Manitoba Hansard — 24 May 1994 (Sitting 32A, 35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-32a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker Vol. XLlll No. 32A • 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 24, 1994 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and PoUtical AfftUation NAME CONS1TI'UENCY PARTY. ASJITON, Steve Thompson NDP BARRE'IT. Becky Wellington NDP CARSTAIRS, Sharon River Heights Liberal CERILLI. Marianne Radisson NDP CHOMIAK. Dave Kll donan NDP CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste.Rose PC DACQUAY,Louise Seine River PC DBRKACH, Leonud, Hon. Roblin -Russell PC DEWAR. Gregory Selkirk NDP DOER, Gary Concordia NDP DOWNEY,James, Hon. Arthur-Virden PC DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach PC DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. Riel PC EDWARDS, Paul St. James Liberal E.NNS, Harry. Hon.

Lakeside PC ERNST, Tun, Hon. Charleswood PC EVANS,Clif Interlake NDP EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East NDP FILM ON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo PC FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield PC FRIESEN,Jean Wolseley NDP GAUDRY, Neil SLBoniface Liberal GllLES HAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa PC GRAY, Avis Crescentwood Liberal HEL WER, Edward R. Gimli PC JnCKES, George Point Douglas NDP KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Liberal LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Liberal LATHL1N, Oscar The Pas NDP LAURENDEAU, Mm:el St. Norbert PC MACKINTOSH. Gord SLJohns NDP MALOWAY,Tun Elmwood NDP MANNPSS, Clayton, Hon.

Morris PC MARTINDALE, Doug Burrow s NDP McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek PC McCORMICK. Norma Osborne Liberal ·" McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West PC MciNTOSH. Linda. Hon. Assiniboia PC MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East PC ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. Pembina PC P ALLISTER, Brian Portage la Prairie PC PENNER, Jack Emerson PC PLOHMAN,John Dauphin NDP PRAZNIK. Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC REID, Daryl Transcona NDP REIMER, Jack Niakwa PC RENDER, Shirley St. Vital PC ROBJNSON, Eric Rupertsland NDP ROCAN, Denis, Hon.

Gladstone PC ROSE, Bob Turtle Mountain PC SANTOS, Conrad Broadway NDP SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere NDP STEP ANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC STORlE,Jerry FlinFlon NDP SVEJNSON, Ben La Verendrye PC VODREY. Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry PC WOWCHUK, Rosano Swan River NDP

2084 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 24, 1994 The Bouse met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS RO�PROCEEDINGS MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS Weste rn llremiers' Conference Bon. Gary FUmon (Premier) : Mr. Speak er, I have a statement for the House, copies available for opposition memb ers, as well as copies of communiques and reports from the Western Premiers' Conference last week in Gimli . Mr. Speaker, I am tabling copies of the 11 communiques and two reports which were relea sed during last week's Western Premiers' Conference in Gimli .

The range of topics covered in the comm uniques shows that the west ern provinces and territories remain committed to close co-operation and to working together on key priorities for the West and for Canada. Over the weekend, one comm entator noted the remarkable una nimity in the communiques, and it is remarkable indeed.

What is pa rticula rly enco uraging is the commitment by the we ster n provinces and territories to mo ve ahea d together in several important areas, including development of a strategic investment plan for western Canadian infrast ructure needs; the establ ishment of new western export consortia to ensure the West can compete more effectively for large international projects; confirmati on of our continuing un ited position in opposition to tobacco smuggling; a commitment to strong co-operation on taxation and budgetary pol icies, as well as the national trai ning and social security revie ws; a recommen dation to the Prime Minister that the Premier of Saskatchewan be the co-c hair of the national forum on health; continuing joint work on new fann safety net programs; development of a more proactive approach to advancing Canada's case in international trade disputes; a strong endorsement of the international Trade ministers' effort to negotiate a comprehensive agree ment by the end of June on reducing internal trade barri ers; a full- scale review of western transp ortation priorities to be led by Manitoba; confirmation of support for an ong oing formal relati onship between the western Pre miers and the western governo rs; agreement on the importance of moving ahead quicldy with the federal government to reduce overlap and duplication and to pursue on a western regional basis co-operative initiatives in such areas as environment, em ergency pre parednes s, health car e and public service renewal and reform; unanimous support for the con tinuation of bilateral federal-provincial economic develo pment agreements in the West and for the inclusion of the Northwest Territories and Yukon as full participants in meetings of western industry and ec onomic devel opment ministers with their federal counter part; and finall y, a call on the Prime Minister to restart the process of ann ual First Ministers' conferences on the economy, and in ad dition, to continue the practice started la st year of consul ting the provinces in advance of the yearly G-7 summits.

The other Premiers and territorial leaders were very generous in describing the success of the conference. I believe a large part of the credit should go to the hospitality provided by the people of Gimli and the surrounding community. They made everyone feel very welcome, and I believe they can be proud of the positive impression of Manitoba which our visitors took away with them at the conclusion of the conference. I would like to pay particular tribute to the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

2085 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 Downey) for their contributions to making this year's co nference one of the best and most productive our province bas hosted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. •

(1335) Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Premier for his statement to the Legislature this afternoon. We would like to start and congratulate the people of the Interlake and the people of the Gimli community for what we have heard to be just a ttemendous job in hosting the Western Premiers' meeting. We are all very proud of the job that Mani tobans and members of the Gimli commun ity provided to host this important meeting of western Premiers.

I would like to talk a little bit about the substance of the meeting and about the statement the Premier made to this Legislature and about other media reports that we have been able to glean over the four- or five-day period that the stories came from the meeting. First of all, we think it is a very positive idea that the Pre mier s have proposed that Premier Romanow of Saskat chewan co-host the discussions on heal th care reform.

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

So it seems to us that our first priority should be to get a strong national government and strong national standards and strong national funding as part of the health care reform. We believe very strongly in a strong partnership between the provinces and the federal government. To us, partnership also is not just talk, it is also action in the form of the federal budgets that we see in the province. So I think it is a good proposal, and we wish the govenment well on having this kind of co-operative review of heal th care rather than a uni lateral review.

We also note the rec omm endation on smoking, and I applaud the western Premiers on that issue . Certainly, the smuggling has gone from north-south to east-west. This, the Tuesday after the long weekend, I have talked to a Manitoba retailer over the weekend and, of course, we are suffering because of this change in policy. I am sure the governm ent feels it in their revenues or will feel it in their revenues over time. The whole issue of powers-there was a report on powers. Devo lution of powers was one headline, other reports about rationaliz ation of powers.

We in Manitoba I believe continue to be committed to a strong natio nal government, and I personally believe that we in Mani toba should present that view to the other western Premiers who have traditionally had a more decentralist view of the national government I hope Manitoba continues to have a strong voice for the presence of a strong national government. There are various decisions that have to be looked at. I happen to believe that we should have a strong national presence in environment. Ecosystems do not stop and start at provincial bounda ries.

They cross water s and air, and ecosystems cross provincial boundaries. I actually believe that rather than having the reaction we saw with the Oldman River in Alberta for more unilateral provincial powers in the enviro nment, I believe we should have a stronger national and international view of that position. I would urge the provincial government to take that to the table, rather than the watered-down, shared position they have in the communique. The whole issue of taxation is a very important issue. Manitoba has not presented a report or a position paper yet to the federal government on the GST.

Saskatchewan has and the whole issue of fair taxation, I believe, will be a major issue in Canada as the GST debate continues. On the issue of trade , we note that the communique is continuing to work towards a June 1994 resolution of trade. We believe that areas of

May24, 1994 LEGISLA1lVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2086 strong and high unemployment must be considered along with our needs of commerce, and northern and aboriginal comm unities must be considered in any communique or position that Canada does finally resolve. Finall y, on the issue of agriculture, we wish the government well. We do not note any strong, co-ordinated approach of the western Premiers dealing with the fann support programs. Some provinces want to proceed with the removal of the Wheat Board. Other provi nce s want to keep a strong Wheat Board.

That is the same kind of dichotomy we see between our western Premiers and prov inces on transportation policies and other issues. I am pleased this government will look at the whole issue of transporta tion. How many jobs will we lose with CN and CP, with their merger? What will it mean for Manitoba? What will it mean for western Canada? What will it mean for our producers? We wish the governme nt well in their ongoing dialogue on some of these areas of activity . Thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker. •

(1340) Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to jo in comments with the Leader of the Opp osition and the Premier (Mr. Fi.lmon) in congratula ting the people of Gimli and of the Interlake region for putting on a very, very fine job of hosting indeed. All reports were that it was extremely well done by that community . I do not think we would have expected any less. 1bey have proven that in the past, but they have obviously shown their hospitality again. Mr.

Speaker, there are specific concerns about some of the documents that the First Ministe r has sent out; in particular the communiques which we had earlier received, and we are glad to have his comments this morning, but there are comments we have on some of those communiques which will come up in Question Period today. By way of overview, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say that I was, of course, pl eased to see that a large topic of discussion was the whole area of western co-operation , both on the economic fro nt and in terms of the ex penditur es of government across this region.

I have consistently maintained and continue to do so, that this region of the country still lags far behind other regions, most notably Atlantic Canada in recent years on that front, and there are many millions if not billi ons of dollars to be saved for our common taxpa yers. Mr. Speaker, the other issue that I raise as a gener al state ment here is that, aga in, and unfortunately in recent years-and I see the pattern unfortunately continuing-the whole genesis and the whole-what is contained more than anything else in these 26 pages of press releases, 11 of them .

One wonders what else was done except write communi ques; 26 pages in two and a half days is not bad. In any event, the press releases either start or degenerate to largely continuing by the provi ncial governments to blame other levels of government, most notably, of course, time and time again, the fe deral government. No doubt there are always those criticis ms to be made, but that has become an increasin gly, still is, the raison d'etre app arently of these meetin gs, is to do this. What I would like to see, Mr.

Speaker, what I think Manitobans would like to see is some concrete solutions, some things that are actually comi ng fo rward, that are actually being done by these provincial gove rnments. There is a lot of hypocrisy in talking about offioading when this government has offioaded in every single budget that it has come in with-seven budgets in a row . There is a certain level of credibility which I think is continuing to lack from the overall talk about co-operation and finding solutions. It does not appear to be reflected in these. There are a lot of communiq ues, 26 pages worth.

The words "co-operation" or "co-operative ly" are used 30 times. What do we have to show for it? Those are the tough questions for the Premier (Mr. FJ.lmon). Thank you. •

(1345) 20 87 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 ••• Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report , 1992 -93, of the Universities Grants Co mmissi on. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker : Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the atte ntion of honourable members to the galle ry, where we have with us this afternoon from the Wanipigow School twenty-five Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Marion Taylor. This school is located in the constituency of the honour able member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).

From the Country View School, we have sixteen Grade s 5 to 9 students under the direction of Mr. Brian Reimer. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Reso urces (Mr. Driedger). From the Ralph Br own School, we have thirty-four Grades 5 and 6 students under the direction of Ms. Cora Duffy. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Prime Motor Oils Environmental Oeanup Costs Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Ftlmon). Last week, we were , unfortunat ely, given an Auditor's report dealing with the Hazardous Waste Cotparation that indicated the company itself did not want any involvement of the Auditor in the affairs of public money and public investments in that corporation. Previous to this, we raised questions in the House about Solvit and Prime Oil, two private waste corporations that have resulted in considerable concern in our communities for both the safety of these operations and the costs.

I would lik e to ask the Premier, how much did it cost the taxpayers to clean up the Solvit operation which was licensed from the provincial government, and did we recover any money from that cotparation or take any legal action? Bo n. Glen Cu mmings (Minister of Environmen t): Mr. Speaker, the Solvit cleanup actually was not a large number. I cannot call to memory the exact number. We have attempted to take action to recover any possible dollars that are available from that site, but as you can ap preciate , there is not a lot of value in the site .

I think the member will have to be a little bit patient, howev er, in tenns of Prime Oil, because one of the things that oc curre d there is that we spent a considerable amount of time working with the owners to get the liability down and get as much of that site clea ned up as possib le. Unfort unately , they ev entua lly colla psed financially under not only the business climate they were in, but part of the pressure that we were putting on them in terms of bringing their operation up to snuff .

We have spent, I believe, about $300,000 in getting rid of the initial amount of waste that was left onsite, but we have taken some very strong action to attempt to recover, and the courts will ultimately decide how much. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, Prime Oil is a company , and the amount of money we understand for Solvit is $60,000, which is a lot of money in terms of all the other decisions government is making in terms of reduction in services . The minister has indicated and we have Freedom of Information indicating that considerable amounts of public money have been spent on Prime Oil.

This is a company that the government cited in its Fire Commi ssioner's report in 1989 and '90 as an exemplary company, and a company, of course, which they went and license d, Mr. Speaker. We have close to $300,000 outstanding, and to date, there has only been one judgment against Prime Oil, and that is a judgment in February of 1994, of some $65,000.

May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2088 I would like to ask the government, how much will the total bill be for cleanup because the Freed om of Information indicates that this is not the total amount of money? What will the total amount of money be that the government will spend to clean this Prime Oil site up? How much money do we expect to recover, and what are we going to be short from another private operation? • (13 50) Mr. Cummings: Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure if the implication is that we should have more public and less private operations in the handling of hazardous waste in this provin ce, but in the soil cleanup at Prime Oil, there has to be some analysis as to what level of contamination there is. The whole area is being evaluated quite carefully to make sure we do not inadvertently overloo k something. The member should know that this is one of those situ ations where the owners-we have attempted and will continue to attempt to recover from their person al assets.

Frankly, all of their personal assets, I believe , are likely at risk in attempting to recover the costs here, and the courts will ultimately decide what is fair. Mr. Doer: The minister asked us what our position is, and we believe that this hazardous waste material should be handled in a nonprofit way by a public corporation where the safety of citizens is the prim ary consideration, not the profit of indi viduals. That is our philosophy on dealing with hazardous waste. That is why we are opposed to privatization and other mo ves by this government over the years and specifically this spring.

I would like to ask the government, what are they going to do to stop their licensing of private companies that has resulted in explosions, in fires, in material being left in the grounds and material being left in our communities and the government and the taxpayer being left with the bill at the end of the day? What are they going to do to stop this in the fu ture? It is they who licensed these corporations. It is they who allowed these organizations to exist, and it is they now who are picking up the tab for cleaning up. What are they going to do to stop this in the future? We have had two cases already.

How are they going to stop this in the future? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposi tion would take the approach in opposition to have the private sector come in and invest up to $20 million in hazardous waste management and control in this provi nce that coming from the Leader of the Opp osition, a party that supported Manfor for which we are paying a $13-million environmental cleanu p--$13 million. Does he want to go into the taxpayers' pockets for more of that kind of waste and ineptitude? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, when we look to the Prime Oil development, the liability at that site began decades ago and has gradually built up until this government started to take some action to make sure they either cleaned up or they were put out of business. They have eventually been put out of business, and we are making sure that they pay everything that we can possibly get them to in terms of the cleanup. Agriculture Marketing Boards Government Positio n Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River) : Mr.

Spe aker, the Canadian Wheat Boa rd and marketing boards have played a very important role in the farming economy of Canada, as well as the economy of all rural communities . However, we learn that at the Western Premiers ' Conf erence, there were some Premie rs, particularly Premier Klein, who would like to see marketing boards gone and would like to see the Wheat Bo ard monopoly gone, as well. I would like to ask the Premier if he will let us know what his position is. Does he support the monopoly of the Wheat Board to stay as it is, as many fann ers do, and does he support marketing boards in Canada? Hon.

Gar y Filmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, we continue to believe and, in fact, I have indicated that one of the things we need to do is ensure that Americans understand what the role of the Wheat

2089 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 Boa rd is, that it is not, as they allege , an org ariization that engages in subsidizing wheat for export, that, in fact. it is a marlceting agency that has served the fanners of western Canada well in the past and I hope will continue to serve the farmers of western Canada well. I at no time have advocated the removal or dism antling of the Canadian Wheat Board. With respect to madceting boards, we continue to be supportive of madceting boards, and at no time have we suggested that marketing boards ought not to continue to exist in our provin ce.

We recognize that under the GATT agreem ent, certain changes will have to be made with respect to tariffi cation as the way of the future for madceting boards , but I have not been an advocate of the dismantling of marketing boards in Manitoba either. • (13 55) Agriculture Marketing Boards Govenun ent Poution Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River) : Mr. Speak er, I am pleased to hear that, and I hope that someday we can get this Premier to encourage the fe deral government to add more crops under the Canadian Wheat Boards's mandate, as farmers would like to see.

If fann support programs are to be successful, we believe that they should be national pr ograms, where there is equality across the provinc es. However, from the communique, we see that there are certain measures of protection that are not covered and still have to be defined. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether these areas that have to be defined yet will be tabled in this House prior to the Ministers of Agriculture meeting that is upcoming. Hon. Harr y Eons (Minister of Agricu lture) : Mr.

Speaker, I cann ot give the honourable member the answer perhaps that she is requesting inasmuch as a fa irly subs tantial committee involving the provi nces is curre ntly meeting to place some of the questions before that upcoming conference that she alludes to, and decisions will not be made until the first week, second week, of July when the ministers meet here in Winn ipeg. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, surely, since other provinces have position papers, the Manitoba group must have some positions, as well . Since Manitoba produ cers, Mr.

Speaker, need to know the position of this government, we need to know what position the Minister of Agriculture has taken, will the Minister of Agriculture, prior to the meeting, table his position paper in this Chamber, so that we can look at what Manito ba's position is on safety supp ort programs for farmers? Mr. Enos: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be diffi cult with the honourable member. I am simply saying that I have listened very carefully to everything that our fe deral minister Mr. Goodale has to say about it .

He speaks in general tenns about a whole farm program, I understand, and our off icials are working towards that end, that it means, in many instances, perhaps an extension or enhancement of the NISA program in some cases, particularly in those areas where past programs, like the tripartite programs in beef , por k and other individual commodity ite ms, are being dropped in this current year. Mr. Speaker, these are issues that a ver y significant group of Manitoban s, some 14 or 15 in all, repre senting virtually all the agricultural community, is engaged in advising me.

They are participants in a much greater committee, consisting of some, I am told, 40 or 45 people from across the country who are meeting on a fairly regular basis to make these suggestions to the ministers when they meet in July here in Winn ipeg. Env ironmental Man agement Jurisdiction Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposit ion ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. As one read thr ough the 11 communiques, one I wanted to raise with the minister was Communique No. 9. This is about the 24th page of communiques. This conf erence did

May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2090 succeed in tripling the number of communiq ues from the last one. · This communique calls for the devolution of authority down to the provinces in environmental management framewOik and classifi es that as an immediate priority , and The Globe and Mail of Saturday indicates, and I would like the minister to clarify that the western leaders identified a number of areas including environmental management in which the federal govemment could cede control to the provinces. Mr.

Speaker, my question for the First Minister: Is it his position, and did he join with the other Premiers in calling for environmental management and control of environmental reviews to be given solely to the provinces? That strikes me as the one area in which it makes no sense to have the provinces individually regulate this in isol ation, because we all know that air and water travel and environmental pollution and degradation is a larger issue than our borders as provinces allow us to somehow curtail the pollution.

My question to the Premier: Is that his position, that the provinces want full control over environmental management? • (1 400) Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I must say that is the last area of communiques that I thought that the Leader of the Liberal Party would strike on, because he has been one who has constantly advocated our trying to remove the overlapping duplication between and among the provinces. He has always talked about the tremendous savings that would occur if we harmonized our efforts or if we combined into one commission or other things. Mr.

Speaker, this is precisely an area in which there is overlap. In fact, I have been one who has said that there ought to be consistent fe deral standards, but it seems to me that having fe deral standards or consistently agreed-upon standards across the provinces does not necessarily mean that we have to have two panels to review the environmental assessment for the same p roces s. This is direct overlap and duplication.

If you set your standards , you agree on your standards , and then you require two different panels just simply beca use you have tw o diff erent levels of government, that does not make any sense whatsoever. So if we take that to the extent that he has been advocating in the past, that provinces ought to harmonize and get together their efforts, then you would have provinces doing the same thing. Where you have border crossings, you have two provinces agreeing to have one review panel conducted on the basis of agree d-upon standards . That would make sense, as well. So, Mr.

Speaker, we as govemments are looking for ways to be innovative , to seek to accomplish the things that he says we should, and here he is the first one to stand up and say, ah, we should not do that I cann ot understand where he is coming from. Mr. Edwards : Mr. Speaker, more nice words . Creating 12 islands of environm ental management in this country will do nothing to assist in the ef ficient and responsible managemen t of the en vironment This Premi er is calling essentially , with the others, to have complete control over the environment. It is an international issue.

It certainly should not be restricted to provincial boundaries. Western Economic Co-operation Report Tabling Request Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition) : My supplementary question for the First Minister: In the communique from the November meeting in Canmore between these Premiers, it was specifically indicated that the Premiers had asked at that time for a report from responsible ministers on items raised at the spring 1994 Western Premie rs' Conference on western ec onomic co-operation . An inventor y was supplied at that time, and the report was to be table d.

We have , I certainly want to recognize, a report on learning and post-secondary education distance learning. Where is the ove rall report on the western

209 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 ec onomic co-o per ation initiatives that was promised in Camnore back in November? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier) : Speaking to the member's postamble, you do not have 12 islands if you agree on one unif orm set of standards . That is the first principle, that you agree on one unif orm set of standa rds across 12 jurisdictions, so you cannot possibly have 12 islands. I rej ect totally his postamble. With respect to the areas of co-operation, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier of Alberta updated the report which had been delivered in Camnore to indicate that there have been not only the more than 160 areas of co- operation that had been listed in Camnore but that we had a whole new serie s that were being catalogued; not only the report that he has referred to on the use of the electronic highway for distance education, but we have new areas of co-operation.

For instance, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we are having a commo n fi re tack for early identification of fires so that they can then take action on the fires regardless of which side of the border they occur on. As soon as the fires are identified, these crews-the first group, for instance, is at BakeiS Narrows, and it coveiS the northern Manitoba area near Plio Pion and Creighton, Saskatchewan. There are a number of other areas in curriculum development in education that are being proceeded with .

We talked about areas such as univeiSity level coUISeS where it is now being acknowledged that we have far too many of the same prof essional fac ulties in some areas, and so we are looking at that The area is exploding so rapidly that the Premier of Alberta did not have an accurate handle on all these things, because it had only been less than six months since we had the meeting, for instance, in Canmore , and it was agreed upon that we would have a much more comprehensive review of all of these areas of co-operation for our next me eting. Mr. Edwards: Again, Mr.

Speaker, very nice words, lots of commun iques, but the report promised in November is not here, unless we are to take the 26 pages of c omm uniques as the report. Weste rn Economic Co -operation Common Curriculum Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition) : I have a final question for the First Minister. He specif ically mentions curriculum and education. Just two months ago, the Atlantic Premiers announced a joint approach to curriculum in the core sub jects across their region.

They are going to co me up with the same curriculum to assist not only in saving money in coming up with new curriculum, but also in the mobility of their citizeiJS throughout that region. My question for the FiiSt Minister: They made a commitment two months ago and set a timetab le. What is the commitment, the real commitment of these PremieiS in this region to do the same thing in that are a that the Minister of Education mentioned just a few weeks ago was a good idea? What is the commitment? What is the time line for our region towards a common curriculum in the core sub jects, Mr. Speaker? Bon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the Estimates review just last week, the protocols are in place as between the pro vincial governments of western Canada and the terri tories. We have gone some distance in one sub ject area, particularly in mathema tics, and we are worlcing collaboratively in the area of science. I would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that we have some distance to make up. Manitoba is driving that process more so than any other province in western Canada.

I expect as a result of the meetings in Gimli that there certainly will be greater desire from our pr ovinces to the west to move on even more quickly. I find it rather indifferent on behalf of the Leader of the Liberal Party to pose these questions when his critic of Education is challenging us for hol ding our num bers of peo ple within curriculum development, because we are trying to prevent the

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 209 2 overlap and duplication, and we are trying to wodc to greater efficiency· with our limited reso un:es . So the mem ber is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Maint t!IUlDCe Enf orcement Program Service Access Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns) : Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Despite the hopes expressed by the Ombudsman in his 1992 report and promises by past Ministers of Justice, the Maintenance Enforcement Program in Manitoba is now app arently functioning even worse than ever.

In the last couple of weeks alone, I am aware of several cases where recipients are not even rennned mes sa ges; for exam ple, one case where eight messages were left over 11 weeks , another case where seven messages were left over seven and a half weeks. My question to the minister is, what immediate shakeup of the Maintenance Enforcement office can the minister announce to people like Tammy Williamson, who is in the gallery today, a very frustrated single mom, because she had to wait three weeks for a return call after leaving 20 messages with her officer? Bon.

Ros emary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) : Mr. Speaker, in the area of maintenance enforc ement, as I have said in the House before, we are looking to certainly increase eff iciency. We have been able to increase efficiency in some areas, and we are looking to continue to do so. The specif ic case the member raises in the House, I would have been very appreciative if he had let me know the circumstances of that so I could loo k into it, because our concern for Manitobans is of the utmost imponance .

The member chooses to raise it here, so I have no idea bow many of those calls were placed within a cenain amount of time. However, it is always our effort to return the calls of Manitobans and to see that they get the information they need. Mr. Mackinto sh: Perhap s the minister would advise the House why, when a phone call was made on about April 5 to her office, her ass istant said he would get right on it and that person has never heard back yet. Mrs . Vodrey: Mr.

Speaker, the member makes accusations in this House, accusations where , obviously, I do not have the inf ormation at this moment, but if he would give me more det ails, I will certainly look into that, too. However, Mr. Speaker, just to assure Manitobans-because the member often seeks to make Manitobans fe arful, and I would like to assure Manitobans that we have cenainly taken action in the area of maintenance enforce ment by increasing the number of officers. We have increased them by two more in this budget year.

We also have an enhanced computer system now so that we can-[intetjection] The members opposite seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding or seem to think it is really very funny. The information required by those Manitobans is inf onnation which we are seeking to provide to them very quickly. By putting it into a computer system, we are able to bring it up more quickly than finding that inf onnation manually. Members opposite have treated that also with disdain. • (1410 ) Mr.

Mackintosh : My fi nal question to the minister is, how can such plans wodc when the caseloads of some officers continue to grow, in fact, in one case to 1,930 files, another one to 1,188 files as of May 6- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mrs . Vodrey : Mr. Speaker, the information that I have about the caseloads of officers is in the range of 800 to 900, which is similar to officers across Canada.

If the member has other information that would actually help Manitobans and help make this Maintenance Enforc ement off ice fu nction more efficiently , if he believes that there are always ways to make of fices more efficient, I would be happy to hear that . The information that I have from the office is as I have explained to this House. In addition, I have also explained how we are moving to an automated

2093 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 system where people may be able to pick up the phone, press certain numbers on the phone and get the inf onnation, which thereby frees the officers then to deal with more diffi cult and more complex problem s. Education FadUties Asbestos Regul ations Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Back in June 1992, the problem of developing a plan of action to deal with asbestos in the schools was raised with this minister.

It is clear from Regulation 53-88 under The Workplace Safety and Health Act that there is a requirement, among other things, that an inventory of substances like asbestos be filed and posted and that there be a management plan developed. I would ask the minister why be bas not taken action on this known problem of asbestos in the schools, particularly in ensuring an inventory is developed for St. James-As siniboia School Division, and if such an inventory does exist, will be table it in the House? Hon. Darren Praznik (MiDister of Labour) : Mr.

Speaker, as the member for Radisson should know , under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, the prime responsibility for a particular worksite lies or rests with the owners of that particular wotksite. So, in the case of St. James-Assini boia School Division, they have a responsibility for the abatement of asbestos problems within their school division. The Dep artment of Labour Work place Safe ty and Health Branch is the regulator. We provide advice and assistance, and where action is not taken, we issue the appro priate orders and enforce them .

So, if an inventory in that school division exists , it would be the property of the school division. If we happen to have such an inventory, I will take it as notice to provide it to the member. Ms. Cerilli: Mr.

Speaker, it is this minister's responsibility to enforce Workplace Safety and Health regul ations , and I would ask him, what is preventing him from doing this, to ensure that they are enf orced and that a program is developed, a comprehensive program, that is going to look at identifying asbestos in schools, that is going to look at the need for removal and is going to look at managing asbestos in certain situations so it does not have to be removed. This is a program that is being fo llowed in other jurisdictions- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member bas put her question. Mr. Pramik: Mr.

Speaker, as I pointed out to the member for Radisson, under The Work place Safety and Health Act, the responsibility for dealing with a problem in a particular building lies with the owners of that building. We are the regulators, and we work throughout the province with many owners of buildings to deal with asbestos, but I would point out to the member that she does tend to bring to this House, from time to time, information that is inadeq uate.

A week or so ago, she asked me a question which I took as notice, and I do have that inf ormation to the member now, where she did come to this House indicating that a partic ular disease, I believe legionnaires ' disease, bad been fo und in a particular school, and from the latest report that we bad, that there was only a scree ning test, not a diagnostic test that bad revealed-that was one of a number of possibil ities. Extensive air testing by the branch did not determine in any way that the particular organism s that caused that illness were present in the school.

I would also inform the honourable member, where she indicated that there bad been changes in branch policy with respect to indoor air quality, the branch getting out of that partic ular business directly, occurred in 1984 when the memb er's party was in government. Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker. my final supplementary related to the issue of asbestos in the schools is, will the minister ensure that the code of practice is strengthened to de al with asbestos in public buildings, as I said earlier, so we can have a comprehensive program in Manitoba, enforced in Mani toba, as they have in other jurisdictions?

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2094 Mr. Prazoik: Mr. Speaker, one very important part of Workplace Safe ty and Health is risk management. The member for Radisson tends to bring to this House accusations of problems without any solid indication that ther e is a particular problem . I would suggest to the member for Radisso n, if she bas particular incidents that are not being properly handled now, that present a health risk to people in any buildings in this province, that she bring it fotward to our staff , and we would be more than pl eased to respond.

What we cannot deal with and what does not lead to, I think, good administrati on of health and safety legislation, is unf ounded inf ormation, innuendo and anecdotes, just as the member brought up in this House, comm ents about another alleged spill in Pine Falls that were totally untrue . Hay Report Implementation Report Ms. Becky Barrett (WeDington) : Mr. Speaker, in 19 91, the Hay report on the Civil Service Commission was completed at a cost to taxpayers of $140 ,000.

Following the public announcement of the audit, the Minister responsible for the Ovil Service Commission set up a committee to ove rsee the impl ementation of those recommendations and also promised an interim report as to the status of the government action on the recommendations . To date, three years after the report was tabled, no report bas been forthcom ing. I am tabling in the House today a letter dated April 14 sent by the Manitoba Women in Gove rnment to the Premier asking for a report. My question to either the Premier (Mr.

Ftlmon) or the Minis ter responsible for the Ovil Service Commission is, why bas there been no report of the action on the re commenda tions and the implementation of the recommendations of the Hay Commission? Bon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act ): Mr.

Spea ker, I can inform the member for Radisson that many of the recommendations of that particular audit have been implemented by the Civil Servi ce Commission, that we have been working with a number of people who have been involved in that pro ject I can tell the member that there have been some very successful pro jects launched out of that. One that comes to mind is the Executive Development Program in which a number of ministers of this government have participated. So, to date, I think that the member's question with regard to a report is something we can deal with in Estimates in greater detail. Ms.

Ban-ett: Yes, the member for We llington. When will the government, either the Minister responsible for the Ovil Service Commission or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or anyone in the governmen t table and report to the Manitoba Women in Gover nment and the people of Manitoba what they said they would do almost three years ago, which was deliver on a regular basis an interim report on the gov ernm ent's actions on the Hay report and not just a question in Question Period? The people of Manitoba deserve an interim report on what is bappe ning- Mr. Speaker : Order, please. The honourable member bas put her question. Mr.

Pramik: Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly recall at that time the commitment that the member for Wellington raises today, that it would be on a regular reporting basis. I can tell the honourable member for Wellington that many of those recommenda tions wer e implemented immediately after the process, which the Manitoba Women in Government were well aware of, and that we have ongoing programs or that they host ongoing programs that are improving the ability of women to advance in senior positions in government.

So the member's question is certainly a valid question, but I think much of the work has been done and is ongoing. Ms. Barr e tt: Mr. Spe aker, I was at the presentation where the minister did undertake to issue interim reports on a regular basis.

2095 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for deba te . Bay Report Implementation Report Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellingt on) : Mr. Speaker, will the Premier, in response to the letter of April 14 by the Manitoba Women in Government, now direct the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission to immediately table a written report about the imp lementation of the recommendations of the Hay report-not waiting for Estimates, but an immediate tabling of a written report so that we know what, if anything, this go ver nment bas done about the recommendations of the Hay report? •

(1420) Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this government bas bad more women on a percentage basis app ointed to boards and commissions than the pr evious NDP government ever bad. This government bas more women worlcing in senior officer positions with the government of Manitoba than any other previous government including the NDP, mo re appointments as judges, more appointments as Quee n's Counsel s, mo re appointments to positions of responsibility than any previous government, particularl y the New Democrats. They are all bot air and no action when it comes to that topic.

We will have our record stand up against anything they ever did when they were in government, and they can get more information from the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission during his Estimates . ACCESS Programs Funding Reduction Ms. Avis Gray (Crescen twood) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. We know that there are numerous findings from the report that Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg did in regard to ACCESS programs in Manitoba.

Perhaps one of the most sig nificant fi ndings presented in this report indicates that the program bas suf fe red because of the indecisiveness of government with respect to their commitment to and the vision of the program. The program environment remains unstable because of a lack of funding commitment. Can the Minister of Education tell us why be bas reduced funding to the ACCESS programs which is in a direct contrast to the findi ngs in his own commissi on report? Bon. Clayton Mann ess (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I am not fa miliar with the exact pass age quoted by the member for Crescentwood, but certainly the uncertainty with respect to funding over the course of the last five years could almost totally be directed towards the federal gove rnment, because we have stood in the breach year after year, and I can remember this first-band through the budgetary proce ss, and standing in and accepting millions of dollars of additional costs associated with the ACCESS program when the fe deral government unilaterally moved to withdraw. Mr.

Speaker, I am not as certain with respect to the clarity around the remalks ref erenced by the member for Crescentwood, but I would indicate that this governm ent bas certainly maintained its commitment in the area of ACCESS. Report Tabling Request Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwo od): Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister of Education is so confident about his decisions be bas made in reg ard to ACCESS funding, why will be not table the report so that all members of this House can discuss the findings of the report, and if be is confident, table it so we can have a discussion to find out if, in fact, his decisions have fol lowed along his own report that was commissioned? Bon. Clayton Mann ess (Mini s ter of Education and Tra ining): Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Crescentwood is at a disadvantag e because she has been in Health Estim ates at the same time as the review of post-secondary education.

As I indicated to the NDP critic in this area who posed the same question sever al, several times , it is my intention to try and have that report tabled some time in June. It is requ iring some final

May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2096 preparation. That is being done at this present time, and I will table it as quickly as I can. Ms. Gray : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who is at the disadvantage . I am telling tbe minister about what is in the report, and he cann ot seem to remember a particular passage that particularly refers to the fact- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescent wood, with your question, please. Ms.

Gray: My question to the Minister of Education is, is he prepared this afternoon to table tbe report so that we can have a discussion about the findings of the Hikel report in regard to the ACCESS program? Is he prepared to do that and prove to tbe people of Manitoba that his decisions that he made are, in fact, accurate and based on- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question. Mr. Manness : Mr. Speaker, again, there was exhaustive discussion on this issue in Estimates review at that time .

As I indicated to the many questions put forward that were similar , identical as a matter of fact to the question put forward by tbe member for Crescentwood at this time, we will table that report as quickly as we can. Today it is in a draft form and not ready to be tabled. Health Care System Reform Nursing Consultations Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan) : Mr. Speaker, from the very onset of the government 's health reform, it is very clear that the government was not listening to the public and to nurses in particular.

Last week 's ann ouncement of the make-up of the medical services panel did nothing to dispel this notion, although doctors are represented on the committee, and there is no criticism of that specifically. Nurses and the public in general were not and are not represented on that committee. My question to the minister is, what specific steps-and not just little fireside chats the minister has with various groups in his office-will this minister take to allow the public and nurses in particular to be plugged into the health reform process and have real meaningful input, Mr. Speaker? Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health) : Mr. Speaker, specifically, we will have two nurses on the advisory committee on mental health ref orm. We will have one nurse on the Manitoba :Emergency Services Task Force . We will have 11 n urses on the woddng group to develop criteria for the app lication of triage

definitions. We will have fo ur n urses on the anesthetist working group. We will have eight nurses on the Nurse-Managed Care Working Group. We will have two nurses on the primary care medical transfer group. We will have six nurses on the provincial obstetrical services committee. We will have one nurse on the provincial surgical services committ ee. We will have one nurse on the Rural Health Advisory Council. We will have nine n urses on the steering committee for critical care nursing education core curriculum program.

We will have fo ur nurses on the short-term emer gency program pro jec t evaluation commit tee. We will have one nurse on the Terminal Care Committee. On many, many commit tees and implementation teams, we have nursing put to the ultimate. Mr. Chomiak: What the minister does not say is on those same committ ees, he has 346 doctors and 248 members of his department, and of that total, only 6 percent are nurses and only 4 percent are co nsumers. What will the minister do to redress this obvious imbalance , Mr. Speaker? Mr. McCrae: Mr.

Speaker, we are engaged in seeking the input of medical practitioners , of medial prof ession als of all kinds, and our bottom line is to seek the right answers for the people we are all supposed to be worlcing for; that is, the patient, our fe llow Manitobans, those people who need health care services in this province. Those are the people we are working for, and nursing professionals throughout Manitoba have indicated their willi ngness , and we have asked them in large numbers to assist us. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expi red.

2097 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 ORDERS OF mE DAY Bouse Business Bon. Jim Ernst (Government Bouse Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of matters of House business. House leaders have met and agreed to set aside the remaining items in the Estimates of the Department of Health until the minister tables the Capital Estimates for that department and, in the . interim, to proceed with the consideration of the Estimates of the Ministry of Family Services and/or other de partments in the order listed.

I believe that if you were to canvass the House, you would find there is unanimous consent for these changes. Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to set aside the Department of Health and bring fo rward the Department of Family Services at this time? That is agreed. 1bere is unanimous consent. Mr. Ernst : Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the House to determine if there is unanimous consent to change the pr eviously agreed to sitting hours for tomorrow evening from 7 to 11 p.m., curre ntly listed, to 7:30 to 11: 30 p.m. Mr. Speaker: 1be House had previously agreed to sit tomorrow evening from 7 to 11 p.m.

Now there appe ars to be a willingness to sit from 7:30 to 11: 30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent for that ch ange? An Honourable Member: Agree d. Mr. Speaker : 1bere is agreement? It is agreed to. Mr. Ernst : Mr. Speaker, so for Estimates this afternoon we will now consider the Department of Family Services in the House, and Education continuing in the committee room. So I mov e , sec onded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs . Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Family Services. COMMITrEE OF SUPPLY (ConcuJTeDt Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendea u): Good af ter noon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this

section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 25 5, will re sume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(h)(l)(

a) on page 42 of the Estimates book. •

(1430) Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training) : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we begin I would like to fo nnally correct an error on page 1447 of Estimates from May 10 when members and myself were discussing curriculum issues. I went on the record as indicati ng, or I left the impression on the record, that Mr. Macek was an author or had contributed to the new ref erence material on minerals as part of a suppleme ntary ref erence in the area of sci ence. I was in error in suggesting that Mr. Macek was an author or one of the many authors. He was not.

Certainly , though, he did review, after the fact the curriculum was released, and did find certain errors which he did bring to my attention. So in my full flight, I overstretch ed. the fact somewhat. I ap ologize to Mr. Macek or anyone else for that oversight. Thank you. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the minister for that inf onnation. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolsele y): Mr. Deputy Chair, we have been discussing Workforce 2000 and particularly the strate gic grants across industries and training grants.

The minister has also, on a number of occasions , indicated that he would bring forward some infonnation on the mM grant. It was $50,000 to a corporation for training, a corporation which does

May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2098 not maintain an educational department. It was a payroll tax rebate. · Could the minister, now that he has his staff here , perhaps give us some further information on what was undertaken by mM for that rebate and what the total amount of the rebate was? Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this was against the payroll tax offset. There was app roved tiaining cost of $50,300, yet only $22,000 of it was eligible as a tax refund, so the value to the company under this program was $22,000.

The tiaining plan involved 438 homs of tiaining to 87 Manitoba employe es as foll ows: 51 participants and 105 homs of technical skills tiaining, which included Inform ation Systems Management, Application Develo pment Methodo logy, Computer- Assisted Business Engineering; and 36 participants had 333 hours of human relations gener al sk ills training, which included Management Skills, Consulting Solutions, Managemen t Interpersonal Conflict and Communications. Ms.

Friesen: The 333 hours for 36 people in human relations, co uld the minister give us some further information on the kind of training and the outcomes of that ttaining? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot at this time. Ms. Friesen : Would the minister undertake to table the training plan for that? Mr. Mannes s: I have overviewed the training plan, Mr. Deputy Chaitperson. The synopsis I have just read is an overview of that training plan. If the memb er is ask ing for spe cif ic docume ntation as to what was filed on the ap plication fo rm, that is not inf otmation that is disclosed. Ms.

Friesen : Okay, so am I clear then from the minister that the 304 lines on the application fonn which indicate training plan is info nnation which the minister is not p repared to release? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a detailed plan which we have on file but which will stay as a relationship between the department and mM, in this case . Ms. Friesen : In this particular case, could the minister tell us where the training took place? Mr. Manness: I do not have that inf onnation at this time. Ms. Friesen : Is the minister aware that mM has no training

section nor a personnel

section in Wmnipe g or in Manitoba, but that is all handled from Toronto? My questi on is, was the training actually done in Toronto? Mr. Manness: We will determine as to whether that is the case, and we will report back. Ms. Friesen : Could the minister tell us when he will provide that information? Mr. Manness: As soon as we can find an answer to the question, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. Ms. Friesen : I do remind the minister that I have asked for this inf onnation on two other occasions, and he has undertaken to provide it and not in that spe cific detail, but so far there has not been anything forthcoming.

Could the minister tell us what the precise fo rmula is or what the general fo rmula is between the amount of payroll deemed eligible and the actual amoun t spent? The minister in this case- for exampl e, if we use this as the example , app roximately $50,000 of the payroll was eligible and then $22,000 was eligible for the tax refund. So is that related to the number of employees in the worlcf orce? How is that evalu ated? Mr. Manness: It is a fo nnula in a refundable cost sense, as against payroll tax paid. The annual maximum is the lesser of $100,000 or 0.3 percent of the com pany's pay roll.

So using that then as the basis, reimbursement is calculated on the basis of 75 percent of the first $20,000 of eligible costs, and 50 percent of training costs in excess of $20,000. When one appl ies that formula against the eligibility with respect to the mM case just cit ed, the total off set I believe was $22,000, even though the approved training costs were $50,300. Ms. Friesen: Who determines the total payroll costs? Is that a joint determination, or is it simply

2099 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 the submission of a plan by, in this case, the employer? Mr. Manne ss: The Department of Finance administtates this, but it is in after conversation, I understand, with Workforce 2000 to make sure the training plans are acceptable , but the Department of Finance does the administration with respect to this element of Workforce 2000. •

(1440) Ms. Friesen: So the Department of Finance determines whether the proposed costs are in fact in line , acceptable , nonnal in the industry? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have passed judgment, first ly, with respect to the training plan. Once the plan I am talking about is acceptable to the government, then after that Finance receives infonnation confirming actual training expenditures by June 30, fo llowing the year of application.

They are processed and a tax refund is remitted to the employer, this is by Finance, where again the fo nnula that I have just presented is in place, and then audits fo cusing on training-related expenditures occ ur. Ms. Friesen : Could the minister give me some inf onnation about the training plans submitted by Northern Blower? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, in 1992 there were 29 participants who received 68 hours of training. In '93 that number diminished to 21 participants receiving 42 hours of training. Ms. Friesen : How many hours? Mr. Manness: Forty-two.

Both the '92 and '93 training programs were in the technological category involving instruction in the introduction of new proces ses. Course content included structured coaching, train the trainer, management planning, cascade implementation of quality-improvement teams and total quality management. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister tell us what category of employee was involved in this? Mr. Manness: No, we cannot. Although if we wer e forced to guess, we sense it may be supervisory. Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate why he cann ot tell us that?

One of the criticisms which I have made of these programs is in fact the nature of selection for employees and the equality of access to training programs and to these kind of training programs in the workplace . As I have said on a number of occasions, the issue is not workplace training, the issues are ones which surround that One which we have discussed before is accountability and evaluation. Another issue, wherever these types of programs are introduced, is the ability of all employees to have access to publicly funded training programs.

So who is selecting, in this case, the employees for training, and on what basis are they being selected? That is the reason why I asked for the classifications of the people involved. Mr. Manness: We ll, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is what was obviously diff erent The member has pointed out many times, management selects the level or indeed the strata of employee who they want to train.

I guess over the course of all of the projects or indeed all of the training plans that have come fo rward across sectors , across individual busin esses, we have seen all individu als , regardless of what their economic rank or position is with the company, who have been called upon to improve their training with this level of support. So it is a priority presented and developed by the company. That was the fo cus of Workforce 2000. Ms.

Friesen : So as far as the minister knows, it is management who selects, and as far as the minister's criteria for the delivery of public money, there is no criteri a which would have employers presenting evidence that all employees in a particular category had had access to training. It is simply management selection. Mr. Mann ess : Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, it is management selection. This is a model that is obviously finding fa vour in other jurisdictions because of the fact it is flexible . It instantly, or as close as possible at least time-wise, takes into account the immediate needs of the finn and as

May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2100 spoken through the management. By the way, the vast majority of funds, I think from the beginning we said that $1 here levers comiderable $2, $2.50 of training from the firm. If we were to impose rules and inde ed regulations that dictated who should receive the training within the firm and under what conditi om, then we may as well not have the program. But of course, that is exactly what the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) would advocate . Ms. Fr iesen: The minister, has however, in defending this program , spoken of the empowennent of the individual.

Certainly there is some addition for some people in some of the training received, but where is the empowerment for an individual when the employer, in fact by this program, is given public dollars for training and essentially can, may or may not have-I am asking the minister for evidence in fact -but certainly can cherry-pick who he or she wants to have access to training? That basis of selectivity is what I am asking about. Were there any safeguards, were there any indications to the people who were receiving this mone y that there should be quality of access in the workplace to training money? Mr.

Ma nness : Mr. Deputy Ch airpe rson, notwithstanding the fact that these are public funds that are put in training, the government has chosen not to challenge management 's right to dictate where there will be the greatest return for dollars spent. We fou nd out long ago that if you want to ruin compa nies, have a government edict or a dec ree come along and tell them how to manage their aff airs. So, again, this is a philosophical difference between the member and myself.

This program bas chosen to allow greater freedom for management to decide where the scarce dollars related to training should be directed taking into account not so much the individual needs of the staf f, but the greater good of the company . Obviously, if the company does better, then there will be a greater opportunity for employment, there will be more taxes paid and the economy will be more prod uctive. That is the way the theory worlcs. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, the other side of that coin of course is that when you reduce the opp ortunities at comm unity colleges and when you increase the cost of certain types of training at vocational schoo ls, then in fact what you are doing is reducing the oppo rtunities for employees to find education, further training, further certification at public insti tutiom. You have essenti ally added to the power of management with public money to determine who is trained and for what they are trained.

So, again, it is the equality of access and the empowerment of the individual in that case which is the issue here and cannot be seen in isolation from what has happened elsewhere. Mr. Manness : That is the issue with the member for Wolsele y. The issue with me, and indeed with the govemment, is that private firms in many cases who are not training had no natural fit with the courses being off ered at our fo rmal institu tions, theref ore had very little value for them, but still needed training never the less.

We are suff erin g-Ma nitoba was suffering as a result and nee ded a new system of training that empowered more greatly the management of the firm. That was the essence of Wolkforce 2000. So that is the issue , Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in my mind, not the issue as put fo rward by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). •

(1450) Ms. Friesen : Could the minister give us an ide a of what kind of training took place in the Kentucky Fried Chicken payroll plan? What was the curr iculum? That was a human relations one , I think. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if that is the first time the member has asked about it, we have not developed a respome fo rmally to that, but we will endeavour to do that if the member wis hes. Ms. Fries en: Well, we are in Estimate s. The minister does have his st aff here. I have asked about a specific example , one that is in the current year, or the year just past, of payroll tax deduction.

I would have expected that Estimates was where the minister was going to answer those kinds of questions. I have not raised that specific question before, but I have certainly used it as an example ,

2101 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 so I would have thought that it might have perhaps been monitored by the department or some evidence be available . Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, we have with us 170 pages of briefing materials. H we were to bring along all of the files associated with Workforce 2000, we could multiply that by tenfold . So I did not know that this particular finn and its training costs were an issue with the member.

I knew obviously that the mM case and Northern Blower were, so there had been issue sheets prepared on those particular requested areas, and I will prepare issue shee ts for any one. But I can tell the member that around every one of these firms which have received support under Worlcforce 2000, there is a myriad of inf onnation, and we have not brought all of that with us, because we would have to, of course, rent a moving van to bring the files with us.

So the member can chastise us for not having ready answers to some of her questions, but the reality is, unless I know into what area she wants to delve , I do not have all that infonnation with me. Again, she points out it is my responsibility to talk about the past. That is not true. We are talking about the future. We are talking about money going to be spent in the 1994-95 year. Again, I am not going to belabour that point, but the member is out of order in many respects when she begins to ask questions about 1993-94. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, well, I have pointed out the logical difficulties of this. Since the minister does not table a list of grants which are about to happen which we could ask questions on, then presumably he has to answer questions on the year just past. I mean, logically , it has to be one or the other. If the minister was prepared to table a list of the companies which were receiving it in this coming fiscal year which we are examining, then I would be happy to ask questions on those. But logical ly, it has to be one or the other. Mr. Mann ess : Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, logically, it does not have to be one or the other. Logically, it may not have been detennined yet which firms are going to receive what funding. [intetjection] We ll, of course. This is a dynamic program, and so if the member is saying-! mean, the member knows government better than that. H she says that April 1 of a new fiscal year the government knows exactly where every dollar is going to be directed by way of cheque to every firm or every person outside of government. H she is saying that is the way she thinks governments work, well nothing is further from the truth.

We are seeking authority. We are seeking spending authority to spend so many million dollars in this program area with the criteria in place, and through the year, ultimately there will be app lications come fo rward. This is a dynamic pr ocess. It is not static. Through that period of time, we will detennine , rightfully or wrongfully, as the applications come in and it is measured against the criteria, whether or not a certain company warrants support.

Of course, as the money is spent as we go through the year, through the fiscal year, sometime by late next fall and we see how much money is left and we see how many app lications are left, by that time some number of app lications will be denied. 1be member is sayi ng, no, you must know right now who it is all the money is going to go to. We ll, that is a false argument, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and it is not in keeping with reality , because we do not know at this point.

So we cannot tell her who are going to be the recipients of the money, that we are seeking authorit y, at this sitting, to spend in a global fas hion. Ms. Friesen: Well, I am sure as the minister knows, that is not the issue. The issue is what he was prepared to answer questions on and the logic of what he was prepared to answer questions on.

In the absence of a list, understandably the absence of a list, and in the absence in this particular case of no criteria publicly available and no evaluations publicly available and no public accountability for this program , then the minister I believe ought to logic ally answer some questions on the past year. Mr. Manness : I am not going to sit here and let the member say that ther e is no public accountability. Workforce 2000, Mr. Deputy Chairper son, was an issue of the Provincial Auditor. The Provincial Auditor looked into the

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2102 program, looked into the mission statement of the program, looked to see whether or not the program was delivering in keeping with that mandate. That is part of the record, part of the Provincial Auditor's statement. I do not know what higher authority the member wants to go to. I know the Provincial Auditor has now been here as part of Public Accounts and has been asked to address certain questions surrounding WOikforce 2000 but has written, most definitely.

If the member is saying that the Provincial Auditor is not accountable and that that person now has done a shoddy job, then she is going to either have to accept what the Provincial Auditor has said or she is going to have to say that the Provincial Auditor basically has not done her job. She cann ot have it both ways, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. This program has been through the public scrutiny, and it has obviously passed the test exceedingly well. Ms. Friesen: As the minister well knows, the Provincial Auditor recommended that the minister publish an annual accounting of Wodcforce 2000 with his annual report.

On several occasions on which I have asked him whether he intends to comply with that, there has been no clear answer and the minister has said he is considering it. That would be a start if he were in fact to comply with the recommendation of the Provincial Auditor. So that is the issue. I wa nt to ask the minister about Nyga rd company which received for 11 trainees, in Categories 1 and 3, total training cost app roval for $16,000. I wonder if the minister could give us a sense of what the training plan was in that case . Mr. Ma nness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, the answer is the same as that given with respect to the chicken franchise the member was asking. Ms. Fries en : We ll, I gather the mi nist er's response is that he only has 150 pages of briefing notes here . Could he give us a list before we start of which ones be is going to answer questions on? Which ones has he prepared briefing notes on? Mr. Manness: On the ones that were asked specific ally of me in the House. Ms.

Friesen: So the minister means to sit here and to say that he is not going to answer any questions on any specific case of Wodcforce 2000 unless it had been previously raised in the House? What precedent can he give me for that in the process of Estimates that everything must be raised in the House before a minister will answer to it when he has his staff at World'orce 2000 sitting here with him? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Clairperson, I would think the member would want me to read a synopsis , to tty and do an overview of the training programs and agreements entered into as I did with respect to Northern Blower and also mM I have no problem doing that for any of the specific finns that the member wants to focus upon , but that has not been done yet. It is not a case of leaving that inf ormation back at the office. We do not and have not yet developed those synopsis shee ts finn by finn by finn, and that is done deliberate ly. I mean, I do not want this staff spending all of its time in a bureaucratic maze.

I want them to deliver this program, and that is what they are doing. So if the member then wants to tell me which companies she would like to pose specific questions on, then I will tty over time to give her the same synopsis that I did with respect to Northern Blower. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, over the last three weeks I have been asking about Northern Blower and mM in the House. It has taken three weeks now for the minister to give, what I would call, not a full response . •

(1500) Mr. Manne ss: I did not respond in the House on Northern Blower. I did use it-[interj ection] I did so. I may have not taken as notice, but I did respond specific ally on Northern Blower. It is on part of the record. I read part of the information today . I have already read that into the record, but I mean, let us not dispute that fa ct, Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson. I will ask the member for Wolseley which finns she wants to focu s upon, and we will tty to develop synopsis sheets for her. Ms. Friesen: Well, I would like to know about every one of them. This is public money. I want to

210 3 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 know about every report. I want to know the training plans for each of the companies who have received this. The minister is not prepared to table that annually with his repon. He is only prepared to answ er questions which have been raised earlier in the House. He bas his staff sitting here with him. I would point out to the minister that when people file a plan with Worltforce 2000, there is a very brief synopsis which is written. They are asked to circle one, two or three , in tenns of the training categories which are required.

They are given a space of about fo ur or five lines, in fact, to write a very brief outline of their training plan. I am interested to know whether that is, in fa ct, all they have to supp ly. They have to indicate who is the trainer. Now there is a brief synopsis which it seems to me is not beyond the realms of possibility for any minister to direct his staff to keep in some kind of systematic fashion.

I mean, I believe we do even have computem these days that might perhaps be able to codify some of this in some simple way so that the minister could, in fact, bring up the material very quickly, but it bas taken three weeks even from the House to ask a question and to be provided with not what I would call a training plan. The minister bas given me some categories of training but not a training plan. He bas given me no infonn ation on who the trainer was.

He bas given me no infonnation on what the outcomes of that training were, and be bas provided absolutely no inf onnation on what categories of employees were selected. Some of the very basic questions which I asked in the House, which after three weeks be bas not supplied even now when be bas his staff sitting with him. It is not beyond the bounds of reason to ask for the very elemental material on this program that I am asking for now in Estimates. Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for the record, we have provided reams of infonnation already for the member.

We have indicated the number of participan ts, by company name, the training area, and the member talks about the three categories. We have talked about the training costs that have been appro ved. So let not the record state that we have provided no infonnation. We have provided absolutely all the detail associated with the company: number of participants , the costs, the training are as, whether they are technical or technol ogical, basic education, human relations . I do not quarrel with the member 's right to know even more detail, Mr. Deputy Olairperson; that is not at issue.

But what is at issue is the timeliness with respect the member expects me to jump and to direct staff resources to prep aring all of this infonn ation and providing training plans for the compani es. If the member is saying now she wants all of that detailed infonnation, I am saying to her, well , that now is going to take considerable time.

I can respond issue by issue, one by one, and I will try and do my best to present an over view, a synopsis of the training, but if the member is wanting volumes of material and she wants it on her time, I am saying to the member, unf ortunately, we cannot provide that because it is not prepared. It is a massively onerou s task , and I think that it would be better if the member would direct her queries to some of the individual finns that she might have a specific interest in. Ms. Friesen : Is this inform ation kept on a computer? Mr.

Manne ss: We have some infonnation on file, but the data base does not have any of the detailed inf onnation that the member is seeking. (Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Cbaiipe rson, in the Clair) Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us what is me ant by human relations in the context of Ke ntucky Fried Chicken or anybody else who has trained in human relations? Are we training these people to smile more brightly? What on earth is it you are paying for? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is the third area, human re lations, general skills un der eligible trainin g; time and stress management, enhanced presentation skills, negotiation and teamw ork skills, leadership, ma nagemen t and supervisory skills and organizational strategies such as total quality management.

May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2104 Now, if the member for Wol seley (Mr. Friesen) wants to take that to mean smiling, well, I am not going to be able to stop her. She has the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway ), who when technical training was going to supp ort of mechanics, he of course diverted that to mean support of used car sale smen.

So if the member for Wolseley now is going to take this broad area and mean that to training in smiling, if that is her approach to legitim ate training that has helped so many Manitob ans- 97 percent of the training by the way, 97 percent of the public by the way, the trainees who are so supportive of the program-if she wants to in any way denigrate the training and call it smiling, a public relations exercise in smiling, well , so be it She is going to have her day in court anyway. [interjection] Well, the member for Wolseley used that tenn . Point of Order Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): On a point of order, I wanted to point out to the minister when be makes comments about me in regard to the grants to the car deale rs, that last year in the committee , the minister at the time did admit that Keystone Ford got $10 ,000 for training car salesmen. That is on the record, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer}: Order, please . 1be member did not have a point of order. 1be honourable minister to contin ue. ••• Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can understand the sensitivity of this issue by the opposition.

I mean this is a good program. It is being mirrored in other parts of the country . It recognizes the greater flexibility that industry has to have today if it is going to stay competitive , efficient. In spite of the fact that this government has made sign if ica nt contribution to greater governance at the community college level, increased funding this year, I know the members opposite feel very sensitive with respect to these training issues, because they want the rigid state system of control to continue to be in place.

I guess we have a diff erence in philosophy and they cannot quite handle it That is their problem . I am not going to deny those companies who make a tremendous contribution to the wealth of our province an opportunity to train in a short period of time employees who are craving for an opportunity to enhance their skills . Ms. Friese n: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the minister -! think I now have said this fo ur times. I do not know how many times it takes for the minister to actually understand a simple princip le. The issue is not workplace-based training.

The issue is, in fact, accountability and priorities and equal access ibility to these programs, and that has been the direction of my questioning. I wanted to ask the minister about Caron 's Collec tible s, which received $1 0 ,000 of Workforce contribution in '93-94 to train two trainees for $1 0,000. I wondered if the minister could give us some inf ormation on that one. Mr. Manness: 1be answ er is the same as it was before. We have not brou ght additional inf ormation with respect to that firm- Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin) : You have no answers . You are kidding. What do you think you are doing here?

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, ple ase. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not need the member for Dauphin (Mr . Plohman) to holler at me. I am experienced- Mr. Plohman: Holler at you, you never heard holleri ng. You hear me whispering to you in the House. Mr. Manness: Well, he can holler. He can make as big a fool of himself as he usually does on every other issue. The reality is, as I said to the member before he came in, we are here reviewing '94-95 Estimates .

The member for Wolseley is painstakingly putting questions, I might add out of order, with respect to money spent in '93-94. Then the member is critical of me when I do not have the detail associated with every file. I have invited her to tell me specific ally

210 5 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 which of the companies she would like greater detail on. 1be member said that she would like some more detail on Caron 's Collectibles Inc .. In other words , the trainer name is Smart Produ cts, this is CAD-CAM training, $10, 000 from Worlcforce , total value of training $1 8,000. That means the company put in $8,000. That training started on May 3, 1993, and completed October 28, 1993. That was under Class 1 as ref erenced earlier. • (1510 ) Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chair, in that case, there was $1 0, 000 spent to train two employees in CAD-CAM training, training which is available in other locations, and a number of programs in fact were CAD-CAM training. Some were done in architects ' offices; some were done in community colle ges; some were done, in this case, two people for $10 ,000. Has the minister done any surveys to look at the efficacy of spending, the effectivene ss of spending this kind of money in small workplaces?

Are there economies of scale which used to made by the community colleges, for example, or in this case, in parts of the program are made by the community colle ges? How does the minister decide to train two people for $1 0,000? Mr. Manness: Well, we are always looking for efficiency, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. We are always looking for much grea ter efficiency. That is why we do indu stry training. That is why we encourage industries or sectors to come together as a group, so that there could be greater efficiency.

That is why we try and do cluster traini ng and direct, where applicable, to the institution that of fe rs programming in the time frame in keeping with the requi rements of the firm s. To repeat for the record -and the member says she rep eats for the fo urth time; I think I am repeating now for the fi ft h time-ther e are individuals firms, individual companies who do not fit under an industry banner, do not fit under a sec tor program banner, and that require an opportunity in fairness to have some specialized training dealing with our set of circumst ance s. That is what happened in this case. Ms.

Friesen: What were the special circumstances then in this case which required spending $10,000 to train two people? Why were other programs not available to them , or why were other programs not appropriate? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chaitperson, without being able to answer that specifically, I would say generally that this firm , looking at its worlcload and the availability of staf f, the program, the training offered here had to be provided in a hands-on, specific, directed sense to this company , and it did not lend itself to being part of a larger, more efficient group of training or clustered training. Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me then: What was so specific about this company? What does this company do? Mr. Manness : No, I cann ot, Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson. I do not know what this company does. Ms.

Friesen: W ill the minister undertake to find out what this company does? Mr. Manness: I most certainly will , Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. Ms. Friesen: Will the minister explain why $10,000 would train two people in this case and why it had to be so specifically tailored to this particular company? I have been unable to find this company, by the way. I would be intere sted to know what it did. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly, now that the member cann ot find this, I will want to make sure that this company exists, and- Mr. Ploh man: Should you not have fo und out before?

You gave it money. This is rid iculous. Mr. Manness: Well, the lo ud blower from Dauphin says that I should have known this bef ore. I mean I did not blow 27-28 million bucks in Saudi Arabia, like the member previous, but we will find out. None of this money is spent, as I have indicated on the record several times, not a dollar

May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2106 is spent until after the training is done and the claim is presented to the department. Ms. Friesen: The money may not be paid until after the training is done, but the minister, I think, has indicated in earlier answers that be does not have a systematic way of ensuring that the training has been done -50 percent provide personal evaluations, individual on es, another 10 or 20 percent have on-site visits , but the evaluation is not dooe in a systematic way.

It seems to me that if it were, you might have a very easily available file of answers to the kinds of questions that I am asking. That would be certainly one way of providing it. There are two general types of questions I want to ask, and I will, by the way, provide the minister with a very specific list of companies which I would like more inf orm ation on the kind of training which has been done. I want to ask about financial com panies. The minister, in his responses a number of times in the House and to the press, has indicated that financial companies have not received money from this Workforce 2000.

Would be indicate what be meant by that? Mr. Manness: They were barred from app lying under the payroll tax offset, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. They are eligible to app ly under the other two programs. Ms. Friesen: How many financial companies have received grants under the Workforce 2000 program since its inception? Mr. Manness: I do not have that inf ormation. Ms. Friesen: In the last year of the Workforce 2000 program, the smaller grants, could the minister tell us how many financial companies received financing or received assistance in the last year? Mr. Manne ss: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will try and share some broad numbers, and it falls into the sector finance, insurance and realty , the very broadest definition of the finance area. Since the be ginning of the pr ogram, there have been 11 9 contracts with small and med ium busine ss. I have , I should say, regional breakouts for the province . The provincial contribution has been, and this is since the beginning of the program, roughly $1 million that have levered almost $3 million of training. (Mr.

Deputy Chairpers on in the Olair) The skill development has been in the total quality management training for finance and insurance fums, training in specialized real estate industry software for 42 employees, and again, Mr. Deputy Cllairpe rson, I have nothing more than a breakout as to the number of contracts. Of the 11 9, 48 have been in the city ofW mnipe g, 35 have been in the Westman area, 6 in Interlake , and 15 in the Parkland area for the member of Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Ms. Friesen: What proportion of those were given to real estate companies? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I do not have that inf onnation with me right now. This was the only broad overview we have available. Ms. Friesen: If this was the application or the teaching of the application of computer and software techniques to real esta te, why would these be given to individual companies? • (1 520) Surely the real estate industry in Wmn ipeg and Manitoba is a well-organized industry. It has a real estate board. It has an elected directorate . It is very well connected in terms of multiple listing servic es. Why would ther e not be one industry-wide program that could be used for that? Mr.

Mann ess: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is again a debating issue. I am prepared to answ er questions or try and find details specific to any agreement with any individual finn in attempting to reach out to the province as a whole . In this case or up to this point, I might add, we have not worked through an industry association, but probably we should work in that dire ction if we can in this area, parti cularly within the real estate area. Ms.

Frie sen: But in the meantime, how much money bas been put into individual workplaces in a program which could have been delivered much more effectively on an industry-wide basis?

2107 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 I mean, why has it taken three years for the minister even to figure out that there was a possibility of dealing with the real estate industry on an industry-wide basis? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, the members opposite are calling into question the whole program, and that is fine, it is their right to do so, but the government has put this program fo rward. It set into place the general criteria. It is fine tuning that area, the criteria area, and it supports the program. Now the members are against it; we are for it.

We have asked the Provincial Auditor to view the program to see that we are keeping in the context of the mission and the mandate of the program, whether or not we are delivering a program in keeping with the way government programs are delivered. We are given comf ort from the Provincial Auditor that we are living within the spirit of goo d accountability and good management of the taxpayers ' reso urces . Ms. Friesen : I wanted to ask about other financial institutions. Again, the same princi ples would seem to apply.

If we are looking at computer-assist ed sof tware for fi nancial institutions, the same principles of industry-wide app lication would seem to be there . So I wonder if the minister could tell us, for example , Midland Walwyn, which has received grants two years in a row, was there something particular to that company which indicated that they could not participate with other people in the same industry in having some of their employees undertake some of this training? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will undert ake to find some more information with respect to Midland Walwyn. Ms.

Friesen : Could the minister explain why the distinction was made between the payroll tax refund and the individual grants in the case of Midland Walw yn, in the case of fi nancial institutions? There are other areas, for example, again, the Kentucky Fried Chicken, where some Kentucky Fried Chicken is receiving the payro ll tax reduction, and in addit ion, some of the franc hisees are getting individual grants. So why was that distinction made in the case of financial institutions? What parti cular principle is the government app lying here? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I think we are a move short and a move down, you know, the hypothetical road. I just wish the member would ask specific questions, and we will try our best to give greater detail another day with respect to the question that she poses. Ms. Friesen: The minister is perhaps achieving his goal and leaving me speechless. He will not answer questions on princip le; he will not answer questions about specific cases. He does not provide the kind of inf ormation which I have asked for in the House.

Now we are told in Estimat es, the basic place where minister s are responsible in a mo re informal, and in the spirit of some, kind of open discussion about the putpases of their pr ogram, and we are finding absolutely no information. This is a stonewall from the minister on a program which I must underline is the only educational initiative that this government has undertaken in the are a of post-secondary training. When you have cut community colleges and when you have cut the other public insti tutions, this is the jewel in your crown. Why is there not an annual report of this?

Why is there not something which says, look what we have done for Peter Nygard, look what we have done for Simplot Canada, look what we have done for Bristol Aerospac e, look about the 49,000 we have given to Cargill, look about the amount of money we have given to Boeing Canada and to Borland Construction and to Bristol Aeros pace? Where is the pride in this pro gram? What on earth is the minister hiding? He knows that we have been interested in this in Question Period. He knows that we have a number of questions, some of which are specific, some of which are questions of principle.

I am now asking, because the minister has literally stonewalled and refused to answer any questions on any specific question in these Estimates pro cess, I am now directing my questions to questions of principle, to

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 210 8 questions of pol icy, anti I find that the minister is not prepared to discUss the policy or the principles . I repeat again my question: Why, in the area of financial institutions, did the minister make the decision not to allow them to apply under the payroll tax deduction fund , but only to allow them to bave the individual one? What is the difference in the minister 's mind in those two programs tbat that distinction must be made? That is a question of principle. Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was the Minister of Finance, I restricted them.

I restricted them in the offset I restricted them because I did not want them to have an offset against their payroll tax-as simple as that. What was the principle? The principle was that they paid payroll tax, a significant amount, and I wanted them to pay that full amount and not less. The principle was tbat if you were in the financial circle, you did not get an offset against payroll tax. That was the principle and nothing more. Now, the member can say we are not proud of the program, we are extremely proud of the progra m. We bave said so over and over again.

When you train 60, 000 peop le, when you bave the evaluations come back, when you surve y people , employ ees, and survey the employers, and there is an 80 to 90 percent acceptance rate of how well the program is delivered and how well it has levered and brought about a new training culture and a corporate training cultur e. Then we say the program has been a success; tbat was the goal. The member can say that we have turned our back on the institutions.

We have not At least the member, why does she not dialogue with the private employers , and why does she not ask the question, well, why have the public institutions fai led? Of course , all she can say is, well, it is money. You have cut money. It is a money issue, more money. So I am saying, obviously there is a new model that has been wanted The governm ent saw this a few years ago as a result of the STAC review.

This was the public crying out for a diff erent model of delivery, not to one that was going to be at cross-purposes with the fo nnal institutions, but the one that was going to allow for shorter periods of training, more specifics and that would result in more expeditious training. That has hap pened. The member says it is our jewel, well, the member can say it is anything at all, but the reality is, it has been an extremely successful program.

We stand behind it Furthennore, the member, of course, chastises me for not having a million and fifty details under my consideration, that I cannot answer all of her detailed questions; well, I am sorry, I am only a human being. I do not pretend to bave all of that inf onnation at my disposal . • (15 30) I bave given overview infonnation. I bave tried to find answers out to her specific questions on specific compan ies. I still make tbat offer. I made that offer at least now for the sixth time, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

I will continue to do that, but I am telling her, I did not bring along all the filing cabinets that have all of the details associated with every one of the finns that has received support under this program . Am I proud of Workforce 20007 As the government, obviously we are. Does it needs some straightening up in a fe w areas? Obviously it does. I bave said so, and we have made some of those changes and will continue to make some of the fine tuning changes. Overall the program has delivered as we bave said it would. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I would point out to the minister that he has not tabled a single training plan. He has not tabled a single curriculum. He has not given us a sense, in any of the examples I have aske d, about any kind of outcome, of any evidence of outcome . He has not tabled his questions of evaluation. He has not even in fact evaluated all of the programs which have been in front of him. There are ways, and I have suggested to the minister before, there are ways of providing some of this infonnation in a very easy format.

It does not seem to me to be beyond the abilities of the minister to direct his staff to do that, particularly for areas that are not currently in the program for those which have been completed. There is no evidence that the minister has done that or is interested in doing it or is going to comply with the

2109 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 Auditor's recommendation that an annual report be published. The que stion I asked be fore this was why financial institutions were exempt under the payroll tax exemption and were not exempt under the other. 1be minister ess entially bas given me the circular answer: because I said so when I was Minister of Finance. Could the minister now give me an indication of why he made that policy decision?

Why were fi nancial corpor ations, financial companies, to be required to pay the full payroll tax and companies of the scale, for example , of Simplot or Cargill or Boeing or any of the extremely large companies of Manitoba, which were able to have a payroll tax deduction? What distinction was the minister making in his mind at that point, when be made that distinction? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I have alluded to this on several occasions, and the answer that I have provided consistently is that I have tried to make a determination as to which of our firms and sectors were contributing to the wealth of the province through outreach of exports and/or services outside of the province . That was the general principle that I tried to bring to bear when I conside red, as the form er Minister of Finance , a decision as to whether or not a sector, particular ly, was eligible for offset as against payroll tax .

I always said Simplot, which exports so much of their product, bringing in fore ign exchange into the prov ince, into the nation, that I could justify and offset as against that type of activity no diff erently than Versatile Manufacturing, more so than I could with the financial institutions who are here providing a service that if they were not here would be probably provided by some other imtitution. That was the general principle behind the decision. Ms. Fries en: So the guiding focus then for the payroll tax refund was export.

Does the minister have any inf ormation on bow that would app ly to Kentucky Fried Chicken or to Chicken Delight or to Videon or Jim Pattison Sign Group Manitoba? Mr. Mann ess: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as far as Kentucky Fried Chicken, we cann ot seem to find that on the '93-94 list. Maybe the member can show it to us. Ifl am in error, I will apolo gize. Ms. Friesen : I have Chicken Delight on the '93-94, and I have Kentucky Fried Chicken on the '92 list, to February '93 in fact.

I expect that Holt Renfrew, for example , on the '93-94 one would perhaps fa ll into the same group, as would Pepsi-Cola in the '93-94 ones. I can see the minist er's distinction that be is making about export, and certainly there is a considerable number on these payroll tax deductions which are export oriented, but there are some that are not. So is the minister telling me or telling us that the policy bas changed, that this is one of his streamlinings, that this is one of his distinctions be bas made? Mr. Mann ess: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, we are really digging up the past here , but when I was the Minister ofF mance in '91 when we brought in the offset, originally the eligibility criteria-and these are broad context-since '91 Manitoba firms engaged in goods producing industry, manufacturing, with payrolls in excess of $600, 000. That was the general eligibility criteria in '91. Effective '92, the criteria were amended to include service sector compani es. That was in '92. In '93 the criteria were amended to exclude financial insurance companies.

Of course , the payroll eligibility threshold increased to $750,000 in synchroni zation with the move to exempt all those who bad payrolls below that level. So that is the history associated with one aspe ct of the Workforce 2000 program, namely, the payroll tax offset or refund pr ogram. Ms. Friesen: So that in fact, contrary to what the minister said a couple of minutes ago, in '92 service sector was added and is still there as a criteria. Mr. Manness : Mr.

Deputy Chairperson. this was done in '92 realizing that virtually all of the service sector was not paying payroll tax except from the large firms, and recognizing that we were trying to compete in the inte rnational world of call centr es, as I recall, and that we were vitally inte rested per the framework for economic development , that we were trying to reach out to larger back-room

/ May24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 211 0 operations and acti �ties ass ociated with the call centres. We made a decision at the time, given we bad a payroll tax that of course we were totally opposed to, the NDP brought in and wanted to charge against everybody, virtually. We decided to include an element of the service sector because, of course, the number of people who would be eligible under this area would be minimal. We then realized that the banks were those who were beginning to show some interest, and then in '93 we tried to shut out the banking institutions. Ms.

Friesen: So what is the economic justification for Holt Renfrew training their people in human relations under the payroll tax deduction fund? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am trying to tighten the service sector up. We opened it to reach out to some specific areas, and all of a sudden Holt Renfre w came in, and what are we talking about?

We are talking about refund eligibility of $2,100 that was directed towards eight participan ts, 16 hours of training, instruction in human relations , general skills category, course content induced customer service , goal setting , communication skills, problem solving , decision making and stress reduction, so $2,100 of a total value of $4,700, so $1 levered over two. I indicate to the member that this is where we are trying to be more specific and again trying to direct the training towards a greater sector or industry- supported activity. These are the changes that are being made in the pr ogram. Ms.

Friesen : Mr. Dep uty Chairperson, I wonder if the minister could read over that list of training categories again. I do not think I got it all. Customer se rvice, stress reduction, goal setting- Mr. Manness: Communication skills, problem solving , decision making, would be the exhaustive list. Ms. Friesen: I am sorry, I am trying to write this down at the same time. Communication skills, problem solving, and what was the last one? Mr. Manness: Decision making. Ms. Friesen: I wonder if the minister could indicate what Holt Renfrew did in these areas bef ore the minist er's program emerged?

Were there no goals set? Were there no communication skills? Was there no customer service? Was there no decision making or problem solving? What is the legitimate role in training-s orry, the legitimate role of the employer in training or the legitimate role of the company or the co-operative in training? I think this particular instance might bring some of those general questions about all of these types of programs in to some relief. So could the minister indicate why that particular program was approved? *( 1540) Mr. Manness: I cann ot, Mr.

Deputy Chaiipe rson, and I will say again for the fifth time for the record, at the be ginning this program had a very wide intake , and some would say too wide. As I have indicated over the course of several months , over the years we have made more decisions that have caused greater restrictions to be put into place and such that some of the wide intake that occurred at the beginning is no longer occurring. The program did exactly what it wanted to. It was very well conceived.

It wanted to move very rapidly in causing private sector training to take place, very specialized training, and with that went some risk. The risk, as I have indicated publicly for the record, as I have been re ported to have said, the risk it associated was that in a very, very small percentage of cases, hardly measurable , there were some maybe who took advantage of the program, and the training maybe was moved into an abstract area. So I say to the member there is nothing new here.

It has all been part of the public record, and we are making changes ac cordingly. [inteijection] Now, the member talks about shredding files, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). The reality is, Mr. Deputy Chaiipe rson, as part of the former NDP government he knows what shredding files is. We have the files, but we are not going to present anything other than general reviews of what was involved in the training, and, again, I reviewed the broad training areas that were provided in the Holt Renfrew case . The member has fun with th em. She seems to get some enjoyment as I provide her with that detail. I am

2111 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 biding nothing, but I do have to have some time to bring certain inf ormation out with respect to a number of the specific firms because that is not with us today. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the minister saying that he will provide further information on the kind of training that oc curred at Holt Renfrew? Mr. Manness : This was a two-hour training session. I have provided to the member. Sorry, 16 hours, two days. I have presented the broad topic areas of training that occurred over those two-day periods . Ms. Friesen : Thank you.

So the minister will not provide any fmther information on that particular case . Mr. Manness: Today? I am sorry. Ms. Friesen: I am asking a question of princip le. How much information, how muc h public accountability is in these programs? The minister has read us a list of categories of training. I am asking, is he prepared to give us further detail on what, for examp le, cu stomer service meant, what actual training took place in the area of customer service? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member again is asking us to lay before her copies of the cuniculum. We do not have that.

I have said that on many occasions. If we did have it, I do not know whether we would provide it to the member anyway, because it could very well be proprietary inform ation, not of the government 's but of the finn . Some of this training is very sophisticated. It is in-house. [inte tjectio n] The member says, on what basis, principle s. We have spent countle ss hours on Workforce 2000. That is the height of account ability. That is what acco unt ability is all about, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

I am very proud of the fact that staff has been here, and we have provided all the detailed information we have to this point now. We will provide more , as the member foc uses in on the firms that she would like greater detail provided on. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister talks about proprietary information, but on other occasions he has talked about generic skills and empowerment of the individual. The minister cannot have it both ways, either it is one or the other.

Perhaps in diff erent cases, it is one or the other, but without the information, without the evidence, we have a really very difficult time making any kind of judgment on that. The minister is not prepared to provide any further evidence on, for example, customer service . I did also want to come back to a theme that the minister raised in his last longer answ er, and that was that in the early years of this program there was a wide intake. I would point out to the minister that this Holt Renfrew one was not in the earlier intakes but was in fact in the '93-94.

So this Holt Renfrew-[intetj ection] No, '93-94, it says on my list. So this is not the original wide intake , this is the considered, streamlined, slimmed-down, precise program that the minister has come up with so far. I woul d sec ondly point out that this is specifically the service sector, which the minister introduced in '92, not in that first year of wide intake, but in the second year, after-one hopes, but should not assume in this program-there has been some evaluation of the overall directions of the program, and so this is after evaluation.

This is the most recent set of appl ications , and this is a program which is training people in customer servic e, goal setting, communi cation skil ls, problem solving and decision making. I wonder what else Holt Renfrew does for its training st aff that is not covered under this progr am. To what extent is this program in effect taking over the responsibilities of employers in the woikplace for training and education? Does this enter into any of the criteria for the program? How does the minister view, in principle, in general, the re sponsibi lities of the employe r or of the management in training?

What is the rightful role of the employer? What is the rightful role of Workforce 2000 or a program like this? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairp erson, the program came into fo ster training across a wide

May24, 1994 LBGISLA'llVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 211 2 spectrum. It came in as a shock therapy to fo ster a training culture across the piece. It is time to now redefine who is eligible . I share some of the sentiments of the member for Wolseley . To that end, I will be reviewing the criteria associated again, particularly in the service sector. The service sector, though, is very, very hard to define.

Anybody who has looked at it from a St ats Canada mea surement as to what it contributes to the economy is always horrified by the fact that now as a catch-all area, it measures 60-70 percent, it is now appro aching 80 percent of jobs, 60-70 percent of gross national produ ct, and yet it has no definition. It is a catch-all. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are trappe d. We have some of the same diffi culties when we try and develop pro gramming that reaches into this sector, because I do not want to exclude everybody that comes under that label because there are many which border very closely to be export oriented.

I think of the tourism industry particularly. Many components of it fall under the service sector side , and yet it is natural wealth creation to the extent that any individual can be en coura ged to come to our provin ce, spend their reso urces here and go home with less money rather than that with which they came. • (15 50) Yet I do not want this program to be abused across the whole gamut of the service area, and I would think the example cited most recently by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) is one that bears greater insight, and I will do that , Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

I would think another year, certainly in tenns of '94-95, that some of the examples cited by the member for Wolseley will not in themselves be candidates eligible for additional support under Workforce 2000. But that is happening at this present time. It has happened since I have come into office, and the st aff is- An Honourable Member: We started asking the questions. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) again, as he is akin to do, likes to chirp from his seat, says that this is happe ning as a result of questions being put by the member for Wols ele y.

Nothing is further from the truth . I have brought a concern about a whole host of these issues to this office. I developed them when I was the Minister of Fina nce. Nothing has change d. Ms. Friesen : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the minister perhaps lost the thrust of the general question I was asking, which is under Workforce 2000. What is considered to be the legitimate role of the company in train ing, and how is that examined? Where does that appear in the proposals of a company? For example, the minister says he wants to deliver a shock thera py.

Well, as I look to the larger companies of Manitoba, as I look at many of these companies , I mean, I know that companies like Simplot, for example, like D.W. Frie sen, like mM, have cmporate training programs already in place. So where is the shock therapy? The minister is distributing money to companies which already have well-establi shed training progra ms. Where is he drawing the line to say here is what the company should do, and here is where Workforce 2000 can make a difference in partnership with private industry in the wolkplace . Where are those kinds of criteria? Mr.

Manne ss: Well, the examples cited by the member are long outstanding and credible companies who pay a significant amount of payroll tax, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in support of all of the good activities. I do not know with certainty whether that is the program area in which they f all and have received supp ort under Workforce 2000. I sense it is.

When you set your basic criteria as firms, whether they are doing training or not but who are paying payroll tax, who are making an incredible contribution to the wea lth generation of the province by way of exporting, bow do you deny them when there are sma ller fi rms who are probably making a lesser contri bution? So that is the rationale .

21 13 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May24, 1994 Ms. Friesen : Could the minister give me an idea of the export contribution of Holt Renfrew then? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chair, I was talking about Si

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-32a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 32a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	33dcc1c370d2aca91166cc20d08cbdb68bf66014

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).