LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, May 19, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Thompson General Hospital Patient Care

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Heather Witzel, Joy Smith, Joe Beardy and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the government of Manitoba to consider reviewing the impact of reductions in patient care at the Thompson General Hospital, with a view towards restoring current levels of patient care; and further, to ask the provincial government to implement real health care reform based on full participation of patients, health care providers and the public, respect for the principles of medicare and an understanding of the particular needs of northern Manitoba.

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Committee of Supply

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report 1992‑93 for The Forks Renewal Corporation, and the North Portage Development Corporation, 1993 Annual Report.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table several copies of Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of the Ministry of Agriculture Estimates.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Civil Service Superannuation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1993 of the Manitoba Civil Service Superannuation Board.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon His Worship Mayor Doug Webber and council of the LGD of Churchill. These are guests of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corp.

Tendering Process

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier and Minister of Environment.

On January 17, 1994, we wrote to the Auditor dealing with a number of concerns that have been raised with us by the public dealing with the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation. The Provincial Auditor responded to the government, to the minister, on April 28, and we were given a copy of the report prior to the committee sitting this morning.

On page 5 of the report, the Provincial Auditor confirms one of our questions, and that is dealing with the untendered contracts and the tendering process within the corporation. The Auditor clearly states that their audit disclosed that the corporation did not publicly tender for electrical work and the design of developmental services for the soil remedial building. As well, the contractor for the transfer station was selected without competitive search.

We believe that each of these contracts should have been tendered. I would ask the minister responsible for the corporation, why has this corporation been acting in a way contrary to the practices of the government of Manitoba where contracts should be tendered for the public good?

* (1335)

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not take issue with the comments that the Auditor makes.

The only issue, however, that the Leader of the Opposition did not touch on was that as we have been moving the corporation into a much more competitive mode and as we were seeking out private sector partners, it became very evident that there was a market opportunity which arose rather suddenly late in the season last fall when the work was done after what had been an absolutely disastrous construction year and everything was backed up even in the construction of the remediation facility.

With the opportunity to close down the collection facility that was at Gimli because it was rapidly becoming in violation of its licences and to seize a market opportunity that was available, the corporation did do a review of those institutions or those contractors who had bid on the soil remediation facility to see if they would be interested in putting forward bids on a transfer facility.

As it turned out, the local contractor who had won the contract on the original facility provided what was viewed to be an acceptable offer and the corporation accepted it.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what action the government is taking with their own corporation.

The Auditor further goes on to state that the total cost of the soils building was approximately $880,000. The original budget which was approved on the untendered basis was for $620,000. That is a huge 25 percent variance, a quarter of a million dollars in the minister's area of responsibility.

The Auditor went on to say that the reasons for this variance were certain contracts not publicly tendered; no formal contracts were put into place for the electrical work; significant changes to the original plan were made; and an independent party was not used to monitor contract progress or certify payments such as the architect or engineering firm.

Can the minister explain to the people of Manitoba why, with this process in place, with the untendered contracts, which is contrary to the traditions and rules for this Crown corporation, we had this very, very high cost overrun, and what responsibility does the general manager take for this fact?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us not confuse this with the construction of the transfer facility. The tender that the member is referring to was in fact for the electrical services within the building.

There were a number of things that led to the overrun. As a matter of fact, the untendered aspect and the additions to the electrical contract and how they were handled is of the most concern to us, and I believe to the Auditor. The corporation had been using the expertise of a particular member of the corporation to be the project manager. As it turns out, some of the extensions were verbal extensions. I would suggest that they were handled improperly, and the corporation has in fact taken appropriate action.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the response by the corporation for the audit was to be, in my opinion, quite arrogant, saying that the Auditor had no right, or they did not like, I guess is a better way of putting it, the probing into their corporation. Well, it is not their corporation, it is our corporation, and the Auditor is our Auditor.

I was quite amazed by the arrogant response of the management group over there, and I hope the minister is quite concerned about that kind of attitude, which I hear was displayed to the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) when she was asking questions in the committee, which is her right and responsibility to do.

I would further raise the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor identified the fact that the employment contract between Mr. Johnson and the corporation for the period August 5, '93 to November 26 was higher. The compensation level was higher than what was approved by the Crown corporation act and, secondly, when the general manager was then hired by the same president of the board to be a person on contract, the contract was not tendered and was not reported to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).

I would ask the minister why we have again this corporation that seems to be acting separate from the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Environment, and what action is he taking on untendered contracts which are contrary to legislation that was passed in this Chamber by members of all sides?

* (1340)

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am reviewing the remarks that the member is referring to. I do not like the tenor of them and I have passed that on to the corporation, but I do not see any place in there where they refer to it in a paternal sense of being their corporation.

The fact is that the people that we have brought in to work in the corporation have been charged with turning around the finances of this corporation. It has gone from a quarter of a million dollar loss in operations last year to a half a million dollars worth of profit in the '93 fiscal year for which these managers were responsible. At the same time, they were able to turn around the competitive advantage of the corporation and build the transfer facility out of those additional revenues year over year. Frankly, the reason that we have people on contract as we do over there at the corporation these days is because when their job is done, to get the corporation into a partnership and into the private sector competitiveness mode, they will be done as well.

Infrastructure Works Agreement

Sewer Relief

Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Urban Affairs.

As the minister is aware, the rain over the past 24 hours is once again pointing out how necessary sewer relief is in the city. Given the damage of flooded basements of hundreds of residents in Transcona, East Kildonan, Fort Rouge, among other parts of the city, can the minister assure the House that the vast majority of the remaining Winnipeg infrastructure funds will go to the sewer relief projects?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I presume the member is referring to the Infrastructure Agreement, the three‑levels agreement. Those projects have all been submitted to the infrastructure committee, and those projects are being examined.

At this point, I cannot guarantee‑‑in quotations‑‑which ones will be ultimately announced, because it is a three‑party agreement and requires three levels to ultimately make decisions, but any projects that have been submitted by the city are being seriously considered by the decision‑makers.

Mr. Schellenberg: Since over $30 million is already being spent on an overpass at Kenaston bridge and some $30 million on the Charleswood bridge, why is this government not making sewer relief its No. 1 priority instead of bridges and overpasses?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the member has just given the House a rather startling new piece of information in that the Charleswood bridge, he has just announced, is now part of the infrastructure program, which I am sure will be of great surprise to many people working on that project.

I indicate, Mr. Speaker, that priorities are being selected by the three levels of government, and those projects will be announced in due course. They are all being given serious consideration.

Disaster Assistance Board

Claims Processing

Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Since last year, the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Board has taken a great deal of time to make decisions. Has the minister responsible acted to make sure that claims are processed quickly this year?

Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I like the question the member has asked. It gives me a chance to clarify for the record when he talks about claims. We handled 8,000 claims throughout Manitoba in a period of time that it took the administration previously to handle 2,000 claims. So let us get that clear right now.

I do not know what type of claims he is asking about now, Mr. Speaker; however, he should know the process, that we are not reviewing any claims at the present time because it is not under our jurisdiction under this particular rainfall to review any of those claims right now.

* (1345)

Social Safety Net Reform

Federal‑Provincial Committee

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Family Services.

As the minister knows and all members know, the federal government is continuing to study the social safety net with a view to coming out with the discussion document some time in June. Now‑‑[interjection] let us be patient.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister: Given that three provinces to date, Alberta, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, have all struck their own committees to review this and the provincial side of the social safety net, and, in fact, have made a request to the federal government for joint committees to be put in place for the review which will be happening over the summer and into next fall, is that what the Province of Manitoba will be doing? Will we be structuring our committee so that there is a joint provincial‑federal committee when those hearings take place?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank‑‑

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Madam Minister will respond to this question.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I thank the Leader of the Second Opposition for that question because it does allow me to put on the record Manitoba's commitment to work closely with the federal government around social safety net reform.

The federal government was to come out with a paper a couple of months ago, I believe, for distribution right across the country and provide some information on what their plan was, Mr. Speaker. To date, we have no idea of what the federal plan is for social safety net reform and whether in fact it is only going to be offloading onto the provinces or not.

We have extreme concern that they lay on the table the information they have and the direction they want to take so that there can be some feedback by provinces. We are quite prepared to look at any proposal that comes forward from the federal government, but there has been great delay in that process.

Mr. Edwards: That kind of wait‑and‑see attitude, Mr. Speaker, I think is typical of this government, but what we are asking for is a proactive approach. There is very little in the social safety net review. As the minister knows, there is virtually nothing in the study of the social safety net that does not include both levels of government.

My question for the minister: Why is she not taking a proactive approach to this and trying to have a joint committee available for Manitobans to speak to, Mr. Speaker, rather than letting the federal government only assess its side of this? Why is this government not taking the same approach that at least three other provinces are to study their own social safety net and meet the federal government halfway?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Liberal opposition should talk to his federal cousins and ask them what their plans are.

Mr. Speaker, at the last federal‑provincial meeting, the federal Minister of Human Resources indicated that he would be calling ministers back together again with a plan. I think it was emphasized at that time that we wanted to see what the plan was from the federal government.

What is social safety net reform and is it going to be true reform, or is it going to be offloading onto the provinces, all of the costs that the federal government has in the past had responsibility for, Mr. Speaker? We have not received anything from the federal government that would indicate to us that they have a plan in place, that they know what they are doing on unemployment insurance and on social safety net reform.

We are awaiting that opportunity to sit down with the federal government and hear what their proposals, what their plans are. When they bring that forward, we will be able to respond. Today we cannot.

Mr. Edwards: What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is doing nothing. This provincial government is doing absolutely nothing to try to renew and review its own social safety net.

My final question for the minister: Why is it that three other provinces have come forward suggesting and asking for joint panels when the review of the social safety net goes to public hearings in their provinces, and Manitoba has not made that request, has not even struck a committee to offer to the federal government as a joint panel when they come to speak in this province?

Why has this government not even struck that committee?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, give me a break. My goodness.

Mr. Speaker, this is a federal government initiative, and the federal government has to come forward and request things of the provincial governments. Why should we take the lead on a national program that is looking at major reform? They need to get their act together at the federal level, and then we can respond.

I want to categorically deny that we have not done anything in the province of Manitoba. As a matter of fact, we have had a major consultation process that has travelled to Thompson, Portage and Brandon and Winnipeg, a joint process with federal officials and provincial officials. I have been quite involved in that consultation process, Mr. Speaker, so that we can look at the issues surrounding single parents and try to develop a process and put forward a proposal that will be accepted by the federal government to use some of the strategic initiative dollars to ensure that single parents in the province of Manitoba have an opportunity to get into the workforce, to get some meaningful training and to build their self‑esteem.

* (1350)

Port of Churchill

Grain Export Commitment

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Premier.

Has this government received any commitment or guarantees that the Port of Churchill will be getting increased shipments of grain this year, sufficient for the port to break even?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, at this stage, I cannot say that we received any notification of strong commitments for this year. We continue to advocate the use of the Port of Churchill, and I am glad the member raised that question today because I see members from Churchill here.

We in this government strongly support the use of Churchill, and I notice that back in September, the now members of the federal Liberal government made strong promises that a million tonnes would be exported through the Port of Churchill. They recognize that it is a shorter distance to markets in Europe and Russia. They recognize it as a lower cost way to move export grain out of western Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know where the federal Liberal government is in terms of the promises they made last fall on the Port of Churchill. We are waiting for them to act, and the Canadian Wheat Board that is responsible for those sales is a federal responsibility.

CN Rail

Hudson Bay Line

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same minister: Has this government pressed CN to seriously promote the rail line to Churchill, and specifically, has this government written to CN asking them to work with companies like Paramax, who want to ship 40,000 tonnes of peas through to the port of Russia this fall, and also AKJUIT, who are developing the spaceport in Churchill?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): The answer to all the questions and all those different issues is yes. I have talked with Paramax. I have talked with CN officials about the offer they have made wanting to export certain products through the Port of Churchill. I have talked to CN officials about the rail line and the AKJUIT project, the opportunities that it will create in the North. There are tremendous opportunities around a number of issues in the North.

I can tell the member that I was quite encouraged, as I have said in the House before, about the comments from CN where they were quite different from what I heard a year, year and a half ago about their understanding of the promise and opportunity on the end of that rail line in Churchill. I look forward to opportunities developing very significantly in that direction.

* (1355)

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the same minister: Has this government told CN that any further layoffs on the Hudson Bay line are not acceptable, both in terms of safety and also in terms of shipping out of the Port of Churchill?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, as the member probably knows, there was a hearing held in The Pas on the VIA Rail issue, particularly from The Pas to Churchill, and I made representation. I was the first one to appear in front of the hearings.

The conclusion that we saw from the federal Liberal members on the panel was not all that conclusive in terms of supporting that. They sort of talked around the issue, did not give us the strong commitment we wanted to see, and we would hope that the federal Liberal government does understand the important aspect of that line and maintaining it for all the opportunities that lie ahead. I look forward to their commitment, which I have not seen yet.

Bison Fund

Investigation

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice, and it is regarding the Immigrant Investor Program.

Given that the minister has decided not to lay criminal charges against Lakeview regarding the Winnipeg Renaissance hotel partnership, will she tell this House whether or not a police investigation is ongoing regarding the Bison Fund, a fund which Lakeview both promoted and benefited from?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the member in this House is always asking me to divulge information such as what is happening in a court case before a sentence, et cetera. However, in the details of that matter, I will have to take it as notice.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter of public interest. It is astounding the minister does not even know‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Madam Minister has taken the question as notice.

Ramada Renaissance Project

Liability

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My supplementary: Is the minister aware of any claims or potential claims being made against the province and the taxpayers of Manitoba regarding the Immigrant Investor Program, particularly regarding the Winnipeg Renaissance hotel partnership?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, again I would just like to say to the member, it is a policy of long standing that unless someone is charged as a result of an investigation, such investigations are not considered to be the subject of public comment. However, the details of that question, yes, I will take as notice.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just so the minister is clear. It is a question about a police investigation, not an internal departmental investigation.

My final question is: Now that the freeze is off the Renaissance project, what action is the minister taking to reduce any potential liability against taxpayers of Manitoba or eliminate even the cost of defending a claim, a claim which taxpayers themselves will have to bear?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I will make myself clear again in the area of police investigations, should the member have not understood my answer, that again it is a policy of long standing that unless someone has been charged as a result of a police investigation, such investigations are not considered to be the proper subject of public comment.

Abitibi‑Price‑‑Pine Falls

Fines Levied

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the MLA for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and I met with the elders and community people of Sagkeeng First Nation who are waiting for justice and for the province to enforce its environment laws and the polluter‑pay principle.

The minister's department staff claim that they are exploring fines levied for the negligence of Abitibi‑Price for their failure to report the Busan 52 spill from March '94.

My question for the Minister of Environment is: Under which acts of the province of Manitoba is the government considering fines, and what are the total fines under this legislation that could be levied against Abitibi‑Price under these various acts?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that there is a joint federal and provincial review of the event that she described. The Province of Manitoba has pretty well completed its portion of the review, and the federal investigation is ongoing. We have turned over our files to Justice. They will make the ultimate determination.

I can assure the member that if the more serious aspects of the incident are viewed to be supportable by the evidence gathered, the fines are very substantial.

Ms. Cerilli: Another nonanswer by the Minister of Environment. I would like to ask him, under the different legislation in Manitoba that could be enforced in this case, what are the considerations being taken by this government in levying of these fines against Abitibi‑Price?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the member has been taking legal advice from her bench mate because he knows full well that the Department of Justice will decide the method by which they will prosecute and the judge will decide the level of the fine.

Buyout Conditions

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): My final supplementary for the same minister: Considering that there are now rumours of yet another spill at‑‑

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

* (1400)

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members opposite to start talking to the people at the Sagkeeng First Nation and they might learn‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson, with your question, please.

Ms. Cerilli: I would encourage the members opposite to‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please. You have had an awful lot of time for your supplementary question.

Now, the honourable member for Radisson, with her question.

Ms. Cerilli: Considering that there are reports of another spill, will the minister be accountable to the people of Manitoba and tell the House if payment for this type of environment and health liability is a condition of the buy out and the government loan of $30 million on this mill?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not falling into the trap that so often happens when people have concerns or fears about something that may or may not be happening to the environment in which they live and, ultimately, their health by enhancing the possibility that something might have happened.

Let me be very clear that the ultimate protection and the best response that Abitibi and this government will be able to put forward for the well‑being and the benefit of the people in the community is to get the upgrade done at that plant so that it is an environmentally sound plant, and it will be done. If the principles and the concepts in the agreement are put forward, this will be a plant that will operate well within the guidelines of the environmental act.

VIA Rail

Layoffs

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question taken as notice earlier this week.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) took as notice questions from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) about the move of CN employees from Union Station to 433 Main Street. We are informed it is simply a move that is based on economics, in other words, the rent, and that the end result will be that CN's move will not have any negative impact on VIA's operations, nor will it affect their viability in the province of Manitoba.

Foster Care

Priority Service

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Family Services.

This week, we received the particularly disturbing news that the Winnipeg School Division has justified the cutting of its Child Guidance Clinic services, giving as reasons that the provincial services are in place to meet these needs.

In meeting with the Foster Parents Association, I have learned that about 90 percent of children in foster care never see the assessment, intervention or therapy called in the service plans developed, and about six to seven months is a common waiting period for promises made by placing agencies.

My question to the Minister of Family Services: Will the minister's plan to provide front‑end support services give priority to children who are in the foster care system at this time?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it does give me the opportunity, again, to indicate that we are changing our focus on the way we deal with child welfare in the province of Manitoba with over $6 million more in the budget this year to provide services and some major changes in focus on family support, family preservation and family responsibility. We have changed the focus of the dollars going to the agencies at the Level I level so that no longer do children have to be taken into care to receive supports, and those dollars that are freed up will in fact be able to provide new ways of doing business.

We have been working with Winnipeg Child and Family Services, and I would hope that the issue that has been raised is one that will be addressed through the additional resources and the new way of doing business.

Permanent Status

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, about 12 percent of children in foster care have permanent status. By the time they have come into permanent care, the family connections have already been severed, and there is no natural family to work with.

How can the minister justify reducing the support to foster parents who care for these children when the family to be worked with, in accordance with her plan, is the foster family?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): As a result of discussions with Winnipeg Child and Family Services, this is one of the reasons we are taking a new direction. In fact, those children who do become permanent wards of the province, of the agency, and are in a long‑term foster situation will have the opportunity to have more permanency. Very often children get moved from one foster home to another, and I do not think that is productive or right for the children involved.

Mr. Speaker, this will provide the opportunity for those who are in long‑term placements as a result of being permanent placements in our system‑‑will be able to have the continuity, whereby the foster parent will receive the basic maintenance support at the reduced level that still provides $320 per month tax free for those basic needs, not forgetting that if there are special needs required, that those rates will not change, and there can be up to $45 a day tax free per child for extra special circumstances.

Special Needs Rates

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): In fact, the minister has preempted my final question.

Can the minister guarantee that the rates for special needs and medical needs children will not be reduced and will not be the subject of contractual negotiation between the foster parent and the agency?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, what the basic maintenance rate is is indeed a rate that does provide for basic needs for children, and that is for food and clothing. Special needs rates are available on a sliding scale, based on the needs of the individual child, up to an additional $45 per day tax free for unique circumstances.

That will all be negotiated with individual foster parents, and there has to be agreement by the foster parent and by the agency that the new contractual agreement will serve and meet the needs in a better way for those children that we serve through our child welfare system.

AIDS Prevention Programs

Aboriginal Workers

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, studies find that the overall health status of aboriginal population is much lower than the original population in Canada. Furthermore, in 1989, Health and Welfare Canada predicted there could be an AIDS epidemic within the aboriginal community and identified them as a vulnerable group. We know that aboriginal people constitute about 60 percent of the individuals utilizing the Street Station project, yet only 1 percent of the workers are actually aboriginal.

My question to the minister is: Will he advise the House what plans are in place to train a greater number of aboriginal people, and will he indicate what specific measures he is taking to train aboriginal people to be involved in the AIDS community and the AIDS work?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, last evening, we talked a little bit during the Estimates review of the Department of Health about population health issues and about the health status of Manitobans. When the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I were engaged in some discussion, we talked about the health status of northern Manitobans and how, indeed, that health status is not at a level that you will see in other regions of Manitoba. Yet, interestingly, people in northern Manitoba have equal access to health services, albeit distances have a role to play and everybody recognizes that.

But a lot of people did not realize that the access is more or less equal amongst Manitobans to medical services. However, the specific question the honourable member raises about Street Station, I will pass that on to the people who operate the Street Station.

* (1410)

Government Strategy

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is only one of two Canadian provinces without an overall AIDS strategy. Will the minister tell the House today what plans are proceeding to develop an overall AIDS strategy, and will he make a commitment towards greater education, particularly in the aboriginal community that has been noticed as a target group?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the Mount Carmel Clinic people work very hard and very diligently and in a very committed way attempting to address the needs of the people in the areas they serve. Certainly, their effort to ensure the prevention of the transmission of the HIV virus is very commendable and something we support, and is one of the initiatives that our government undertakes in regard to trying to ensure the prevention of the transmission of this disease.

Aboriginal Health Centre

Program Announcement

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Will the minister indicate today when we can expect an announcement on the funding and programs that were put in place to establish the aboriginal health centre?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): In terms of the question most recently asked by the honourable member, I would like also to remind him of the support of our government for the POWER organization and the work they do as well, and with regard to the last part of his question, I think the only thing I can say at the present time is that at the appropriate time, appropriate announcements will be made.

Cigarette Sales to Minors

Legislation Enforcement

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that was signed by over a hundred members, people from Swan River, a petition initiated by the St. Andrews United Church. These people are very concerned that the bill that protects the health of nonsmokers is not being adequately enforced. In fact, they have done test runs, and it is very easy for minors to purchase cigarettes.

I want to ask the minister responsible what steps he is prepared to take to ensure that minors are not able to purchase cigarettes.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this has been quite the subject of discussion in recent months right across this country. My job would be a lot easier had it not been for steps taken by the federal Liberal government with regard to tobacco taxation.

The Leader of the Manitoba Liberals laughs about this, Mr. Speaker. I think that is reprehensible. He should not be defending that sort of a policy through his laughter in the House today.

To make matters worse, I actually felt pity for the federal Minister of Health. On the day that announcement came out, an hour or two later, we Health ministers were all to be meeting with the federal minister. It virtually blew out of the water any hopeful outcome of a federal‑provincial‑territorial Health ministers meeting. We all could have done without that.

The member referred specifically to the legislation that we have in Manitoba. I have already said that‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) is very distracting this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister shall deal with the matter raised by the honourable member for Swan River. Carry on with your answer.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I have said already in this Chamber, either in Question Period or in Estimates discussion, that we will be bringing forward that legislation at this session to make it more effective.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, indeed this is a very important matter that does affect the health of our young children.

I want to ask the minister, since the smaller packs of cigarettes, the 15‑cigarette packs or the kiddy packs that are available right now, are the ones that are purchased most often by young children because of their limited funds, I wonder whether he would consider banning that size pack of cigarettes in Manitoba.

Mr. McCrae: That is one of the issues that all governments, all ministers across the country are looking at.

In spite of what the federal Liberals did with respect to the taxation issue, they did a number of other things at the same time. Addressing that particular issue is one of the things.

The previous federal government had passed some legislation but had not proclaimed it. The new government has done so. That has some very strong measures in it which we acknowledge. Working with that legislation alongside whatever we can do here in Manitoba, we will be addressing a number of areas.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

AIDS Candlelight Memorial

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I am making a nonpolitical statement about the international Candlelight Memorial honouring people living with AIDS that will be held this weekend.

AIDS takes its toll on families and communities in many ways. It may threaten intimacy and trust which are the underpinnings of family life, close community relations just at the time when they are most needed. Even when immediate families and friends have not abandoned a person living with AIDS, irrational fear of transmission added to religious or cultural stigma may lead to rejection by others. Some people become isolated in their fear and their ability to provide much needed support and it is therefore compromised.

The international Candlelight Memorial gives us an opportunity to speak out and end the misconceptions and fear about AIDS, a vital step if we are ever going to conquer this world‑wide epidemic. We need to stop the idea that AIDS is only a gay disease and that there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.

In Canada, public health officials are still reporting high numbers of new cases of HIV infection. Native leaders cite an urgent need for improved education and awareness in aboriginal communities. In the homosexual community where the loss has been greatest, resources are required to maintain current levels of awareness and knowledge levels, but we cannot ignore other groups where AIDS is a growing problem. We have learned, after 10 years of AIDS prevention education, that negativism does not work. We simply cannot say to people, do not do this, do not do that. We need to encourage people to talk about the issue openly and honestly. A positive language and a positive attitude are our best means of accomplishing this.

Today, as we recognize the international AIDS memorial, I hope all members of the House will join me in rededicating our efforts towards breaking communication barriers and stopping the AIDS epidemic. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fermat Mathematics Contest

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Johns have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate a young fellow from the constituency of St. Johns, Mr. William Chartrand. He is a Grade 11 student at St. John's High School. He wrote the Fermat mathematics contest. It is Canada‑wide and over 16,000 people wrote that exam. He placed first in Manitoba and he placed 19th in Canada with the fourth highest score, just a tremendous accomplishment. We are very proud in the neighbourhood.

Just on behalf of all Manitobans and the members, I want to wish him the best.

Committee Changes

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) for Osborne (Ms. McCormick).

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I suspect by the magic of all‑party agreement in the House that we may be able to turn the clock at five o'clock into six o'clock if you would care to canvass for all‑party agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock at five o'clock, thereby waiving private members' hour? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, in that case I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that you now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Health.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(h)(1)(a) on page 42 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask some more questions about the province‑wide special courses that have been offered. I think we had covered the ones that were offered last year. I wonder if the minister could tell me what courses have been offered in previous years. For example, were there ones‑‑I would like the full answer‑‑but I am particularly interested in which ones have been successful and, hence, have been repeated or where the department has been evaluating these programs and what conclusions they might have come to.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not have that information in detail other than to report that in 1992‑93, the first year, there were only three courses offered at that time.

Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us what those three courses were? So that was '92‑93, and there were three courses; '93‑94, there were‑‑what was that number‑‑was it 14?

How much was spent on the three courses in '92‑93? How many people were involved?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 49 participants were involved, and the total cost in '92‑93 was $7,800.

Ms. Friesen: When the minister says total cost, does he mean the total cost to Workforce 2000? We are not including there the private‑sector money. [interjection] Okay.

Could the minister tell me of the courses which have been offered‑‑and I am looking over both years now‑‑which ones have been onsite and which have been offsite? I think that is one of the categories that is asked for in the regular forms of Workforce 2000.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, although we do not have the specific breakout with us at this time, most would be offsite.

Ms. Friesen: Were there any which were outside the province?

Mr. Manness: No.

Ms. Friesen: I was interested in the Deming one on Total Quality Management, simply because it is the only one that I saw advertised in a general way. First of all, is that simply because I only read a certain type of journal or newspaper where I would see that one, or were the others generally advertised?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not advertise. This was advertised as a result, as indicated yesterday, and that there were other co‑leads, specifically the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, health care products and the printing industry, just to name three, who maybe brought a budget together to do their own advertising, so we do not advertise. In this case it was advertised, but I am led to believe it was not our initiative.

Ms. Friesen: So these courses are not the initiative of the department and the minister does not advertise.

Mr. Manness: I said the advertising.

Ms. Friesen: Okay, so the minister then takes the initiative for these programs, but does not advertise them.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not initiate this particular course. We do not sponsor it. We did support, under Workforce 2000, the participation of a handful of nine, to be exact, trainees.

Ms. Friesen: I will come back to the general question of advertising and open accessibility in a minute, but on this particular question, were the nine people departmental employees, government employees?

Mr. Manness: They were employees of the organizations who were partners with us in the sponsorship of the program.

* (1430)

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate who those were?

Mr. Manness: At this sitting we do not know who the participants are, and we do not know the number or if any belonged to the following groups, but obviously the nine belonged somewhere‑‑the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Printing Industries Association of Manitoba, the Manitoba Tourism Education Council, and the Manitoba Woodworking Education Council.

Ms. Friesen: That accounts for four or five, does it, or would some of them have two?

Mr. Manness: As I said, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know the allocation of the nine. Maybe some of the numbers I listed out had none, and maybe one of them had three or four. I just do not have that information.

Ms. Friesen: So none of the people who were supported at this program by the department were civil servants?

Mr. Manness: No.

Ms. Friesen: Then on the more general question of open accessibility to these courses, presumably it depends upon information and advertising. What steps does the government, as one of the partners in this program and indeed the initiator as the minister has said, what step does it take to make people in the general public aware of the availability of these programs? They are called Province‑Wide Special Courses.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I have referenced in a response yesterday, in most cases this is an agreement between Workforce 2000 and sponsoring sectoral associations who come forward and say that our sector needs training in this specific area of expertise. If agreement is struck between the government and the association, ultimately, then, it becomes the responsibility of the sectoral spokespeople to notify their members. Because, indeed, this is an agreement in the first part struck between a specific association, Workforce 2000, and then the members under that association are provided with the information.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, so what the minister is telling me is that these programs then were only available on a membership basis?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, as the member can identify, we had three of these courses in '92‑93. It has expanded to 14. All of them can be classified in the terms of pilots how successful they might be the first year they are offered and whether or not, therefore, they are worthy of offering the next year.

In that context, I suppose large enrollments in themselves are not as important as making sure that the curriculum and the training material itself are developed for the pilot. I imagine after that moving into the next year, and then a decision has to be made as to whether it is put by way of pamphlet. I would have to think it would be by way of pamphlet. I do not think resources would allow for a significant media buy to advertise.

Ms. Friesen: The issue is not so much larger enrollments or smaller enrollments, but it is whether a publicly funded program has been made available to everyone. One step in that is knowledge, knowing when the courses were given and when they were available. That is the point I am making.

The minister is saying that is not his responsibility, that he left that to membership organizations, and he anticipated that they would tell their members so that only members in that case knew whether these courses were being given.

Mr. Manness: What is different here as between publicly funded? I mean, I know when public institutions bring forward courses they start slowly and they build. Not everybody has open access to those, either. I guess I ask what the difference is. We are not putting in every dollar as it was indicated in this side. We put in two to leave her one?

I do not know what point the member is trying to make, and to the extent that they do work, well, obviously word of mouth was spread around, and indeed then it will be written up in pamphlets of training. Then at that time the greater call outside of the support of industries or sectors will cause Workforce 2000 to make decisions at that time.

Ms. Friesen: The point is very clear that other institutions, public institutions with public money which offer courses, publish calendars, they are known, they are available to all the public. The Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, which runs programs for small‑business people, publishes a list of courses which are available, the times that they are given and how one applies for a seat in those courses.

Here we have in Workforce 2000 a small section of it which is publicly funded and which is not available in the terms of knowledge at this stage. The minister talks about word of mouth. He also talks about membership. Well, those are relatively small circles. I am talking about open, accessible programs on a province‑wide basis.

Mr. Manness: I would be prepared to ask the member whether she is absolutely certain that every public institution in its first year of operation put out a calendar? There is no way she could ever be certain of that. This is the beginning of a program. Obviously, as it begins to develop and to the extent that this information is lodged with institutions, to the extent that ultimately it begins to build, Workforce 2000 may very well put out its own calendar. That is the point I am trying to make.

I understand what she says when she talks about institutions having calendars. Sure enough. But right now, what is the use of putting a calendar out when you are piloting courses which may not exist a year from now?

Ms. Friesen: They existed this year, and only members were allowed to apply because only they knew about it.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was the thrust of the report coming out of the STAC report and indeed Workforce 2000, to be directed to instantaneous needs of business and sectors in the industry. Of course the member has been against Workforce 2000 since the beginning of time. She wants the money all forced to her institution and the formal institution. She does not want to see a dollar escape.

That is the way, the truth. The NDP are diametrically opposed to a dollar of training leaving formal institutions, and all of the structures and all of the locked‑in bureaucracies and all of the waste and duplication where it exists. That is what the NDP wants. Of course we said, no, we are going to take that off, and we are going to make it open to more people on a spontaneous basis.

Ms. Friesen: Now we have heard that from the minister, I hope we do not have to hear it again. He said it once. I can understand why he is defensive about this program, a program which has not been advertised, which is essentially open only to closed circles and closed memberships. I can understand why he is defensive about that. If the minister has evidence of any publicly funded institutions which do not have calendars or make available publicly their programs, then I would be interested in hearing it.

The comparison I drew very directly was to Industry, Trade and Tourism and to the small‑business programs which are run there. I put my position on Workforce 2000 and my position and our party's position, indeed, on workplace‑based training very clearly on the record in my response to the throne speech. The minister was in the House at the time. He knows very clearly where we stand. So this misrepresentation and distortion of the facts that he has done now, I hope, can be laid to rest. We have heard it once. Let us not hear it again. The issue in this program is public accountability. That is where I am starting with these province‑wide courses.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member says that public institutions, i.e., community colleges calendar all their events. There are market‑driven arrangements, market‑driven training initiatives between local employers and community colleges which are not calendared. Not everybody has access into them. It is an agreement between a company and/or a sector and the community college, not calendared. Nobody knows about it. An agreement, no different than this. No different than this.

Ms. Friesen: Under this government, that is exactly what has happened.

Mr. Manness: Right on, but full accountabilities in place.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then table the evaluations of these courses?

* (1440)

Mr. Manness: The member asked that of me yesterday. I indicated at that time those evaluations are presently being looked at by way of the guide. We have them, but we do not have them with us today.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, will the minister table those evaluations? When will they be tabled? Where are the evaluations from the previous year? When will those be tabled?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, staff informs me that the evaluations that would be done would be done on the basis of participant reaction to the course. Those are very highly confidential, but, again, the member can laugh and scoff all she wants. The reality is she either has to believe in the Provincial Auditor who has seen internally all of this information‑‑she either has to believe that Provincial Auditor or not. [interjection] Well, the members say no. The members say no. Do they know something that I do not? Do they know the Provincial Auditor has not had access to specifically‑‑[interjection] The Provincial Auditor has access to look at anything she wants with any methodology she wants and can do it in her way.

All I know is that when she reports that performance criteria are in place to monitor achievement results and that assessment of the risks and benefits for each activity. There has been that indeed, at least on the surface, and I would say beyond that the program is working well.

Now the member says she wants to see the evaluation of these new pilot areas. I can tell that the only thing I could share with her if I could, which I will not, would be participant reaction to the courses. More in keeping with how the evaluation ultimately will reach the business community and whether or not the course has been successful will be the call for additional training under this area. We will have to leave it at that point.

Ms. Friesen: The evaluations then are based upon participant reaction, and they are not available to anybody other than the minister. The minister believes that the Auditor has seen them, but I think if the minister looks at the record, the Provincial Auditor indicated this week, when I asked her, that this is not the kind of evaluation that she had looked at, that she had looked at financial evaluation. In fact we had a small discussion clarifying some of the terminology that she had used.

The minister then is not prepared to share with us the evaluations of individual courses. Let us look at the evaluation of the program. Now this is a program that was announced in 1990 during the election which was announced again in 1991 by the first Minister of Education. Here we are in 1994. Could the minister perhaps tell us what evaluations he has conducted on the program?

There were three courses which were offered last year. There have been 14 courses which were offered this year. I asked initially this afternoon about the evaluation of those first three. Were any repeated? Were the reasons given for repetition? Were any deleted? What are the reasons for deletion? Can we look upon them as a collectivity? What has been the evaluation of the program from that sense?

Mr. Manness: Is this on the province‑wide specialized courses?

Ms. Friesen: I am talking about the province‑wide special courses still.

Mr. Manness: All of the original three or four in the first year of study were provided again in '93‑94.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us which those were?

Mr. Manness: No, I cannot. I do not have that information here, but we will provide that information.

Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us when that information will be provided?

Mr. Manness: The next sitting of this committee.

Ms. Friesen: Was the Deming seminar a repetition?

Mr. Manness: No.

Ms. Friesen: Was the health industries a repetition?

Mr. Manness: To help out, rather than going through one by one by one by one, we think not. We think that the ones that may have been now in place for two years are train‑the‑trainer.

Ms. Friesen: Were there seven train‑the‑trainer programs this year?

Mr. Manness: Three.

Ms. Friesen: There were three train‑the‑trainer seminars, and what was the total number of participants in those?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I referred yesterday, one of the ones I listed is going to be in place for '94‑95, so really there were two reaching out to 21 participants.

Ms. Friesen: Are those 21 the total number of participants, because when we looked at the Deming seminar, there were obviously many more participants, but only nine whom the department had supported? So how are these arranged?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know why the member draws a parallel or indeed tries to draw a link between the two. Train the Trainer were specifically 21 participants in two seminars, whereas the Deming seminar we supported nine attendees unrelated to the Train the Trainer seminars.

Ms. Friesen: I am actually simply trying to get information about how these courses work, who pays for them, who attends them, how they are advertised, the basic kind of information, so the minister does not need to get sort of agitated about it.

I am trying to figure out for myself, because there are no brochures, there is nothing written on it, how in fact these work. So the Train the Trainer ones work differently from the Deming one.

Mr. Manness: As far as the numbers, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I provided all of that last night. I went through that listing, and I indicated the number of participants slowly, line by line. So I provided all that information, all right?

Ms. Friesen: Obviously, there are different ways of putting together these courses, and the Deming course was put together in a different way than the Train the Trainer course.

Could I ask how some of the other courses were put together? I believe one of them was on competing in Mexico, and I have down seven participants in that. Now, were those the total number of participants, or were there others from other supporting organizations?

* (1450)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the last two I mentioned yesterday, one of them I had referenced as '94‑95. I was in error in not referencing the Gaining the Competitive Edge in Mexico seminar and not referencing that it too was in '94‑95. It is coming into place; it will be reaching out to seven participants.

I would think those seven participants would come from these companies, because these are the industry participation, and I would think they would not participate unless they had a participant. They are Information Corporation/Computer Solutions, Can‑Oat Milling Products, Vita Health, Standard Aero, Bristol Aerospace, Kelly Associates and Di‑Tech Wire Sawing Systems. Yes, there are seven companies that are co‑sponsoring this seminar.

Ms. Friesen: How long will that seminar be for?

Mr. Manness: It will be a one‑day workshop.

Ms. Friesen: Each company will select its own representative at that seminar.

Mr. Manness: That is correct.

Ms. Friesen: The Creative Thinking courses‑‑I think there were either three or two of those, one perhaps which was repeated, one was creative in lateral thinking, the other was the Edward de Bono‑‑how were they put together, and what were the industries involved?

There is one here, for example, which has I think 32 participants, and one which had one.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we know about the Creativity and Lateral Thinking conference, is it was a one‑day seminar reaching out to 90 participants. It was organized‑‑and these participants came from small‑, medium‑ and large‑sized businesses, and it was put together by an association of employers called the Winnipeg Quality Network.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Ms. Friesen: What was the cost to the department of that? What was their portion of the cost?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, out of a total cost of $26,630, the department contributed $9,530.

Ms. Friesen: And the other creative thinking conference, or was that a seminar?

Mr. Manness: That is the only one we have listed. There was another Six Thinking Hats certification program, but as far as creativity, I think that is the only one we have listed.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess I have to seek your opinion. We have been charged to review '94‑95 Estimates. I do not mind this, but I am not going to spend an awful lot of time in reviewing '93‑94 numbers. We have been doing that now for several, several hours. Again, we are here to consider '94‑95 Estimates.

The member, if she wants to dig up all of the detail with respect to a year gone by, I will accommodate‑‑[interjection] No, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is where the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is wrong, because the Public Accounts does deal with the past. What he always tries to do is go forward, and he knows it. So he is dead wrong again.

I am saying, I will try and continue to provide this information, but I do not have all '93‑94 here. Much of it is back at the shop. If the member wants to continue to focus on the training that was all done last year, fine, but again, I indicate, we are here to review '94‑95 Estimates.

Ms. Friesen: Well, the minister has very few plans for the '94‑95 Estimates. There is money in place. There are general indications that courses might be offered in some areas in some places. There is very little to go on, and there are no evaluations for last year that are available publicly.

So it seems to me quite reasonable to ask some specific questions about how the department has dealt with these kinds of issues in the past. It is the only way in which we can get some indication of how the money that is allocated this year may or may not be spent.

Mr. Manness: You are asking for details from last year. That is the difference.

Ms. Friesen: Well, I have asked the minister. The minister says I should not be asking for detail. I have asked for detail. I have also asked for generalization, general comments upon or evaluations of the earlier programs, but even those kinds of program evaluations are not available.

So that leaves me with very little alternative but to ask some specific questions and to try and develop the generalizations myself and to present them to the minister and to suggest, is this in fact the way that the program looks to him? That is what I am trying to do, is to develop from the individual examples that we have a generalized understanding and a generalized interpretation of where the government thinks this program is going. It seems to me that that is a reasonable process for Estimates.

I can understand the minister does not have all of the detail here. I am quite prepared to accept that, but I do expect that the minister will be interested in providing detail to questions which are asked at Estimates time.

So could I ask about the Thinking Hats program now, the other creativity program? I understood yesterday that there was one person whom the department supported at that. Again, I am interested in, were others able to participate in this? Was it cost effective in a sort of broad, Manitoba sense?

Mr. Manness: This was partnered with, again, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Winnipeg Quality Network, Red River Community College and the EITC, the Economic Innovation Technology Council of government. This was a component of an industry‑driven strategy and introduced to Manitoba quality‑related, creative thinking. Subsequent to this seminar, the individual achieved certification, and subsequently, at no cost to Workforce 2000, had a significant number of seminars, including one at Red River Community College. Twenty people from the board of Red River and executive managers were in attendance, again at no cost to Workforce 2000.

Here you have a case where we have tried to help bring and develop that expertise in our province. With the infusion, as I indicated, of $6,000 we now have that expertise in the province and now others are using it outside of Workforce 2000.

Ms. Friesen: That $6,000 was to support one person at this program, or were there more people that were supported in that one?

Mr. Manness: One person.

Ms. Friesen: Six thousand dollars to support one person. How long was the training involved?

Mr. Manness: We do not have that. We can get that.

Ms. Friesen: This was supported by others including the EITC and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and Red River. Were there other people who were trained at this time, or was there only one person who was trained?

Mr. Manness: At this time, one.

Ms. Friesen: So all of those organizations put additional monies in to train one person, in addition to the $6,000 that the department put in?

Mr. Manness: Again, we do not have that detail here. That is what I am trying to say to the member. We do not have that here. We do know they partnered it. We know they sponsored it and they hosted it. To what extent everybody put shares of money up, I have no idea.

Again, I reiterate for the record, I do not have this information with me. This is old information. We are not here to review old information.

* (1500)

Ms. Friesen: Again, it is the only information available to us. When the department does not put forward the list of ones that it is going to support in the year, we cannot examine them then. We would come the next year in Estimates and the minister would say, that is old information, you cannot ask that. So there is a logical difficulty there, and I am trying to pursue it in as reasonable manner as I can.

I am quite prepared for the minister to submit information afterwards. Indeed, if the minister would like to publish the list that I assume his department staff have of who supported these, how much money was there, who was trained, what they were trained for and what the spin‑offs were and what the benefit to Manitoba was, I am sure we would not have this difficulty. I suggest to the minister that that kind of information should be publicly available.

Mr. Manness: We gave to the NDP caucus and to the Liberal caucus‑‑indeed, the package of materials is in the hand now of the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). It is an incredible listing of detail. I dare say, I do not know what more the members want. It shows who received what. It has been provided, so I do not want the record to say that we have not provided an elaborate amount of information.

Ms. Friesen: I think the minister should recognize‑‑and I understand he probably does not review everything that goes out of his department. What was provided and what the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has in his hand is indeed quite detailed, but it is the small grant program. We did receive that from the minister, and we did receive the payroll tax deduction program. These other programs of Industry‑Wide Partnership and Province‑Wide Special Courses are not ones on which we have received any detail, which is why I am beginning with that kind of a question.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I recollect, members did not ask for that information. [interjection] All I need is a request for that information‑‑not expected to do it today, but indeed give us some time to put it in a proper fashion similar to that information given.

The member keeps taking us through, for the last several hours, and again trying to extract all this information which is her right to do but not at this sitting. I will provide everything that she wants in a similar fashion to the other two programs. All I need is a request, and I will undertake to do that. To stay here today and try and go through all of this in a painstaking fashion, without the opportunity to bring it together in some consistency, is, I think, unfair to the process and indeed to staff.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I am just clarifying for the minister the information we do have and the information we do not have.

If the minister is prepared to create a list which does indicate the partnerships involved in each of these province‑wide special courses, the number of participants, the number of participants supported by the department and an evaluation of the program‑‑[interjection] I said program. Surely you evaluate your programs.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the first three requests are fine, but when the member starts asking evaluations, I will ultimately decide in what fashion they come out obviously. Again, I refer to the Provincial Auditor's report which has looked at the management style, not only in the financial but the deliverables with respect to the training, because the audit was more than just financial. [interjection]

I would challenge that statement. It is more than just financial.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly the first three requests we will attempt to provide.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate when that will be provided?

Mr. Manness: Whenever it is we might have it ready.

Ms. Friesen: In the absence of a specific date with information which presumably is already tabulated and that his department staff are reading from, could he then tell me something more about the creative‑‑

Point of Order

Mr. Manness: On a point of order, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member makes a flamboyant statement that my staff are already reading from prepared material which in essence could be tabled right now to answer her concern. That is‑‑

An Honourable Member: No, I did not say that. Give me a date.

Mr. Manness: The member said "presumably" is ready, prepared. It is not prepared. I state that for the record.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. The minister did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, my frustration is in the minister not giving me a date. Is this a one‑week event, is this a two‑week event or is it the month event? When will we be able to get the list of 14 courses with the three pieces of information that I have asked for? That does not seem difficult to me for the minister to give me a date for that.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that we can do in a week.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate what the benefit has been or what he anticipates the benefit will be to Manitoba and Manitobans and which segments of the Manitoba economy, from the Creative Thinking courses?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is in total keeping with the whole thrust of the framework for economic development. The member may discount that document, maybe has never read it but probably has. She would see that the heavy emphasis in that document falls into the areas of innovation and creative thinking in a global context and a global society, very much based on the latest information technologies that are in place. The basis of all today, the great natural resource, is the ability to create and to be of creative mind in today's reality of wealth generation.

So we are trying to put into place an opportunity through seminar, through preparation of curriculum, to challenge our decision makers to be ready for that competitive perspective that is required in today's smaller global village.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, two out of the 14 courses were in that area. How does the minister look at that package of courses in terms of the general priorities of Manitoba? Two are devoted to innovative thinking. How do the others relate as a package, as a group, to the priorities in the economic framework document?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the whole thrust is training. We are in a training section and the Train the Trainer concept‑‑the member would know this better than me. What we are trying to do, of course, is encourage as a result of the recommendations coming out of the STAC report. We recognized that we had a culture, a business culture in this country, which was not forcefully requiring their employees to train or making commitments to it.

So we have tried to cause the system to lurch into that realization, and we have done it through, hopefully more speedily, these seminars and Train the Trainers which will build an enthusiasm with partnering employers who then will take these individuals who are now trained and hopefully let them move through their companies, through their sectors, through their industry, and indeed let this training culture take root and grow. Again, that is in keeping with the whole thrust of training.

* (1510)

Now the member, of course, believes that most of it, if not all of it, should be done in an institutional sense. We have said no. It has to be done at the worksite, and it has to be done in a less formal manner for a period of time. So Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again that is what Train the Trainer is all about last year, this year, and now it will be training for export.

We know that the very social systems the members decry every time they see us making a reduction are going to have to have tax‑supported revenue somewhere. The old traditional industries are certainly suffering worldwide. We are not exempt from that. So we have to create new activity.

A very significant part of that activity is going to have to be based on exporting, outside of our provinces, new goods, but also taking existing corporations and businesses of all sizes and saying, look, you are going to have to expand your horizon. It is no longer just Manitoba or Saskatchewan and Ontario. You are going to have to get out into the world, and it is to expand this thinking. So there is another seminar put into place for that. It is all, though, directed towards greater economic wealth generation for our province.

Ms. Friesen: So the minister's basic approach to this is simply the development of the training culture. There has not been an attempt in each of these sections of the program to match it specifically or in proportion or in sense of priorities to the economic framework document‑‑so many for health, so many for environmental industries, so many for innovation ideas. That is what I was looking for.

Is there an attempt to sit down and try and parallel and match those? Where are the priorities of the government as it looks through those six or seven areas of the economic framework document?

As the minister is ready to reply, perhaps I could remind him for the second time this afternoon that our opposition is not to work‑based training. I remind him he was in the House when I laid that out very clearly. It is the second time he has used that as his defence, or at least his form of attack. It is not correct, and I do not think we need to hear it a third time.

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not need to continue to hear a lot of things either. I do not cry out to the record like the member for Wolseley. I have heard many repetitive statements too, which I have difficulty accepting, but I do not go crying off to the record like the member for Wolseley. I take my lumps.

The point I want to make is, we are into an area now that represents 2.8 percent of the total Workforce 2000 expenditures‑‑2.8 percent‑‑and it seems to be that the member is digging in so much because she does not have worded or written detail. I am going to provide her with the information she asks in this 2.8 percent slice of the total Workforce 2000 pie within a week.

At that time, I am sure, she will come to the realization that the courses and the seminars that we are talking about are indeed worthy of support and, secondly, are in keeping with the thrust of the framework for the economic development document.

Ms. Friesen: I was giving the minister an opportunity to explain in fact how they did relate. The purpose in doing that was to look at the next $100,000 that the minister has on this line for next year and to see, to get some indication of what it is we are doing when we pass that line.

Is the minister sitting down with that framework document and saying a certain proportion is going to X, Y and Z areas? Has that been done in the past? Is that what we anticipate in the future? In the absence of the detail today, I am looking to create the generalizations that will give me some comfort about that particular line.

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the question is fair. I will try and share with the member some of the broad thrusts that we hope to see developed under this smaller area for '94‑95.

Planned, and for delivery in '94‑95, are export‑related courses, including Train the Trainer for Export, and Gaining the Competitive Edge in the Pacific Rim; the development and delivery of courses related to industry‑specific foundation skills are planned, particularly directed at small business; activity related to training associated with the implementation of quality initiatives, notably ISO 9000; and creativity will be enhanced.

Further, there will be offerings of Train the Trainer workshop, piloted in '92‑93 and revised in '93‑94, particularly Train the Trainer for the Printing Industry in technical writing skills.

So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know whether that adds an awful lot, other than the discussion we have had, but I think it puts again into place the process that we are trying to follow. Yes, we are trying to match to the extent that we can, the thrusts that have been set forward in the framework for economic development.

The framework of economic development talked about six areas, rightfully so, but through it all there was a tremendous emphasis on exporting and creativity and innovation, which can fall into all those six areas, but into other areas too.

All we are trying to do is make our industry aware of what they are going to need to do to be competitive, because I dare say, I do not know where a lot of their people are trained and in what institutions, but indeed somehow, somewhere that has been forgotten. That is the way Canada and indeed Manitoba has been, and I think we can put a lot of‑‑and although I do not look for blame, I still sense, in my view, there are a lot of people who are professional in nature who have high positions but have totally forgotten how important wealth creation is and how important it is to be maintained and how different wealth creation changes from the generation we are going into from where we have come. A lot of our formal training institutions of course give this very, very little emphasis.

What we are trying to do is catch up. Obviously, the void has been in place, in my view, for 15 years. Can we do it in the space of a short time? Well, I do not know. Can we do it with Workforce 2000? Probably not totally. I know one thing, if we do not do it quickly, and given the roadblocks of change that exist in so many of our institutions, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it will never get done, and the wealth of the province will suffer accordingly.

Who was calling out for Workforce 2000? How come it was basically the community and particularly the wealth creators? Why were they calling out for it? Of course the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) said, well, they are probably calling out for it because they want a free government handout‑‑and he nods in the affirmative, because that is his narrow view of the world. He believes that all this training was going to happen in institutions, but something has gone wrong because it has not happened.

That is the basis behind Workforce 2000. Yes, within the specialized course area, to the extent we can meld it with the thrusts coming out of the economic framework, it will be done. It is broader than that too, because as soon as we move into the emphasis on exporting, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that covers all six areas and indeed other areas of our provincial economy.

* (1520)

Ms. Friesen: The issue again is not work‑based training. There is no difficulty with work‑based training. The issue is the accountability and the way in which that is conducted.

Again, I have laid out a number of principles that we believe in on work‑based training. Again, on this line, I am trying to get more information, more accountability and what is available to me in one of the opportunities that we have to do that.

The courses in this particular section, the Province‑Wide Special Courses, seem to have been aimed primarily at management. Is that the case? Were there any people who took part or were supported who could be defined as employees rather than management?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we cannot answer that definitively, although our suspicion is it would be probably in the area of mid‑management to higher management.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to move to the Industry‑Wide Partnerships next. Could the minister tell me first of all how much of the budget will be devoted to that next year and how much was devoted last year?

Mr. Manness: Approximately $1.8 million or 44 percent of the budget. This is '94‑95‑‑no, I am sorry, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. The dollars were correct. The percentage was '93‑94. Whether that percentage is the same or not we will get the number shortly.

Ms. Friesen: What were the dollars last year?

Mr. Manness: The dollars last year were $1.295 million.

Ms. Friesen: There are 26 partnerships listed for '94‑95 that will be developed with this. Could the minister give us an indication of what he is anticipating in that area?

Mr. Manness: There are not agreements, but there are discussions in these areas, manufacturing. Again, I am kind of reluctant to indicate the subsets, the sectors within manufacturing who are presently engaged in discussion because again there is nothing complete. A group under Construction, a supporting group: agriculture and rural development, community business personnel service and transportation and communication. I will see under this heading who it is we are dialoguing with, the Manitoba Trucking Industry Education Advisory Committee. MTIEAC, I think it is called.

Those were being worked in developmental stages; the others are in progress or approved. These are the ones that come to my desk for final approval. For instance, again, under the heading of Manufacturing: Health Care Products Association has been approved; Manitoba Aerospace; a human resource co‑ordinating committee and the Manitoba Apparel Human Resource Committee.

Then I also have others under the heading of Construction: communication, telecommunications, agriculture and rural development, community business personnel service and again transportation and communication.

Ms. Friesen: So how many have actually been approved for this coming fiscal year?

Mr. Manness: Virtually all these that I have are carry‑overs from last year. It is hard to define the year. In some cases the list that the member has there represents up to a period of time, and then they go beyond that.

Again, just to reiterate, these programs can start any time and flow into the next year. That is why the approvals for some of these may have been made a year ago and are still flowing because the start‑up does not always begin at the approval time.

Ms. Friesen: The categories then that the minister has given me seem to be the same over the course of the two years. Does that indicate those are the only categories for these kinds of partnerships or are these the only people who have applied? This would not cover the manufacturing and industrial base of the province.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Manness: The headings provided is what is happening right now, but I could add to those. We have tried to take the Manitoba economy and break it into basically 10 sectors. They are, again, the manufacturing goods producing; construction; agriculture related; transportation and communications; business community services; financial insurance realty‑‑of course, we have had nothing under that; wholesale‑retail‑‑and we have had nothing there; primary and other; businesses relocating, expanding, and we have, up to this point, had nothing there, but we are putting a value into that group this year for the first time. [interjection] Well, but we probably have not spent it.

As we try and take a snapshot of the Manitoba economy, that is the way it breaks into these sectors. The number that I have listed, the six broad headings, of course, is where we have had activity over the last two years.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is helpful. I guess I am surprised that there has not been any interest or activity in the primary section.

Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I share the member's interest in that because in '92‑93 there were three agreements for $32,800, but in '93‑94 there were none.

Ms. Friesen: What were the three for, which areas of primary industry?

Mr. Manness: Again, we are going back to '92‑93. I am sorry, we just do not have that.

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to provide that?

Mr. Manness: I will attempt to try and provide that.

Ms. Friesen: How much has been assigned to the relocation number, the relocation label this year?

Mr. Manness: $500,000.

Ms. Friesen: Is the minister involved in any discussions with any particular group?

* (1530)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not, but if I were, I could not share that with the member anyway because of the sensitivity around any negotiations. I certainly would not be the lead minister in that. The way it happens right now, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) are leads, and once they feel it is time that I be brought in on a training capacity or function, then I am brought in.

Ms. Friesen: The business community services has some programs both last year and this year. Could the minister give me an example of what kind of partnership might be involved there, and what services that particular industry is looking for?

Mr. Manness: Manitoba Tourism Education Council, Manitoba Motor Dealers' Association, Manitoba Guide Training Steering Committee, Manitoba Environmental Industries Association, Lord Selkirk Community Adjustment Committee and the Automotive Trades Association.

Ms. Friesen: There are a couple there that I am not familiar with. The Lord Selkirk‑‑what was the rest of that‑‑and the Manitoba Guide Trainers. Is that outfitters and guides?

Mr. Manness: The short answer is yes. It is part of our tourism thrust in the North.

Ms. Friesen: What is the Lord Selkirk?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a community adjustment committee, and what it attempts to do is to cost‑share in the development of the second and third phase of the labour market survey for the community and districts of St. Clements and St. Andrews.

Ms. Friesen: The Lord Selkirk one, the community adjustment one, is that one that is in process now or is that completed or is that anticipated?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I find interesting here‑‑it is one thing for the NDP to really begin to try to find shortcomings in the Workforce 2000, but I find it strange when the Liberals of course are attacking us on Workforce 2000, not that they have done it much, but they do it sometimes, because here is a situation‑‑again, many of them are joint funded. Here is a case where Human Resources Development Canada put in $46,000 and asked us to partner with respect to this. We put in $7,075. Industry has put in $2,925 in kind.

Again, this attempts to work in partnership with as many people as possible and a significant number of times, certainly since I have been the minister and have been trying to read these agreements, a large measure of times with the federal government.

Ms. Friesen: I chose this one because it looked like an appropriate use of money, and I am trying to find out about it. I do not know why the minister is so immediately defensive. My question was quite neutral. What was the Lord Selkirk association, and what were the plans and what is the partnership? I understand it is a federal‑provincial partnership with some small amount of private sector money, and it deals with a labour force development strategy.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not defensive. I was just pointing out to the‑‑I was trying to draw the Liberals into this debate a little bit. That is all I was trying to do, because I can tell the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is dying a slow death there trying to get into the debate.

The reality is, here is a project, in keeping with the thrust of many of the questions put by the member yesterday, here we are trying to measure the training and indeed the labour market skills in the area and the training needs.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me something more about this? The community‑based measurement of skills and needs and training needs seems to me quite an appropriate use. I would like to hear a little more about it and how it is working.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot offer any more information other than to say that we expect the project to have been completed recently if not by the end of April, and the results will come, and ultimately the project will be finally completed hopefully by the end of June when all the results will be analyzed. That has not been done. The surveys are just being completed right now.

Ms. Friesen: The minister says surveys. I know nothing about this project. I am asking for information. What is being done? The minister says surveys. What are they surveying? Who are they surveying? What are the anticipated results?

Mr. Manness: I do not have much more to offer. I think I cannot be any more straightforward, what is attempted under this program and our contribution to study the employer needs in the area, study what set of skills are in the area, see what shortages may be in place and to just make recommendations as to how they may be fulfilled‑‑probably a pilot of exactly what the member was wanting for the whole province yesterday, and which indeed we have tried to do as a department.

Ms. Friesen: It was the kind of survey, I think, that was envisaged in the STAC report of 1990. That is an interesting version of partnership then. It is a federal‑provincial partnership essentially with some input in kind.

What other kind of partnerships are developed in this kind of a program, for example, tourism education or the motor dealers? How do those partnerships work?

Mr. Manness: I will talk about the Automotive Trades Association because I have it right before me. Here is a total cost of $30,000 to a training initiative that deals with I‑CAR auto collision repair training. The proposal has been approved by Workforce 2000. The total cost is $30,250. Workforce 2000 has put forward $16,500, and again, Human Resources Development Canada has put forward $13,750. There is another example of a partnership.

Ms. Friesen: What is the anticipated result of that partnership? There seems to be quite a bit of flexibility involved in these different programs. The Selkirk one, for example, is going to end up in a survey. Does this one end with people trained, or is it trainers trained, or what is the purpose of it?

Mr. Manness: I am using this as a model, I suppose. What is attempted here is to upgrade the skills of journeymen, journeypersons, I suppose, to take into account the new technology that is in this industry. It uses the I‑CAR national curriculum. It is delivered by MPIC trainers in MPIC facilities. It is the introduction, as I have said before, of new technologies and processes, and it is done in co‑operation with the Apprenticeship branch. It has reached out to, so far, 153 journeypersons and 537 segments of training, units of training.

This is one the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) would have fun with, and he would say that this represents support to used‑car salesmen‑‑a kind of a cheap shot, but that is fine. That is the way he likes to play politics.

* (1540)

Even though the member for Elmwood offends a lot of people in the automotive industry, the reality is‑‑I have been waiting for a long time for this, Mr. Deputy Chair, as you can tell, and I have some concerns too about some of the money going into the automotive industry, and I have said that. But here is an area where you try to upgrade the skills ultimately of people who were trained under old technologies. You can say, well, really the paying customer should pay for that, and that could be an argument made‑‑and it could be a good argument made, I guess, depending from where you come‑‑but the reality is everybody makes contributions to these programs. Secondly, ultimately if we can have our insurance rates drop as a result, hopefully, of lower cost of Autopac repairs, then you and I have more money in our pocket at the end of the day. That might be a long stretch, but that is what taking new technology and reducing the per‑unit cost is all about.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the small donations, not small donations, the small allocations to businesses under the other Workforce 2000 program, there are a number of grants for training of new car technologies. I wonder, how does the minister decide or how does the program decide between the allocation to individual owners and to the industry‑wide basis. Obviously, in an industry‑wide basis like this, there are savings to be made in terms of training; there are savings in terms of systematic training and also training which brings people together across the industry. I think there is a fair amount of value in that.

Again, when I spoke on this in the House, I indicated that I thought that was a useful way of proceeding with workplace training. It was not an area that I found the government talking much about publicly. That is why I am interested in pursuing it here. How do you make that decision?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we try to do, we have individual requests. I guess what we will do is back off and try and determine whether the requests are in keeping with the requirement across a broader cross section of an industry. So rather than just rush out, and very rarely do we rush at any time with respect to this program, but rush out and receive and provide under an application for an individual‑‑let us say a car dealership, if we look at the training requests, we will make a determination whether or not those are required across the industry.

In that case, we will say no to the individual application, and we will say no, but we will be prepared to work with the association and work for the good of all. Under that umbrella then, individual companies then can come forward, but they will have to come under the umbrella of the association.

So we get a better value for our dollar, if we can do it by way of a sectoral agreement because then we can say to all, look, this is for the whole industry; we expect you then to also make a significant contribution on your own. That is what has happened in the vast majority of cases.

Ms. Friesen: Well, what struck me in the Birchwood case is that there were in that case five grants which were made to Birchwood for the different parts of its company. One wondered why, for example, Birchwood was not joining with other Toyota dealers or with other Honda dealers or with other Saab dealers, although I do not know how many there are of those, and doing that on an industry‑wide basis, or BMW. Why did that not happen?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I do not know. The member uses as an example Birchwood motor dealers. I am surprised the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) again‑‑I am trying to draw him into this debate‑‑would not because I know his‑‑

An Honourable Member: No, I never mention Birchwood.

Mr. Manness: Yes, I do not think he will ever mention Birchwood again and certainly not on the record.

Anyway, what I have reviewed with the member is the preferred route at the beginning, and as I have said, even to Birchwood, who have dialogued with me and, indeed, the automotive association, at the beginning, we took a pretty wide intake, and we did that deliberately. We are now looking for the methods that will enact the criteria since I have been in office that would be in keeping with the statement I made just now and which I think is in keeping with what the member for Wolseley (Mrs. Friesen) has said. We are wanting to drive more away from individual commitments to industry‑wide by the method that I have recorded.

Ms. Friesen: But the Birchwood case was the third year of the program. It was not at the beginning. Certainly, that is my concern with it. It did not seem to be a cost‑effective way to go. Well, it is one of my concerns. There are others we will discuss later. I do not mean to single out Birchwood, particularly. There were certainly other automotive dealers who were involved in similar situations and who might have been brought together with sections of the industry to, in fact, deal with this on a more cost‑effective basis.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I realize I do have some involvement in this whole thing at the very beginning. To use the automotive industry, when we first brought forward Workforce 2000, the automotive industry wanted to have eligibilities against the payroll tax reductions. When I was the Minister of Finance in charge of that, I said no.

At that time they then turned over to the Workforce 2000 plan which did not have a well‑prepared, at that time, sectoral outreach. It was individual application by firm, and that is how some firms, of course, were able to be more successful in terms of '92‑93. Of course, what we are doing since is anywhere we can force it to a sectoral agreement, which of course will call upon greater amounts of monies from the sector, then under that umbrella let the companies that have the means and/or the interest come forward.

Ms. Friesen: I think it was not '92‑93 that Birchwood was. It was '93‑94. So it is quite recent, I think.

The minister talked about, in his new approach, calling on greater resources from the association. First of all, could he explain what he means by that greater resources? Is the association putting in more money into these than it did before?

Mr. Manness: I did not mean that specific to the automobile trade association. I meant that generally to all, against all sectors.

* (1550)

Ms. Friesen: In reference to the automotive association, or indeed any of the other associations, the environmental association, the tourism education association, does that mean that since these are membership organizations the training that is offered under this umbrella, these partnerships, is only available to managers and employees of those particular members of the associations?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, to the extent that the training is homogeneous across the industry and this system is nurtured and indeed matures, we would not really be accessible to applications from people within that industry who came to us outside of the industry agreement. To the extent, though, that there might be a firm within that industry or sector who had a specialized need or a specialized training outside, again, the homogeneity of the requirement, then they could enter directly as a business outside of the industry association.

Again we are learning, too, as we go through this process and to the extent that we can define and indeed measure homogeneity of training across a wider cross section and that is where we prefer to deal with an association rather than many individual firms.

Ms. Friesen: How representative are each of these associations, for example, the Tourism Education Association? It is not one that I am familiar with. Who would belong to that, and how representative would they be of the tourism industry?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we cannot say it with certainty. I do not know whether that is the educational arm of TIAM, the Tourism Industry Association of Manitoba, or not. Therefore, I know there are private people there, there are some nonprofit organizations that also belong to this group, but it is full characteristic. I cannot speak to it just now.

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to let me know at a later date?

Mr. Manness: Yes, I will.

Ms. Friesen: The Motor Dealers Association, does the minister have any information with him or available at a later date as to who is represented in that association?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will try and find out exactly who makes up the Manitoba Motor Dealers Association also. I think, from memory, it represents all of the car dealerships in the city of Winnipeg and the province. [interjection] Yes, it seems to me there are 26 or 30 members or something, but I will attempt to find out how many of that total industry are part of that association.

I have to point out, the member seems to say, well, they may not represent everybody. They may not, but we are not going to pass a law that says everybody has to belong to them either. This is a free association.

Ms. Friesen: The minister mentioned that some businesses outside the associations could enter directly in special cases. Could he tell us whether any have?

Mr. Manness: Are you talking specifically motor vehicle dealers or generally?

Ms. Friesen: Just generally. Again, obviously what I am looking for is the open accessibility of these courses. When they are organized through associations and as a general principle restricted to members of those associations, that is not an accountable and accessible program.

Mr. Manness: I guess the best way to answer the question is, firstly, we have tried to reach out to the needs of the industry, No. 1; No. 2, somebody has to accept the challenge. So if there was no association there it makes it more difficult for us and for that industry. Thank goodness there are associations there.

Individuals not belonging to that association can apply directly to the program. Never have we turned down any individual in any field because they are not a member of an association.

Ms. Friesen: My question was, have any applied directly and been involved? Again, my concern is that there is wide public knowledge about the availability of these courses.

Mr. Manness: Yes, it has happened where companies who were not part of an association have come to us and we have supported their training. And again, as I referenced earlier, some, being part of an association, have come to us on their own for some very specialized training outside of the general requirement of that industry, and we have also supported that.

Ms. Friesen: Would there be an example of that that the minister has available?

Mr. Manness: We will try to get an example of that, but again from memory in 40,000 or 50,000 success stories we just do not have that at our fingertips.

Ms. Friesen: Sorry, I missed that number, 40,000 to 50,000 success stories in the industry‑wide partnerships?

Mr. Manness: In the whole Workforce 2000 program.

Ms. Friesen: I was just referring to this program in which there are 26 partnerships this coming year. I would appreciate knowing if there have been other applications and if they have been accepted. Again my principle is the same one that I was posing in the last section of Workforce 2000, and that is industry‑wide partnerships are a good idea, work‑based training is a good idea, but we have public money going into this which is not widely known or equally available, and that is my concern.

Mr. Manness: I do not know; when the member says, it is not widely known, that calls into question that we have not done a good job of advertising the program. I guess somewhere in the member's remarks she might like to indicate how it is or whether or not she feels we should spend $50,000, $100,000, $200,000 advertising the program better?

I know that because when I sponsored the Parents' Forum and some criticized me for not advertising, I said no, I am not spending the $40,000 required to take that out in all of the newspapers of the province to advertise that.

It is very, very costly to have the message put out. Then I imagine as soon as we did, if we were to do it now, we would be criticized for of course making political statements on the eve of an election. It seems like you cannot win when you are in government.

The member makes the statement, well, not everybody knows about this. I can tell you, if we put half a million dollars into advertising the program so everybody knew, plus the results and the achievements, we would be severely criticized by members opposite. I know we would.

* (1600)

Ms. Friesen: Well, this is not a government which is afraid to advertise, so I do think that there are other ways in which one might advertise. We are working in partnership with associations. Is there any requirement in the grant for example that the associations advertise it? They have access to the industry, not just to their own members. There is a possibility.

People around this table I think have just suggested two other possibilities which they may want to put on the record. Perhaps this is the very area of innovation and creativity and Six Thinking Hats and Edward de Bono and lateral thinking that the minister might want to indulge in.

Mr. Manness: We can carry the message only so far, and we ask the associations‑‑we do not have to ask them, they take it to their membership. We sense that our industries are sufficiently small in numbers of firms within them that not much happens that is not known regardless of the size of the industry.

We sense that the scale we are talking about, there are very few businesses who are not aware of the opportunities under this program.

Ms. Friesen: It is a general way of thinking that elites do have, that word of mouth, association members, people in the know that people will know. I just remind the minister that it is the money of all the people and there are ways, creatively and inexpensively, of ensuring that there are means for all the people to know that these courses and these programs are available for them. I am sure it is a way of thinking that all governments get into, but it does tend to narrow accessibility and is, I think, something which there are ways of avoiding.

Mr. Manness: I would ask the member, if we embarked upon any of those ways could we expect any criticism whatsoever from the NDP? If we would try to publicly sell Workforce 2000 in an informational sense, would the NDP then not be critical of our attempt to make the program better known?

Ms. Friesen: I think the minister understands my purpose clearly enough. This is public money which should be publicly available. Public knowledge, publicly tabled curriculum, public evaluation are what we are asking for in this program, and public accountability. Accessibility, evaluation and accountability, the kinds of things which we demand of public institutions we are also looking for here.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there has never been a public institution, never since the beginning of time, that has gone through the rigour of analysis as this money. There has not been ever a public institution called upon to spend the dollars. Never has anybody had to publicly‑‑never has a Minister of Education sat in the chair to be held accountable for the institutions, the formal institutions of the university and/or the community colleges to the degree that I have been held accountable for Workforce 2000. Never. I have never seen a Minister of Education, in all the years I have been in this Chamber, 13 years, have a go on accountability with respect to those questions.

Ms. Friesen: You have not been in the Chamber for the last three days. Three minutes there and 40 minutes out.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was in the session today for 30 minutes in the House.

Ms. Friesen: That is quite a statement from the minister, and I certainly will look forward to quoting that back at him on a variety of occasions.

Perhaps he might care to look at the annual report of any university across the country.

Mr. Manness: I am the accountable, not the report.

Ms. Friesen: You do not have a report for Workforce 2000. That is an absolutely outrageous statement that Workforce 2000 has been subject to any level of accountability. You cannot provide today even the names of the programs, the names of the people, the partners who are involved, the detail of 12 months ago.

You are confused about which year Birchwood motors got its grant. I quite understand that you do not have the information available today, and we will accept it when you do provide it. Then to claim on top of that that in fact this is the most accountable program in government is really stretching things a little bit.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, nobody said this was the most accountable program in government. Nobody said that.

For the member, we have given information to the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and to the NDP caucus that magnifies several hundred times any information that I, as the Minister of Education, in many cases can request from the universities. Academic freedom is incredible power, and the member sits there and defends it, but a Minister of Education has no call on a lot of the internal governance issues and indeed the dollars supporting it and indeed the reserve accounts of university.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, try to go through this detail within a public institution and you will have the door slammed in your face.

Yet, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am the Minister of Education held accountable for everything that happens within some of our formal institutions. So let me say to the member, we do not have an annual report yet with respect to Workforce 2000, not yet. We may not have one, but in due course we probably will. The reality is, I am answering questions. I am giving detail to the members, and I am going to give them more detail. I tell you, we are fully accountable for this program, this very good program, I might add.

Ms. Friesen: I think the minister will find that if he picks up the phone and phones the university and asks them for curricula‑‑[interjection] Well, pick up a college. Pick up any post‑secondary institution and ask for curricula, ask for qualifications of the teachers, ask for evaluation of the programs, ask for the years in which they are given. Any member of the public can do that.

I am trying to represent the members of the public and to get some basic information on the record about Workforce 2000. I think probably it would be better for the minister if we stuck to that rather than get into these outlandish statements that he wants to put on the record, but that is his choice. If he would like to head off into deeper pastures, it would be quite interesting and quite useful for other purposes. [interjection] That is right, yes, in great detail.

So in terms of evaluation then, could the minister tell us what evaluations have been done on the last year of industry‑wide partnerships?

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

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have done reviews and we have done reports and some of them border on evaluations. Some may not. It depends, but this is the list of things we have done to try and monitor exactly what has happened under the 27 sectoral initiatives.

Ms. Friesen: I just want to make sure with the different terminologies that are used here. The Estimates line says industry‑wide partnerships and the minister is using sectoral initiatives. Those are the same thing, are they?

Mr. Manness: The same terminology. We have had participant evaluations in all training initiatives. We have monitored the worksite through visits. We have done summative project reports, a final report including outcomes in the human resource committees. We have done specified external evaluations in some of the longer‑term partnerships. I am thinking about particularly here, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the aerospace industry to name one.

* (1610)

Ms. Friesen: Are those final reports in the human resources sector available?

Mr. Manness: None of these are available. These are internal working documents.

Ms. Friesen: What was that the minister said about accountable, open, responsible, will give detailed information? It could have been only 30 seconds ago.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is why the Provincial Auditor gave us a passing grade because everything was in order.

Ms. Friesen: Did the Provincial Auditor read the final reports of the human resource program?

Mr. Manness: I would not know.

Ms. Friesen: My understanding from the Provincial Auditor was that she did not read those reports, that she dealt with financial accountability.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Would the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) like to make comment?

Ms. Friesen: So there have been evaluations done, and it looks like a diverse list. The worksite visits, how often would that be done during the course of an agreement?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we direct most of our visiting to the wage‑assisted areas. Over a year, we would visit possibly once a quarter, at least two or three times a year.

Ms. Friesen: I understood that we were talking about the 27 sectoral initiatives or the Industry‑Wide Partnerships, and that was where the minister gave me the list of participant evaluations, worksite visits, summative program evaluations, final reports in the human resources sector and external evaluations with the aerospace.

Perhaps we need to clarify what that list was about. I understood it to be the 27 sectoral initiatives. I have not yet moved to the Training Incentives Contracts section.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have monitored, under industry‑wide initiatives, all of the agreements struck. I will use some, for example: Cal‑West, D.W. Friesen, Manitoba Fashion, Manitoba Rolling Mills, Manitoba Pork. We have monitored Brandon and District Chefs Association, Manitoba dental lab technicians association and Manitoba Motor Dealers Association to pick one that is well known. Of course there is not one that we have not monitored.

I have just gone down the list. We have final reports developed in about half of the areas, and we have evaluations, formal evaluations, I guess, outcome evaluations in about a third of these areas. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we do our best to evaluate these programs in some consistent fashion.

Ms. Friesen: I am not sure I would agree that it is consistent if only 50 percent have a final report and if only a third have outcome evaluations. Is it intended that those will all be completed in a consistent manner?

Mr. Manness: Yes, we provide consistency in all of our decisions. We bring principles and consistency to all of the programs that we have introduced in government.

Ms. Friesen: When does the minister anticipate that final reports will be available on all the programs completed?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, many of the agreements that we, again, looked at in '93‑94 that called for still support in '94‑95 are still in place. Within three to six months of the completion, we will attempt to have a final report at that time.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us, again I am still speaking of the sectoral initiatives, what is involved in monitoring? How often are the worksites visited, and is every worksite visited?

Mr. Manness: In the wage‑assisted areas, we will monitor more frequently, as I have indicated before, than we would, for instance, in some of the agreements by sector with associations. In that case, we call on the association to be more active with us. We will monitor in the terms of financial accounting and to make sure the bills and the receipts are done.

Now I know exactly what the member is going to say. She is going to say, oh, well, it could collapse right here, but we refuse, quite honestly, to increase the staff a thousandfold. We are out there virtually in almost every worksite, and to have inspectors running around to all the worksites in place, of course, would mean more money would go into bureaucracy than into training. I know that is the NDP way, and I know they would like to do it that way, but we will not.

An Honourable Member: Here he goes again.

Mr. Manness: The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) says here I go again. Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I mean I was not born yesterday. I know where the line of questioning ultimately will lead, so that is the difference in philosophy between the members.

An Honourable Member: Go to your corner and create a diversion.

Mr. Manness: I am not cornered, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. I have said straight up that this is a good‑faith model, and to the extent that some break faith because there is greater opportunity given where training is now happening in so many more workforces, workplaces than happened before, then obviously the only way we could make sure that it happened in every case was to hire literally hundreds of more inspectors. We refused to do that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I was following up on what the minister had said, and he did say that under sectoral initiatives worksite visits took place. So my question was, how many worksite visits take place and essentially under what conditions? How often do you visit them? Does everybody visit it once, twice? What kind of inspection takes place?

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is no hard and set rule. I mean, again, when we deal with the associations, they are called upon to have a role and responsibility also in monitoring their members in some of the activity under the program, and we will do audits from time to time in the sense of arriving in certain areas. Do we visit every training site under every program under umbrella? Probably the answer is no.

Ms. Friesen: It was not quite the question I asked. I asked under the 27 sectoral initiatives is every worksite visited? Is that what you said?

* (1620)

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is what I said.

Ms. Friesen: Okay. What did the minister mean when he said, under the 27 sectoral initiatives that a summative program evaluation was done. Could he describe what one of those looks like? Could he tell me who does it, and are any of those available?

Mr. Manness: What we mean is, for example, the association and training consultant prepare a final report including the number of participants who completed, feedback from instructors and participants and recommendations for future training. Of course, monitoring also occurs to the human resource committee structure of most projects.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Workforce 2000 will talk to the personnel managers within the various companies and ask for an assessment from them, also. Of course, it comes together as one summative report.

Ms. Friesen: Are those available, any of them available? Is there a summation of all the reports of the sectoral initiative to date that is available?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it just goes to the file, and it is included with all the information therein.

Ms. Friesen: So the answer is no, that they are not available.

Mr. Manness: Who is asking for them?

Ms. Friesen: I have been asking for any evidence of evaluation of Workforce 2000 for some time. Now I am asking specifically where the reports are, and are these particular ones available? These sound quite general, quite interesting, a useful guide to the public on how the money has been spent, what has been successful, what has not been successful, what future directions we might want to look at in work‑base training. It seems to me that even a summation of these reports and an evaluation of the program would be helpful.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as close as we could come, some of the reports I am talking about are participant by participant or, more importantly, employer by employer. That is privileged information; that is not public information.

Ms. Friesen: But we are looking at sectoral initiatives, not employer by employer.

Mr. Manness: Right, but under that there are employers who come forward and we, of course, go down to the employer level. Even though the agreement has been struck with the association, the reports that we have are employer by employer.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the examples that we have of sectoral initiative in this case are the two that we discussed. One was the Lord Selkirk one and the other was automotive repair where MPIC did the training and people came from a variety of areas to an MPIC location and were trained. Now in that case, that seemed to me that what the minister was proposing there was the way in which sectoral initiatives worked. Now how does the minister go from that to evaluate that by employer by employer? Why is the evaluation not done by the sponsoring partner?

Mr. Manness: We asked the association to do a global overview too, but that does not remove us in our responsibility from still dealing on the micro basis with their employers and to making sure, to the extent that we can, and have resources to make sure that the training is taking place and there was a final report with respect to individual employers.

Ms. Friesen: But the initiative and purpose of this is to deal with the sector to ensure that the skills that the sector needs and the sector sees that it wants to develop are being done. So why is the primary evaluation not done with the primary partner, which is the sector, and which is looking at the long‑term needs of that sector in the Manitoba economy? Why does the minister then go back in his evaluation to the individual employer? I can see that there is a place for the individual employer in the evaluation, but surely the primary evaluation should be with the partner, and surely that is quite eligible for being a public document.

Mr. Manness: Primary assessment is done with the industry partner, but we still have requirements beyond that, and that is why of course we have received such a report, a glowing report from the Provincial Auditor, because we try to do all of this. But the member is asking, why do you not make the report that is done by the association public? I can say that maybe a time will come in the not too distant future where that might happen.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in each of the cases of the sectoral programs, could the minister give us an idea of what kind of training plan has been tabled or what kind of curricula has been developed? The two examples which we have had so far of the sectoral program, obviously the Lord Selkirk one does not apply and the MPIC one was done with a national curriculum. Can the minister indicate in the other areas what kind of curriculum has been involved, for example in the motor dealers' one?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, everybody has to give us a training plan. We do not necessarily have a curriculum in all cases, and we attempt to make sure those plans are followed.

Again, we are not going to make those public either.

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

Ms. Friesen: So is it fair then to say that this $1.8‑million program that the minister is asking us to pass involves largely self‑policing by the industry‑‑no curriculum is necessarily available, although it may be in some cases‑‑that a training plan is tabled to the minister of perhaps four to five lines of print?

I mean that is what is left on the form for it, perhaps some of them are longer, that the evaluations which are done are done in some part by themselves, and that the outcome evaluations have only been done for a third of the ones that have already been completed, and this is the $1.8 million that the minister wants us to pass.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is not fair at all. As a matter of fact, it is terribly unfair. I am disappointed that the member would even attempt to chronicle in the fashion she has, the discussion over the course of this afternoon.

It would be much fairer to say, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sure any objective measurer would indicate that there is a tremendous mix of training techniques and beyond that as between in‑house/outside.

Let me use an example: Red River Community College, for instance, delivers some partial programming under Workforce 2000. For instance, I can think of D.W. Friesen, one of our great printing companies in Altona, offers certification of entry‑level graphic arts training. My colleague is sitting beside me, and I talk about this often. Part of that training, of course, is outside of the facility. Why would we ask them to give us the curriculum of the outside institution, in this case Red River Community College?

* (1630)

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the plans are what are the most important. The member can say, well, yes, but the people that do then give you plans, it may be only a three‑ or four‑line plan. I do not know why she would say that, other than to be mischievous. I do not know why she would state that.

Ms. Friesen: Because that is what is on the form, there are four lines.

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a form with four lines does not stop you from adding to it four pages. So I point that out to the member.

Then I can also say the Manitoba Aerospace project could use a public institution to a significant fashion, and it does. So then does the member want us to have on file all of the curriculums of the public institutions? So we just cannot be providing for ourselves, indeed calling forward all of the curriculum, when much of it, of course, the firm does not even have; it is offered elsewhere.

I just make the final comment that given the nature of this programming, which, again, is out of keeping with the traditional state model, and that is where you force everything through public institutions. This is a good‑faith model, and it builds on some trust. It says, we have trust in some of our employer groups. It says that we trust you well enough that this training is going to be done. It is going to be in a formula fashion way.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will continue to evaluate the best way we can. Ultimately, I am sure, we will be reporting in a greater fashion with respect to results, but ultimately, at the end of the day, we do not have a battery of inspectors to go around to make sure that the files are all full, No. 1, and No. 2, to make sure that every minute on the training is done, because that is the old, hard‑bent, state institutional life. That is what we are trying to get away from, in some dimension, in our province.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, nobody was asking for a battery of inspectors. I was simply asking, were the worksites visited once?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I said, there were 40,000 people trained over‑‑[interjection] I have to indicate that under those 27 agreements there could be literally a thousand worksites. I guess what I am saying is that no, we did not visit all of those many, countless numbers of worksites that fall under those 27 agreements.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is that in fact the general number the minister works with, that there are a thousand worksites in the sectoral agreements? Again, the only two examples that we have discussed in detail here have involved one worksite and a public survey, the Lord Selkirk one and the MPIC one.

Now, I would be interested in learning‑‑and again the minister must recognize that there is no public information on this program, so what we are getting here today is the basic step‑by‑step introduction to Workforce 2000. I am going from the two examples we have discussed where there was one workplace. Now the minister tells me there are a thousand worksites in the 27 sectoral agreements. It certainly does change the nature of the questions, I agree with him, but that is new information.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, my statement was made not remembering the reference to 27. There is no way we can separate this programming from the individual businesses, so my statement still stands, but it is across all the programming of Workforce 2000. So when the member says, well, then you should maybe focus in on this area, we still are out there doing what we can across the many applicants who come in under all of the areas of programming.

Ms. Friesen: When I first started this line of questioning on the 27 sectoral initiatives, the minister said that there were participant evaluations, worksite visits, summative programs, final reports on human resources and external evaluations involved in the aerospace one. Now, since the minister seems to have been going back and forth to the larger program, does he want to sort of set the record right and tell me again what is involved in the evaluation of the 27 sectoral initiatives?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I put that on the record.

Ms. Friesen: The minister said that there were worksite visits then under the sectoral initiative and now he says, there are not. So I am trying to get the record straight. What exactly happens in the sectoral initiatives in terms of evaluation?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I said, worksite visits in those cases where there is wage assistance. That is what I said, and that happens. That happens every 10 weeks to every 13 weeks. Yes, I did say that.

Ms. Friesen: Under these sectoral initiatives, how many wage‑assisted parts are there to that? Again, for example, the two that we have discussed in detail, I understand had no wage assistance involved. So how many did, under these 27 partnerships?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have no breakout for that. That is old information. Sorry.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Shall the item pass?

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to provide that information? We are talking about evaluation. The minister said there were worksite visits. At this point, well, I really would just like to get it straight. Were there worksite visits or were there not? Is there wage assistance in the sectoral sections or not? I am trying to get the basic public information on this program.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I said that there is wage assistance in this area, and we will attempt to find for the member which of the 27 categories provide some level of support in a wage assistance manner.

Ms. Friesen: In the financing of these programs, where there is wage assistance, how is that accounted for? I have an example here‑‑I do not think I have the financial information on the MPIC one. Was there any wage assistance on the MPIC one? Maybe we can use that as the continuing example.

Mr. Manness: We are quite sure that there was not, but again we could stand to be corrected.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then give me an example of where there was wage assistance and how that is accounted for in the Estimates? Does it, for example, come under this $1.8 million, or is there another section of these lines under 16.4(h) that accounts for the wage portion of that?

* (1640)

Mr. Manness: An example might be wage assistance provided to Carte International to train some transformer technicians.

Ms. Friesen: How would I find that on the Estimates line? Is that included in this $1.8 million?

Mr. Manness: To the extent it happened in the past and if it were to happen again in the future, it would be included in the $1.8 million.

Ms. Friesen: Under the other expenses on this line, there is also a section called Social Assistance. I wondered if the wage assistance portion came out of that.

Mr. Manness: That is the line.

Ms. Friesen: So where do I find the $1.8 million? How does that break down? What portion, for example, of the sectoral initiative wage assistance comes out of that? Or is there a breakdown for that?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the $1.8 million is included in the social assistance line of $3.2 million, so, yes the support for wage assistance would be included in this line.

Ms. Friesen: I am sorry, I missed a step there, I think. In that $3.2 million, the wage assistance portion of the sectoral initiative is included, but it does not include the whole $1.8 million. Does that $1.8 million come out of that $3.2 million line?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am looking at the same page‑‑the $3.27 million plus the grants transfer payments of $400,000 totals under the program expenditure $3.67 million. The $1.8 million I have been referring to is one‑half of that $3.6 million.

Ms. Friesen: I am just a little puzzled about then applying the terminology of "social assistance" to something which presumably is a little broader than that.

Mr. Manness: That is the code used throughout government in all of our programs. That is common across all of our programs apparently.

Ms. Friesen: So any grant to an external agency is classified as social assistance?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I refer the member to 144 for definitions, of the glossary, page 2 in the Supplementary Information booklet at the bottom. That includes payments to citizens and groups. So it is a general heading meant to relate to all those factors.

Ms. Friesen: In my book it actually says Clothing for Citizens, Fees and Services. So is this defined as a fee to citizens?

Mr. Manness: The word is "allowances." That is in mine. It says allowances. So it is a catchall area.

Ms. Friesen: So when we look at that $3.27 million or $3.67 million‑‑it is just that I would have expected this to be under grants and contracts.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, these are not grants. These are programming funds.

What is different between the top line and the bottom line, the $400,000 is in keeping with an agreement we have with the Manitoba Aerospace Industries Association, a five‑year agreement, '91‑96, and that is a payment directly to the association; whereas, again, the bottom line is a payment either directly to or in support of the activities of trainees under this program.

Ms. Friesen: It is more than trainees. It is paying for facilities in the sense of classrooms and for trainees.

Mr. Manness: "In support of" is what I said. I did not say it was paid directly to them. It is in support of their training activities. So some of it obviously would be directed to the activities around that training and would not flow through their hands.

Ms. Friesen: I am trying to connect this to other departments I am familiar with. When Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, for example, distributes money for programs, I am not sure that they distribute it under a line called social assistance. I could be wrong, but it has certainly never struck me before.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we acknowledge that the definition is gray, but it is what we have used for years within Education or within Training and within all of government.

Ms. Friesen: When the government then calculates its payments in social services, is this calculated as part of it? When we talk about, for example, the increase in social assistance payments, do we then add up all of these kinds of categories and are these included in that‑‑what most people would think of as a rising welfare bill? Are these things included?

Mr. Manness: Definitely not.

Ms. Friesen: Where is that bill calculated then? What is that based on?

Mr. Manness: That is within Family Services, within particularly that line. That is one‑half of the department. The member knows that is based on volumes; that is based on the changes in the programming. It is built on price increases. Those are the basic components that go into building the social allowance totals. It does not begin to pick up all of the training needs and the other needs of individuals that are sponsored in a number of other departments as what would appear to be miscellaneous lines.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I want to look at the Training Incentives Contracts now, a section of Workforce 2000. Could the minister tell us, what is the amount of money anticipated to be spent in that area this year and the amount of money last year in that line?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, before I talked about the total of $1.67 million and I allocated $1.8 of it to industry‑wide initiatives. In the training incentives area, that total is $1,645,000.

Ms. Friesen: What was the number on that line last year?

Mr. Manness: The number for that line last year was $1,558,600, and that was the actual expense for '93‑94.

Ms. Friesen: This does not include the programs which are run under the payroll deduction account.

Mr. Manness: No, it does not.

Ms. Friesen: That payroll deduction section is not included in either of the industry‑wide partnerships or province‑wide special courses.

Mr. Manness: That is correct.

Ms. Friesen: So there is in fact a further section of Workforce 2000 developed in conjunction with industry partners under the payroll tax deduction program which is not included in this 16.4(h)(1).

Mr. Manness: That is correct. That is housed in the Department of Finance.

* (1650)

Ms. Friesen: The Training Incentives Contracts then, could the minister again tell me what has been evaluated in past years, what has been learned from those evaluations, what the minister has found valuable in previous years, and which initiatives have been discontinued?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am very happy the member has asked this question, because of course this is where so many of the individual firms have access to Workforce 2000. Regardless of scope or size or where they are located or who they are, they have an opportunity to be part of this wonderful program.

The member asks how it is we monitor and/or evaluate. This is not an exhaustive list of what we do in every case, but this is what we do generally, and in some cases we may do more than one, if not several, with respect to any one firm. We ask the participant to do their own evaluations at the end of their training. We will do a telephone survey and talk to employers primarily.

I made reference before to the thousand work sites. That was a number not literally to be taken but meaning a very large number, worksite monitoring. Do we attend at all of the worksites? Obviously not, but we do monitor and visit those that we can. Then we, in some cases, will visit the training site if that is not necessarily the worksite. Then we will request third‑party evaluations. In this case, the federal Business Development Bank would be a third‑party example. Then we do a survey of the training outcome, and we will survey the employers three to six months afterwards again to determine the impact. So this is what we attempt to do. Again, this has been shared with the Provincial Auditor as to the methods of intervention that we use, and, as no doubt part of the reason that the report, favourable as it is, has come back in the fashion it has.

Ms. Friesen: I think there is some dispute about the nature of that satisfaction. Can we take each of these items then and examine how they have been used?

The participants' survey, how has that been conducted? Is that a written participants' survey done by each participant in every course, and are the results given to the department or to the trainer or to the employer?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, as I ran down that list, I said that not every one of these applied to every participant and/or every program. We do have a large number, though, but not all participants, are surveyed. They file an evaluation, and we keep those on file.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what proportion of courses or programs have participant evaluations? Are we looking at 50 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we sense that the number would be around 50 percent, although we are not absolutely certain, but we feel that is a fair estimate at this time.

Ms. Friesen: Why are some evaluated in that way and not others? Is it something that is peculiar to a particular type of courses or to a particular type of training program? Some lend themselves to different kinds of evaluations. Or is it the nature of the trainer, that some are perhaps more careful than others? What are the reasons? Half are being evaluated in this way; half are not. Is there a rational reason for that?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the short answer is yes to the all of the above plus the fact that we do not have all the resources necessary to enforce it or to make sure it happens in all the cases. So the member has answered her own question.

Ms. Friesen: Well, no, I have not. What I did was give the minister a few ideas that he might want to cite in response, and he chose not to respond with any of them. It would be possible, for example, if the minister believed that this type of evaluation was appropriate, to ensure that there was a contingent fee applied to that, that until those participant evaluations came in, in areas where the minister felt that they were required, then you simply do not pay their final stage of the contract. Has that happened, or is that not something the minister considers appropriate?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will take the recommendation under advisement.

Ms. Friesen: The telephone survey of employers, is that conducted with every employer, or is that again a proportion of employers? Does it depend, for example, if you have had participant evaluation, you would not phone the employer?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we did evaluations by telephone roughly of 20 percent of all of the clients, the employer clients.

Ms. Friesen: Then we are back to worksite monitoring. What proportion of the worksites were monitored, and on what basis were they chosen to be monitored?

Mr. Manness: Exactly the same answer applies as to under the other program. We would monitor every site where there was wage assistance involved and try to do the best we could in the rest, but, again, we would not visit every site. I do not even know what percent in total we may have visited.