parents, or will it be for female parents?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the early focus will be on single mothers, first‑time mothers, teenage mothers, and it still is not in our line. I mean, the writer here, of course, is trying to indicate the general concept of pilots, and then talks specifically about a pilot which we have been talking about, which, though, is not housed in this department.

Ms. Friesen: So the minister assumes that it is single mothers.

Mr. Manness: The focus will be on single mothers. I mean, exclusively single mothers? I cannot answer that question.

Ms. Friesen: Okay. I want to ask the minister about the decrease in New Careers, which he indicated has gone from, is it $3 million to $1 million this year?

Mr. Manness: That is kind of rounding, taking some licence with respect to rounding‑‑$2.9 to $1.9.

Ms. Friesen: Under '93‑94, I have $3.045 for New Careers.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the difference is explained in printed vote versus Adjusted Vote, because some was transferred out obviously to some other line. That is what Adjusted Vote means, that ultimately it is a reconciliation and a trying to lay before the reader comparable programming.

Ms. Friesen: I only have the figures in front of me, so the adjusted figure then that was spent last year was 2.‑‑

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Manness: You are right. The estimate was $3.046 million. But the adjusted number, to try and make comparable this year's print with last year's was $2.948 million, and then that was reduced approximately $1 million to $1,928,500.

* (2220)

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then give us an idea of what the impact of that reduction will be?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we first of all would indicate that we do not see a significant negative impact on this program, certainly not in this year, for the reason that there is certainly a shifting focus from 24‑month programming to 12‑month programming. So there will not be immediate impact.

Secondly, we hope and fully expect that there will be increased involvement by outside sources: the federal government, through approaches made through the federal Pathways program; and, indeed, there is again a growing interest in the private sector to try and contribute to this program. So it is on that basis that we feel comfortable in making the claim that the net impact upon clients‑‑I guess what I am saying is that the number of clients will be the same, and, as far as the negative impact, we are hoping that will be offset by additional revenues from outside the province or at least outside the provincial budget.

Ms. Friesen: What commitments does the minister have in hand to replace that $1 million?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have commitments. What I have, though, is the long‑standing history of sharing under this program and a greater awareness of it and how it has delivered some fair results in some areas. We are hopeful that particularly outside employers will see the wisdom of making some contribution to the program.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain the impact of reducing this program from a 24‑month to a 12‑month program? These particularly are people in this program who have started from a very minimal level, I think probably the lowest level of all the programs. I am speaking in terms of educational levels and employment history. Perhaps the most elementary level of all government programs of this type. So the 24 months have often been seen as one of the great advantages of this program in that it took that long in fact to be able to impart the variety of skills that were needed, from life skills to budgeting, that it brought along the whole family. The concern of people who have been very proud of this program in the past is that the transition from 24 months to 12 months essentially alters the whole potential of success in that program.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, of all of our programs, I guess what has been found out is that there is a larger client group here that are underemployed as compared to unemployed, and the changes that we are envisaging, of course, taking that fact into account, will see some more ready acceptance by outside groups and outside funding to be part of this program.

I honestly do not think that, with changing the focus from 24 months to 12 months, we are going to significantly alter some of the good results in this program.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister mean, then, that in fact what he is doing is changing the admission basis for this to people who will succeed in 12 months as opposed to those who would need 24 months?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some of the training will be obviously directed towards shorter time. Still the 24‑month training I am talking about‑‑and I should correct this for the record‑‑the 24‑month training that will still exist, we will contribute to 12 months of that training, and somebody else will have to contribute to the other 12 months, and we fully expect that somebody else will.

Ms. Friesen: Pathways programs apply to aboriginal people. What proportion of people will that be excluding? Again, is the nature of the program changing so that only aboriginal people will be eligible for this?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we believe, and, of course, we stand to be corrected that 74 percent‑‑60 percent, pardon me, I stand corrected‑‑of the New Careers program is directed towards aboriginals. We sense that there will be greater opportunity in Pathways, that the federal government will want to make contribution indirectly through the Pathways programming.

Ms. Friesen: Does that mean that 30 percent of the people are only going to get 12‑month programs?

Mr. Manness: Twelve months that we support.

Ms. Friesen: In fact, for a third of the population, the program has been reduced from 24 months to 12 months.

Mr. Manness: Well, no one can make that categorical statement. It depends on the project. It depends on what course of study and depends ultimately on who else will come to support.

Ms. Friesen: The negative impact of this, then, is the fact that only 12 months is now available under the provincial program.

Mr. Manness: Under our commitment to funding, yes.

Ms. Friesen: When the minister uses the term "underemployed" as opposed to "unemployed," could he perhaps give me an example of what he is thinking of there?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we studied the program a little bit, certainly a significant number of people under this program were employed or employed at the start of the period of study.

* (2230)

Ms. Friesen: I wonder if the minister is only going from last year's statistics when in fact he did change the program, or the previous minister changed the program, so that that was the case, so that employers were looking at upgrading people who were already in their employ. My understanding of the New Careers Program is that when it began, and over the years that it has been in existence, in fact it took people who were not employed, had not been employed. That, to me, does not fit with the term underemployed.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have tabled in front of me, under the title New Careers Program, '92‑93 Pretraining Employment Income Status, 13 percent had no income, 25 percent were on UIC, 22 percent were on social assistance, 37 percent‑‑72 in total‑‑were employed.

Ms. Friesen: Those are last year's numbers, as I pointed out to the minister when the nature of the program was changed. So is there a longer‑term perspective which would give us an idea of what proportion of people on this program were employed?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a table before me in '91‑92. I can go further back. Under this program in 1991‑92, 39 percent were employed.

Ms. Friesen: Do those numbers indicate whether this is full‑time or part‑time employment? Is this seasonal employment and at what level?

Mr. Manness: Full‑time employment.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when does the minister anticipate that the Pathways agreement will be confirmed?

Mr. Manness: It is on a project‑by‑project basis. It is up to the host group to make their best case with the federal government, I gather, under that programming. So Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is no overall umbrella agreement, if that is what the member is alluding to.

Ms. Friesen: Well, it is what I was alluding to because I understood that the minister believed that the viability of this program, the 24‑month training, would be possible under those kinds of agreements, but he has none of those kinds of agreements.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not say there was an agreement. I said we would expect clients to use other sources. This was one other source. The federal government‑supported source, project by project. The federal government will ultimately determine whether or not they want to be part of this program by way of a decision with respect to the request.

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

Item 4.(g)(2) Other Expenditures $1,216,700. Same thing as last time.

Ms. Friesen: Yes, I did it again. I made a mistake, and there does again seem to have been an increase, perhaps even larger than the last one in the managerial salary here. I wondered if there is an abstract explanation for this without reference to any individual. For the record, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the managerial salary here, which is one person, has gone from 55.8 to 62.3 this year.

Mr. Manness: Obviously the answer is due totally with respect to the change in individuals and under the Civil Service Commission pay scale the increased requirement to pay the individual in question who is different this year than a year ago.

Ms. Friesen: But usually those kinds of increases would have some relationship to increased responsibilities and/or increased qualifications. Could the minister make, in general, that kind of analysis?

Mr. Manness: We have done a reorganization through this department. Through that the Civil Service Commission determined that there was a reclassification that would be required. That reflects the increase.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me what the reclassification has been? From what to what, and how are the responsibilities of this section larger than before, for example, the number of people reporting?

Mr. Manness: From a Professional Officer 9 to a Senior Officer l.

Ms. Friesen: Is that on the basis of the size of the budget, or the number of people reporting, or what is the basis for that transition and classification?

Mr. Manness: Size of organization may be one dimension, but it is the responsibilities that are entailed in assuming this responsibility.

Ms. Friesen: Since I am not familiar with the provincial Civil Service bench‑line classifications of that, could the minister tell us what the difference is?

Mr. Manness: No.

Ms. Friesen: Perhaps his deputy could.

Mr. Manness: I guess the criteria should be put probably to the minister in charge of the Civil Service Commission (Mr. Praznik) because he would have staff who could explain totally the difference. I can tell the minister that certainly a senior officer position is one that is filled by way of Order‑in‑Council. It is the first rank that is filled by way of Executive Council and the cabinet.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you. Finished.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item (2) Other Expenditures $1,216,700.

Mr. Lamoureux: Just one very quick question. With all the changes that are occurring, a simple question is that if someone was wanting to get information on employment programs, could you walk into this one‑wicket office, if you like, and pick up a brochure on all the different programs whether it was New Careers, and they went through the different programs that were there and‑‑momentarily, I have it right here‑‑Single Parent Job Access, Gateway, Community‑Based Employability program, Welfare to Work, New Careers. Is there a place that some individual who does not necessarily understand the bureaucracy can walk into and say, what is available? Are there some brochures? Is there such an office if that should occur that is in place today?

Mr. Manness: As a one‑stop place, no. Probably within the department we have all those pamphlets at certain locations in the department and probably within the regional offices, but this will be the concept under the Employment Development Centre. That will be one stop where it is all laid out, and there will be staff there that are intimate with all the programs. That is where we are trying to go.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4.(g) Employment Development Programs (2) Other Expenditures $1,216,700‑‑pass; (3) Training Support $6,710,200‑‑pass; (4) Welfare to Work $1,000,000‑‑pass.

4.(h) Workforce 2000 and Youth Programs (1) Workforce 2000 (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,192,100.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am interested in discussing the Workforce 2000 program. Perhaps we could start with the Province‑Wide Special Courses that have been offered and that the minister plans to offer this year. Could we have an account of that?

Mr. Manness: These are the courses that under Province‑Wide Special Courses were offered last year. This year's course offerings are still being developed.

Firstly, statistical process control; secondly, determining training needs‑‑

* (2240)

Ms. Friesen: Do you have on the same list the number of people who attended, and the location?

Mr. Manness: Yes. I will give all the information.

Statistical Process Control: It was a two‑day workshop to meet the needs of the electronics and software industries. There were partners WQM and EIAM. The industry participation: Vansco Electronics, Linear Systems Ltd., Unisys Canada, Technical Products International, Northern Telecom. Total, 19 participants.

Secondly, Determining Training Needs: This was a one‑day workshop; the partner was CMA, I imagine the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Industry participation: the health care products association, Simplot Canada, E.H. Price, MRM, Versatech Industries, Moore Business Forms, Temro Division Budd Canada, Ancast Industries, Winpak, Otto Bock. Total, 14 participants.

Technical Writing Workshop: Again, this was partnered with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and there was a total of five participants.

Then there was the ISO 9000 Management Course. This was a two‑day workshop, and there was a total of nine participants in attendance.

Then there was a Dr. W. Edwards Deming seminar.

An Honourable Member: Oh, yes.

Mr. Manness: The member really seems to be excited about this one. This was a four‑day seminar designed to help participants assimilate the principles of Total Quality Management, and there was a total of nine participants.

Then there was the Internal Auditor for Quality Assessment Seminar, and there was a total of 12 participants at this seminar.

Environment Manager Workshop: This was a one‑day workshop dealing with ISO environment standards, an information, manufacturing, environmental‑process program, and there was a total of 36 participants.

Then there was a course on Six Thinking Hats certification program. Is this not interesting? That is a specialized type of training, and there was one participant at this workshop.

Creativity and Lateral Thinking Conference: There were 90 participants at this one‑day seminar; it too was related to creativity to the Six Thinking Hats concepts.

There was another Six Thinking Hats workshop, and there were 20 participants at this particular one, again, sponsored by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

There was a Train the Trainer course in Brandon, and seven participants were there.

There was another Train the Trainer in the area of printing. I do not know where this was held. This was a three‑day workshop, and there were 14 participants.

There was then Train the Trainer for Export, and this is still in the development stage. This is for '94‑95. This is into the next year.

Then there was Gaining the Competitive Edge in Mexico, and there were seven participants.

So the training, the total number of courses offered was 14, serving 243 participants.

Ms. Friesen: What was the total cost of those programs, the 14 offered for 243 people?

Mr. Manness: Total cost was $128,000 and Workforce 2000 contributed $81,000 of that total.

Ms. Friesen: I am just puzzled a little by the Deming seminar. This must be a different one than the one I think that the Continuing Education was involved with at the University of Manitoba, but which also had Workforce 2000 participation. Is that the one? And there were only nine participants? Did they not hire a whole hall in the Convention Centre for this?

Mr. Manness: They probably did, but we only supported nine under Workforce 2000.

Ms. Friesen: So the number of participants then that the minister has read out are the supported participants.

Mr. Manness: Right.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have the total attendance at these?

Mr. Manness: It was not our event. We did not host it, and consequently, it was not our responsibility to count the total number in attendance.

Ms. Friesen: Then how do those principles apply to each of the others? How many of the other 13 courses were your events?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with the exception of the Deming conference, and the Six Hats conferences, the rest were ours.

Ms. Friesen: I know that the Deming one had a number of sponsors. Who were the sponsors for the Thinking Hats conferences?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Winnipeg Quality Network and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister anticipate repeating any of those courses next year, this fiscal year?

Mr. Manness: If there is demand and the evaluation has come back that they have been successful, then we will consider replicating some portion. I do not think final plans have all been put in place at this point.

Ms. Friesen: What amount of money is allocated to this portion of Workforce 2000 for this fiscal year?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, whereas last year the figure was $81,000, this year, we are projecting that possibly $100,000 will be required to do province‑wide special courses.

Ms. Friesen: So far, the minister has indicated that Training the Trainer for Export is one of the ones that is in the process of being developed. Could the minister give me an indication of what else the $100,000 will be spent on?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are no final plans in place yet. In the sense that we develop the curriculum and they have been successful one year, and we sense they will be successful the next year‑‑but that will be determined ultimately by the number of people who come forward and ask to be part of that program. Then we continue to develop new thrusts from year to year, so it is a combination of renewing the old and building the new, and through that, we have set aside $100,000.

* (2250)

Ms. Friesen: How is that community interest expressed? Who initiates this? Is it, for example, the trainer who indicates‑‑well, perhaps I will let the minister explain.

Here we have $100,000 that you are asking the Legislature to approve, and you have no courses established, but you say you are waiting for somebody to come and suggest to you what you might do here. How is that process put in place?

Mr. Manness: Well, I am sure the member knows the process. We have consultants within this sphere who continue to dialogue and interact with the private sector and employer groups, and ultimately, they bring back what they hear as to what the requirements are in support of specific training, and they make recommendations accordingly.

Of course, here is an area of funding. If it is not needed, then it will lapse. It will not be spent. It is the way many of the government programs go. I mean, the member says there is no curriculum developed. Well, that is not true. There has been curriculum development in support of the courses offered the year previously. It is developed. It is not throw‑away. It is there in place, and will it be needed? In some cases it will be. Today, can I tell the member exactly how many participants are lining up? No, I cannot, but through the year, it will be called upon, and if it is not, it will not be wasted. It will not be spent. It will lapse.

Ms. Friesen: What I am trying to get a sense of is what the demand is there. Again, I go back to that labour force strategy and absence of. We do not know what demands are there in terms of skilled training. We do not have those community committees in place that the Mauro report suggested, and so this is the only ad hoc kind of basis we have of trying to determine what skills are needed or what skills the community and the private sector believes it does need. So I am trying to get a very clear picture of how this is determined.

Now, the minister says that his past curriculum‑‑and, actually, I was not talking about curriculum, I was simply talking about course, but he does say that they were not wasted or thrown away. Well, I would think that also one would have to argue that much of it had been developed elsewhere, that this is not curriculum developed in Manitoba.

The Six Thinking Hats program, Creative and Lateral Thinking, and the Deming programs are not specifically Manitoba. It is possible that some of the others are, and if they can be used again, will that make sense?

Does the minister have any sense of what kind of demand is out there? He has increased the amount of money this time. There must be a reason for that. I am looking for some more clarity on this.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, firstly, except for the Deming course and the Six Hats courses, it was locally developed curriculum, and it will have a value. Let me say, if the member says, well, what studies have you got to give any support to the view that there is going to be demand to use this $100,000, I say to her, it is based on experience. Last year $81,000 was used, and there is no doubt in our mind that there is going to be a call on a significant portion, if not all of this money, as the consultants are out dialoguing with the industry.

Who is the industry? Well, that is a number of people. That is not just employers; it is also gleaning information from community college assessments, from the EITC‑‑you know, the Economic Innovation Technology Council of the government. It is touching the chamber of commerce; it is meeting with individual businesses. It is trying to be out there and readily identify what it is that is required and move quickly to provide what we can do.

Ms. Friesen: How many consultants are these, and when the minister says consultants, does he mean the trainers, or does he mean his departmental staff?

Mr. Manness: I am talking about my departmental staff.

Ms. Friesen: How many?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 14 positions; two are vacant presently.

Ms. Friesen: Each of these 14 people is crisscrossing the province, talking to chambers of commerce, talking to communities, and they are going to generate the province‑wide courses. Is that correct?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a division of responsibilities. One takes the province as a whole; a group takes sectoral groups. There is another group that deals with special arrangements, dealing one on one with certain companies.

Ms. Friesen: How much private sector money does the government anticipate will be levered by this particular program?

Mr. Manness: Millions.

Ms. Friesen: It was not millions last year. I am talking now specifically on the province‑wide special courses. The department put in $81,000; the private sector put in $47,000. Is that an acceptable relationship for the minister? Is that what he anticipates in this coming year?

Mr. Manness: The member is talking about the total participation in the special course area of $128,000, so two dollars levered one. That is a heck of a lot better than before, and across the whole Workforce 2000 program, of course, a dollar levers manifold. I say this is a vast improvement from what we inherited.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister anticipate an improved performance on that, or does he expect that in this type of course, a two‑to‑one ratio is appropriate? Does he have any sense of the experience of other types of programs like this?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because this is very specialized within this very small sliver of the whole Workforce 2000, I do not anticipate two government dollars leaving more than one. But I point out, the program as a whole, Workforce 2000 as a whole, $1 of Workforce 2000 has levered $2.77 privately. I mean, let us judge the program on the levering on the program as a whole, not slice by slice.

Ms. Friesen: I am trying to get a sense of the different sections of this program. The minister will understand that it has been very difficult to get any information on this program, and so this is the first opportunity we have had to look at province‑wide special courses‑‑[interjection] I would appreciate it if members who are not at the table either joined in the process in the appropriate way or went home. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members who want to carry on this discussion to possibly do it at the back of the room or out in the hall?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, would she repeat the question, please? The member for Wolseley is hollering so much at my colleagues for some reason, I did not hear the question.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley, to repeat her question, please.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not hollering. My tones were quite low, and the minister is well aware of that. In fact, there was not a question. I think we are all suffering from the time and it is one minute to 11.

I will pursue the industry‑wide partnerships. Could the minister tell us how that program operates, how it has operated in the last year, and how much is allocated to that program last year and this coming year?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as the note says, 26 significant levels of activity are contemplated for '94‑95. I do not know how many occurred in '93‑94. Part of our problem is this program has been so successful, it generates so much obviously high‑quality information, we are just bogged down in the success, in our own success. All the numbers of course just keep adding to the pile, and it takes us a while to find them sometimes.

In '93‑94, there were 27 sectorial initiatives. We are now forecasting that to drop to 26. The number of employees trained in '93‑94 was 2,563. We expect that will increase slightly to 2,614.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being eleven o'clock, what is the will of the committee? Committee rise.

HEALTH

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health. We are on item 5.(a)(1) page 85 of the Estimates manual.

Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, just prior to commencing, the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and I just wanted to seek some direction from the minister.