Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 58B (33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-58b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 31 July, 1986. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The committee will come to order. We are on Page 52, Resolution 50, Item 5. Post-Secondary, Adult and Continuing Education. Item 5.(

a) is Executive Support. The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of points I'd like to put on the record before we get into this area. One is that just before we adjourned, the Min ister's staff had asked me for clarification, for some num bers that I had used as it related to 4.(

e) and it was my error, I was using the wrong num bers. We met over the break and they provided me with the answers to that. I thank them for giving me that information and I'm sorry I caused any confusion. Earlier, I had asked for clarification on a similar situation. The staff had provided me with the answers, and just so the record is clear, I'm satisfied - I can't remember exactly where they were in the Estima tes, but there was a discrepancy between the Estima tes book of last year and this year. The staff has given me the explanation and I'm satisfied with it. I thank them for that support, as well.

I would like to deal with some general questions in some general areas, primarily dealing with training and post-secondary education. I don't know whether we should pass 5.(

a) and then get down into the Financial and Adminis tration, and then the three colleges. I know the Memb er for River Heights has some specific questions and I do, too, but I'd like to get into some general discussions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Under 5.(b)? MR. C. BIRT: I think 5.(

b) would probably be a good place to start. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights, do you have any questions under 5.(a)? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)(1 )-pass; 5.(a)(2)-pass; 5.(b) -the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you. The community college system, as we know it today, had its origins in the early Sixties and I can appreciate it's gone through a large degree of expansion and change, but the commun ity college concept, of a technical college in a community sense, was started in the early Sixties. lt was providing a wide variety of training.

I'd like to know, when it started back then, was it fully-funded by provincial revenues, or was there federal funding involved? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, the Federal Government was involved, or has been involved since the inception of the community college system, and originally paid for most of the construction costs of our community college system, in the Seventies some time, and provided grants, categorical grants, if you will, to community colleges. lt wasn't until the Seventies that they moved into the purchase of spaces, which is essentially the system we have today.

As you know, and as I've tabled with members of the Opposition, one of the issues that obviously is of concern is the reduction of those direct purchase of spaces and that will represent some 40 percent reduction over the next three years. MR. C. BIRT: When the Federal Government purchases space in the community colleges, is that tied to some specific programs or is it just that they will guarantee funding for a certain number of spaces each year in the community colleges? HON. J. STORIE: No, Mr.

Chairperson, the CEIC purchases a certain number of spaces in a course, depending on the need and the interest, I guess. There is no set num ber, no 20 for this course, no 20 for that course per se. it's based on individuals who come forward, are interested in training. They're directed to the community colleges and spaces are purchased that way. The purchase is basically in the one-year program area, recognizing that community colleges offer both one-and two-year programs, but the spaces are all one-year or less.

So the two-year programs have always been the responsibility of either individuals or individuals in conjunction with student resources provided through the province. MR. C. BIRT: When th e Mini ster says th at they purchase a certain number of courses per year, is that dependent upon applicants applying under, such as the unemployment program, or in fact do they say there's 20,000 spaces in the community college this year and we will purchase 10,000 of them; or in fact are they triggered by the individual, the student who is going to go to a particular college and will get funding for that purpose. HON. J.

STORIE: Each year it's really based on negotiations, that we identify the number of courses that we have and they identify the number of spaces that they're going to purchase in each of the course areas. That obviously depends on their budget. I think I answered the last part of the member's question before that they would find the students by virtue of their applying through CEIC. MR. C. BIRT: I'm having a little difficulty trying to understand this area.

I'm trying to come to grips with the whole question of post-secondary training, who's responsible for what, who does what and the debates on whether or not it should be through an institution 2518

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 or it should be on-the-job training and things like that. So if some of my questions seem to be repetitive, I would hope the Min ister would bear with me, but I'm still not quite clear on how the Federal Government does, in fact, purchase on an annual basis a number of positions. Does it guarantee that there will be bodies in those positions and funds them accordingly, or it says we will purchase X num ber of positions, fund them for them and it doesn't who occupies them? HON. J. STORIE: lt doesn't matter.

The negotiations obviously identify the number of spaces, and I suppose it's based on the labour market generally. They assume that they're going to need 10 spaces here and 20 spaces there and 50 spaces in another place. If they don't find the bodies, in other words if they don't have that number of people coming to request training in that area, then there is some shuffling as the year goes on. So they may allocate those spaces to another program. So it remains flexible in that sense. The negotiated package refers to a number of spaces.

They are originally identified, but there is some flexibility as the year goes on. But we know generally how many spaces in total are going to be purch ased in a given year. MR. C. BIRT: I can appreciate the direct responsibility of the negotiations with the Federal Government over I think it's the National Training Act or something similar to that is not within the Mi nister's jurisdiction. I don't want to get into that area. it's more the Department of Education, I believe, is the consumer of those negotiations, and I want to deal in that respect.

When the Federal Government gave grants, I gather they had no direct say or any influence as to the type of programming that was offered by the colleges. HON. J. STORIE: The grants were in vocational training areas so they may have provided X number of dollars in a categorical way for training, for support, course development, whatever, in industrial arts for example, or in technology areas, so it was directed in that sense. That was, in itself, probably based again on the labour market or the expectations of where the job market was going to be. MR. C.

BIRT: So their shifting to the position purch ase arrangement, would mean that they were directing, perhaps to a greater degree, the types of training, the types of job opportunities or training opportunities that should be provided. HON. J. STORIE: Not necessarily because really we provide them with a list of training that we're offering. Obviously there's an interaction; an interdependence that the communi ty colleges are also sensitive to the job market and are continually upgrading their analysis, their expectations about what's going to be required three, five years from now.

So, we are doing that but the negotiations really have centered around our agenda in a sense that we've said, here's the courses that we're going to be offering and within that nix, they purchase X number of spaces. MR. C. BIRT: lt seems to me there are two basic types of students that would be going to the communi ty colleges: those who graduate out of high school, or those who come for either apprenticeship programs or coming back for retraining.

Based on that, what is the rough approximation of the num ber of students who come directly from the high school and those who have been out a few years or have come there because of the apprenticeship training programs? HON. J. STORIE: Well, recognizing that for most of the history of the community colleges, up until the introduction of the Canadian Job Strategy, CEIC would not fund someone to attend the one-year program unless they had actually been out of school for a year or in the work force for a number of years if they were 18, or under 18 , I believe.

So, you know, it wasn't the case of graduating from high school and going to CEIC and being sponsored through our community colleges. You had to have been out of school for at least a year. MR. C. BIRT: I'm sorry, what's the CEIC? HON. J. STORIE: Well, that's the job spaces; that's who pur ch ases the spaces from us; Canada Em ployment and Immigr ation. MR. C. BIRT: Okay. lt seems to be there are two basic consumers of the product of the community colleges: high school graduates or those who come, for whatever reason; retraining or apprenticeship training.

Now roughly, what is the breakdown of the student population of those who come directly from the colleges and those who come in after they've been out for awhile? HON. J. STORIE: Approximately 20 percent come directly from high school to the community colleges. MR. C. BIRT: The one-and two-year program ming; the one-year programming that the Federal Government funds are primarily upgrading programs, and the two year programs are -well I guess I should ask the question: is there any difference between the one-and two-year programs in a general sense? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, the three-year programs are longer.

No, the member is quite right. There are two aspects of it. One, there is a lot of upgrading; the adult basic ed courses, some of the short-term and technician courses essentially, secretarial training that's obviously -and it doesn't have to be a year. A lot of the spaces they purchase are much less duration than the year. The longer term courses are diploma courses and technology courses -they're called technology courses -Nu rsing is an example; com puter science, the equ ivalent; x-ray technologists and lab technologists.

Again obviously, a greater degree of specialization and hence a greater length of training time. MR. C. BIRT: Then is the bulk of the federal funding geared to the one-year programming and the province picks up the second-year programming? Is that roughly how it breaks out? HON. J. STORIE: Well, it's not the bulk, the CEIC training is exclusively one year or less. There are still 2519

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 many entrants into the one-year or less programs that are provincial responsibility or come to us as individuals rather than through any sponsorship by CEIC. MR. C. BIRT: When I look at the amount of Recoveries for the various colleges, it runs 45-55 percent. So that's all purchasing one year or less programming, is that correct? HON. J. STORIE: The member is correct in that any Recoveries that come to us from CEIC would be for one year or less, but all of the Recoveries are not necessarily from CEIC.

There may be other sources including training offered to private -Secretary of State, for example; foreign students. So Recoveries may come from a number of sources. MR. C. BIRT: The Canadian Job Strategy, when did it start? HON. J. STORJE: lt was announced in the fall of 19 85. MR. C. BIRT: What does it do that is different than, or is it different than, the purchase of outright positions at the community college? HON. J. STORIE: I'm not sur e of the member's question. CEIC still purchases spaces. They are reducing the number of spaces they purchase.

The Canadian Job Strategy has implications for the community college system because it intends to purchase training spaces, first of all of different duratio ns; it limits the cost of training that's allowable, and an empha sis in the program is the involvement of the private sector in training. Apart from the question of the dollar allowable, the maximum dollar allowable for training it's also a question of flexibility, I guess, in terms of the type of training and the duration of training.

I have said many times that I am not opposed to the Job Strategy and I see nothing wrong with including, involving, seeking the active participation of the private sector in training, I think that's appropriate.

What I have objected to and I think virtually most, if not all the other provinces objected to is: No. 1, the fact that it is a withd rawal from a system that is working quite adequately, and I know that I have mentioned previously about the actual success of our community colleges, that 91 percent of its graduates are employed, that there is a sense that the training we're providing is exceptional in some respects.

There is no other plan, and I think the member's questions are quite instructive in that you see that there has been, in effect, very little federal strategy in terms of training in this country, that they are purchasing very, very short term training, upgrading skills, not developing the kind of long-term training that this country requires to develop, particularly given the technological state of our indus tries and the increasing emphasis on technology. The Canadian Job Strategy moves at a step further away from any strategic plan, because it relies on industries and their varying ability: (

a) to organize as groups to provide trainings within industries, and (

b) to develop any coherent strategy because the strategy obviously is going to be related very much to the immedia te needs of the project sponsor, be that IBM or whatever. The third problem, the related problem is that we don't have the kind of industrial base that Ontario does, for example, or Quebec, that we lack the sig nificant ma jor ind ustrial organizations or ind ustries to pr omote the kind of longer term perspective that the development of training programs require.

So the poorer provinces, those provinces with a less well-established industrial base are going to be left behind by this strategy. lt's going to take away from a system that's been established, that can have some long-term planning, can set some provincial and hopefully in conjunction with other provinces, national goals and it's going to move federal funding into a system that is very myopic and self-centered and without being too strong self-serving. I think that's a danger for a national training perspective and I think it's a danger in terms of the requirements of young people generally.

So it's not that we shouldn't tap that, the necessity for training in the private sector, it's simply that it should be thought out in a better fashion and it should not jeopardize it. lt should not be done at the expense of our community colleges. MR. C. BIRT: Does the Provincial Government play a role in the determination of the job strategies, or whatever you want to call it, that the Canadian Job Strategy is involved in? HON. J. STORIE: The name itself is a contradiction and I think I've tried to point that out.

There is no strategy in it. lt is a way of funneling training dollars into the private sector, so I don't consider it a strategy. But it's called the Canadian Job Strategy. The provincial involvement is only to the extent that because, nominally, we have jurisdiction over education, tha t we have become involved in assessing th e pedagogical, ensuring that the training that's being designed can actually be accomplished in the form that it is. We do not provide approvals for Canadian Job Strategy projects.

Our input is thought, as a province, to ensure that the goals of that training project, whatever they might be, are accomplishable in terms of the instructors, the materials, and the duration, I guess, of the training program. But in no cases do we approve; the final approval is the responsibility of CEIC. MR. C. BIRT: Would a proposal come then from CEIC, or the Federal Government, or Canadian Job Stra tegy, whatever the originator is on a project, let's say, to train people in the cutting of lumber in The Pas? Does that project then come to the Department of Education for review, comment, and approval? HON. J.

STORIE: lt comes for review of the training plan only. There is no approval. If we say yes, this training, the time, the materials, the instruction makes it feasible for this to be achieved in that time frame, that's all we say. Whether the project is approved or not approved is not left up to the division or the Provincial Government. lt may or may not be. In fact, it may be the case that we say it isn't adequate and it would be approved anyway. 2520

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 MR. C. BIRT: To date, how many programs has the department been inv olved with in reviewing? HON. J. STORIE: I understand it's about 500. MR. C. BIRT: In all of those, is it generally when a report is made? Is there a recommendation that it should proceed or not proceed? HON. J. STORIE: We provide our input with respect to the training plan and indicate whether we think it's adequate or not, then from there the decision is made and we are informed eventually about whether it is proceeding or isn't, I guess. There is no requirement, however, that we be notified one way or the other. MR. C.

BIRT: The program evaluation that your department does, of the approxi mately 500, how many have been advised that it's not acceptable or won't meet the criteria? How many have been given a negative HON. J. STORIE: Approxima tely 40 percent. MR. C. BIRT: And to the Minis ter's knowledge, have those programs proceeded or not proceeded? HON. J.

STORIE: I understand in most cases where there is a refusal, that in fact it goes back for revisions; that the sponsor doesn't give up at that point but takes the advice or reviews the comments, or whatever, of the training plan review; and it may end up being resubmitted in another form. MR. C. BIRT: Mr . Chairman, to the Mini ster's knowledge, how many have then been resubmitted and been given the approval to the training program? HON. J.

STORIE: I don't know that we can answer that question definitively but a lot of them have been reshuffled, In other words, they have gone through once; they've been rejected; they've come back again. MR. C. BIRT: And on their return, have they received the endorsation of the province or have they been similarly rejected? HON. J. STORIE: lt depends obviously. MR. C. BIRT: Approxim ately. HON. J. STORIE: I don't think anybody's tracked the number out of that 500, that are actually resubmitted projects. That hasn't been kept track of. MR. C.

BIRT: Are we dealing with a single type of proposal here, a certain pattern of sending out training programs, or are there different functions or aspects to the Canadian Job Strategy? HON. J. STORIE: No, there are different kinds of approaches to the training itself. I don't know whether we should be providing the explanations that need to be provided for the Canadian Job St rategy but the categories are essentially skill shortages; retraining; 2521 upgrading; job re-entry; handicapped job re-entry or job devel opment skills for hand icapped and unem ployed.

The Job Strategy is a whole series of things, of different programs. The Community Futures Program is part of the Job Strategy and essentially it's a community development program - it's a job strategy in an economic sense but not in a training sense. MR. C. BIRT: The Member for Brandon East announced a program about a month ago involving about 1. 4 million dealing with, I think, single parents, and trying to get them to be upgraded, or training, or whatever. Is that part of this type of community based program ming, this Canadian Job Strategy? You identified a community program ... HON. J.

STORIE: No, it's not part of the Community Futures Program, but it is part of the job re-entry, part of the Job Strategy. MR. C. BIRT: But it falls under the um brella of the Canadian Job Strategy? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, it falls under the CJS umbrella. MR. C. BIRT: I take it the Canadian Job Strategy provides funds and they're expended somewhere. Now where are the funds spent? Now I can appreciate there may be various programs, and they may be spent in different ways. Well, generally speaking, where are those funds spent? HON. J. STORIE: Well again, they're spent in a variety of ways.

They're spent training salesclerks for Hudson's Bay. They do all kinds of training, training secretaries, there's private firms developing, being created to do training for secretarial, medical records, people, all kinds. I don't know if we can quantify the dollars. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, I'm more interested in the concepts than specifics at the moment. HON. J. STORIE: Maybe I can just clarify it. 1t may be a job strategy; it isn't a training strategy. I don't see job re-entry skills as fitting very neatly necessarily into a long-term training program, very important.

We could get a copy and go through each of the categories. Really the Job Strategy has very little to do with the operation of the community colleges, other than there may be instances where Job Strategy funds are being directed to an employer, a community group, although most of the money is not going to community groups to provide tr ain ing, and th at trai ning is purchased through a community college. That kind of thing hasn't developed yet, but it is feasible. The community colleges still get the majority of their money that comes from the Federal Government through CEIC purchase of spaces. MR. C.

BIRT: The Min ister was perhaps anticipating my next question in the sense that some of these monies do purchase training in some form, either I guess through an employer or some organization that would provide some sort of skills for whatever that project

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 may be. I take it that it can purch ase training from the community colleges. HON. J. STORIE: They can or theoretically they could. However, they have prescribed the program in such a way that it is extremely unlikely that's going to happen in any significant way, because they've limited the number of dollars that could be spent on training. In other words, it would end up being very sho rt-term in terms of what the community colleges could offer atod, of course, it's left to the discretion of the individual group, whatever, as to where the training is purchased.

So there is no guarantee that there will be any indirect purchase of spaces. There is no guarantee whatsoever. In fact, that is not occurring across the country. MR. C. BIRT: The Min ister has introduced a bill to broaden the technical schools net to sort of cover the Canadian Job Strategy area. I don't want to get into the merits of the bill, but it falls within this section.

As I understand it, it's to put a degree of standards or a degree of base line or at least a guarantee of some form like when a person buys some training experience, they in fact will get some sort of guarantee that the program is reasonable, it's been supervised and that sort of thing. Why did the Mini ster wish to sort of expand this, the parameters of the act? I mean, is this going to be a large growth industry? I mean, are we going to get a lot of new sort of vocational schools springing up? HON. J.

STORIE: lt is possible that you will have a number of - I wouldn't call them vocational schools - I think you'll probably find a number of schools, training cent res. private indi viduals, companies involved in training over the next few years, assuming that the Canadian Job Strategy is in place for any length of time. The changes that are being made to the private trade schools or The Private Vocational Schools Act were not precipitated solely by the introduction of the Canadian Job Strategy. Now the act has not been revised for 40 or 50 years, so it was long overdue in any case.

But certainly there is concern about the potential for companies forming based on training dollars coming from something like Canadian Job St rategy. Essentially in that we're also concerned that if that should happen, there be some mechanism to ensure the quality of instruction and ensure that students are protected in terms of fees paid, etc. MR. C. BIRT: The old trade schools primarily offered short-term tra ining to get you, hopeful ly, into the marketplace. There must have been some ideas or some research done by the department to anticipate perhaps a growth in this area.

I can appreciate there was some need to perhaps update that particular act, but was there any study done as to the antici pated dollars that were coming in on the Canadian Job Strategy and what it might create in the way of training schools or these technical schools? HON. J. STORIE: No, Mr. Chairperson. That was not the motivation for the change. Certain ly, it is timely in the sense that there is that possibil ity.

The motivation was twofold, No. 1, that the act was out of date, and No. 2, some of the private trade schools that have been involved in offer ing training were conc erned about upda ting and upgrading the requirements under the act to, I guess, improve the image, ensure the quality of not only the training that they were offering but training anyone who entered that field would be offering. MR. C. BIRT: The Minis ter had ind icated that approximately five proposals had been vetted by his department. What does this mean in dollars? Does the Min ister know roughly what this means in training dollars? HON. J.

STORIE: To put it in perspective, first of all the Federal Government has cut training dollars from 2.1 billion in 19 85 to 1. 9 in 1985-86. We'll be going down to $1. 7 billion in 19 86-87, national, so we'll see a reduction of .5 million, almost. In Manitoba, approximately $27 million was allocated for the Canadian Job Strategy, $27 million, and only half of that was spent in Manitoba in 1985-86. That in itself, the Job Strategy money was not new money, but old job creation money recycled. lt was not a new infusion of money into job training.

So there are some $13 million being spent or was spent by the Canadian Job Strategy out of the 27 that was allocated and if you want to sort of contrast that to the fact that the withd rawal of direct purchase of spaces by CEIC from our communi ty colleges, represented about a $2 million loss this year; $3.5 million in the next year and; $4 million in the following year.

To date, I'm informed by the President of the Red River Community College, that there have been no indirect purchase of spaces in the community colleges through the Canadian Job Strategy; so that $13 million is spent entirely supporting Hudson's Bay -that's perhaps an exaggeration -but none of it has been spent through the community colleges. lt is true that the province has taken advantage of it, actually. MR. C. BIRT: And credit. HON. J. STORIE: I should indicate that there is one coming at Assiniboine Community College, which is the Co-op Education Program. MR. C.

BIRT: If the Minister could just sort of match dollars and years with college reductions and Canadian Job Strategy, it indicated that in 1985-86 there was some $27 million allocated; $13 million was from old job crea tion and $13 million was Canadian Job Strategy? HON. J. STORIE: No. There was no new money in Canadian Job Strategy whatsoever; that in fact the training allocation in Canada has been cut each of the last two years, and again next year. There was $27 million allocated out of that old money to Manitoba. Of that, less than half was spent.

No w obviously part of the problem is th at the Canadian Job Strategy assumes that there is going to be a private sector; there's going to be significant take up. I've indicated some of the reasons why that is 2522

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 unlikely to happen, and I think those figur es confirm that suspicion. MR. C. BIRT: I'm sorry, but where did the $27 million come for Manitoba? You said it was old mo ney. But you had indicated that the community colleges had only been cut by $2 million. HON. J. STORIE: You're confusing the two things. The Canadian Job Strategy has nothing to do with the community colleges. Well, it could have. MR. C. BIRT: You almost made a mis take. HON. J. STORIE: Well, it could have. lt has purchased, the Canadian Job Strategy.

Out of that $27 million, they only spent $1 3 million and none of that was spent in the community colleges. Our money from the Federal Government comes, and did come, has come over the last few years and st ill comes from the CEIC , the Na tional Training Agreement and the direct purcha se of spaces. MR. C. BIRT: The Minister said that there was $2 million removed from the space purcha se in the community colleges. What fiscal year was that? HON. J. STORIE: 1986-87. The member received a copy of the telex confirming that the reduction actually took place. MR. C. BIRT: Then the $3 million reduction is 19 87- 88?

HON. J. STORIE: Right. MR. C. BIRT: And I think you said the $4 million reduction is 19 88-89. HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: Ok ay. Now, th ere was $27 mil lion allocated to the Canadian Job Strategy in 1985-86 in this province, of which only $13 million was spent. Is that correct? HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: In 19 86-87, what 's the amount of money being allocated? HON. J. STORIE: lt's a federal program and we don't know at this point ? MR. C.

BIRT: Some where in the material I think the Mi nister provided me with this afternoon, the Min ister has indicated that there was going to be a reduction and he's indicated the figures each year on the space purch ase - I guess it's under The National Training Act -but I thought I'd seen -maybe it was in the material or in some press statements -that there would be a guarantee. In other words, if there was a shortfall and there was not a purchase of the spaces under the Canadian Job Strategy, and there was a shortfall, that the Federal Government would make up that shortfall. HON. J.

STORIE: That guarantee is only for this year. MR. C. BIRT: The Min ister says, this year. Is that 19 86- 87? HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: So that I understand the guarantee correctly - I think the Min ister indicated that there was maybe one program going this year under the Canadian Job Strategy where it was purchasing things from one of the community colleges, and if there was a shortfall of some $2 million this year and there was a 300,000 purchase through a Canadian Job Strategy Program, the guarantee would then pick up the shortfall of $1. 7 million. HON. J.

STORIE: lt's true that the Federal Government is committed to providing the same level of funding. The $2 million will be recovered by the province, but not necessarily through the community colleges. The CEIC is also involved in training at Limestone, for example, and that money may flow into a different area, which still leaves the community colleges in that position and it's our expectation that's likely what will happen. MR. C.

BIRT: Other than the Limestone -and I want to get into that in a moment -you have the College Sp ace Purchase Program; you have the Canadian Job Strategy plan; you have Limestone; what other major job training facilities are involved or monies being spent in Mani to ba, either by th e Federal or Provincial Governments, or jointly? HON. J. STORIE: The other would be the Core Area Initiative and the extremely wide variety of adult access type training programs. MR. C. BIRT: I don't mean in a small sense. I'm talking about programs tha t are mult imilli on dollar type programs. HON. J.

STORIE: These are, in the sense that they're funded thr ough or by the Employment Services and Economic Security. For example many millions of dollars, I believe in the neighbourhood of $7 million or $8 million annually are spent through the Northern Development Agreement to fund New Careers, BU NTEP, teacher training, social work training, Northern Nurses Training Program but that wouldn't be funded from this department obviously. MR. C.

BIRT: Dealing with the Limestone Training Project, as I understand it, a sum of money was allocated to train people for specific jobs on the construction project during the development phase of the Hydro pro ject and a separate administ rative structure was set up for it - I believe they call it the Limestone Training Project or something to that effect. My question is, given the knowledge and the expertise of the community colleges, why wasn't it given to the community colleges to run and operate? HON. J. STORIE: Cer ta inly I gue ss much of th e expertise and the programming has been developed 2523

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 in the PACE, or the expertise of the PACE Division has been used. But obviously it is specialized training and the colleges do assume a lot of that mone y. In fact they are providing about, out of the 10 million, $11 million that's spent. Now, the Training Authority itself comes under the jurisdiction of Energy and Min es, but out of the $10 million or $11 million that's spent, approximately 3.7 is funnelled into the community colleges in The Pas, Keewatin Commu nity College, purch ase of heavy construction, mechanics or heavy-duty mechanics, those kinds of things.

So, although the Training Authority is a separate agency responsible to a di fferent department, because of a lot of special circumsta nces surrounding Limestone, it has nevertheless worked and is working with the PACE Division. MR. C. BIRT: That's the point, Mr. Chairman, because you have a college in the North -it's Keewatin I think -primarily geared to try and provide training skills for those people there, hopefully in their environment. If not, then they will have to move someplace else.

I know the department was involved in creating some of the program work and I know they're delivering some of the services, but the concern I have is why create another agency with all its adminis trative detail and everything else like this. lt seems to me the communi ty college system has been very flexi ble and very adaptable over the years and don e some rather in terest ing things, th at this wou ld be a natural opportunity for the college system to demonstrate what it can do.

In fact, you could have probably got more bang for your buck if you'd kept it within the system rather than creating another system and then just contracting to you. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, I think there's two reasons for that. No. 1, the member raises the question of flexibility. lt isn't perhaps as flexible as it could be, recognizing Keewatin Community College in The Pas is one of the smaller community colleges with limited facilities, limited program capacity.

So it has its own set of shortcomings, if you will, in terms of the scope of its project. lt has, and the community colleges have been involved in some of the commu nity-based training and are offering training on a whole range of other areas; civil technology -what's it called, civil technology? -anyway, a range of programming. But the LTEA, Limestone Training and Emp loyment Agency, needs a great deal of flexibility. lt has to work obviously with Manitoba Hydro, with contractors, with community groups. 1t needed to be set up fairly quick ly.

There was some urgency in terms of getting out and doing the pre-training that was required before the construction. Certainly it has drawn on the expertise of communi ty colleges and the post-secondary system generally but the special circums tances, I think, warranted that. lt has worked in a very cooperative fashion with our post-secondary colleges in providing both the college-based training and the communi ty based training.

The staff also indicate because of the nature of the training that would be requir ed, that it was going to be communi ty-based and the hours would be different; that they weren't restricted by the collective agreements which were in place currently in our community colleges so the agency had more flexibility in terms of allocating staff resources and so forth. Aga in, a special circumstance. I don't think that's a normal course of events. There is a great deal of faith in community colleges and they, by and large, are used.

They work with every other department in terms of providing specialized training for different purposes. We are also represented on the management board of the training agency. MR. C. BIRT: The Minister indicated there were some $10 -11 million going to be expended, I think, by the Training Authority at Limestone and they were going to be providing about 3.7 million of that. Is that all there's going to be or are there several phases?

Will you be providing additional training because we move from sort of the site clearing -and I'm oversimplifying now to, you know, the construc tion, the mo re sophis ticated form of work up there -will the college be providing or continue to provide the training type functions they've done to date? HON. J.

STORIE: Well, recognizing the Limestone Training Emp loyment Agency does not come under my jurisdiction, I just want to indicate yes, of course, any of the people who are involved in the technology programs, the two-year programs, that may be related -for example civil technology -are looking at the longer term employment prospects for Limestone. The whole idea and one of the, I guess, benefits of having the LTEA formed was they could also provide the short term training immediately and then in closer cooperation with us, start planning for the longer term.

Obviously you have to get the people identified, move them into the college in anticipation of needing them in Year 2 of construction or Year 3 of construction down the road. Secondly, a lot of the other programs that come under Emp loyment Services and through the ACCESS programs are involved in the longer term. Again, longer term training, professional training, that there are now eng ineers being traine d , again for Hydro, for emp loyment at Limestone, or other emp loyment down the road. So a great deal of thought has gone into the training needs over the term of the project and into the future. MR. C.

BIRT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get into some specific questions now, if I may. I thank the Minister for his answers in this discussion we've had. I'm now looking at a sheet that came from the draft annual report or final annual report going to the printers. it's Page 157 of this numbering sequence. The numbers I'm looking at -and I remember them being raised last year in the Estimates -it showed a declining population at our community colleges. lt would appear that number is continuing. Now, this goes to an'85-'86 level going back to'82-'83. Is the trend continuing this year? HON. J.

STORIE: No, enrolment has basically been static and is at quite a high level. I guess the problem with numbers is that it depends very much on the kind of training that's being offered, that you can have a tremendous num ber of students going through if you are only offer ing the th ree-week emp loyment 2524

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 preparation course. So it depends very much on the year to year, what kind of training is being offered. As I've indicated some of the cut-back effects have been to reduce those short term ones qui cker, so it looks like fewer students, but, in fact, the full-time equivalents are nonetheless relatively constant. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the number of staff years and I presume that is sort of like teachers -if it isn't, then please correct me - has increased. I'm looking at'85-'86 over'84-'85.

Now why the increase if it's going down or is static, depending on how you want to define it? Why would the staff years be increasing if your num bers basically have been staying flat? HON. J. STORIE: Are you talking about the divisions for Red River Community College? MR. C. BIAT: No, it's called Manitoba Education PACE, Admini strat ion and Fina nce Branch, Manitoba Community Colleges Productivity Analysis. If you look at the first heading, it's resource data and then there is SY and it goes from'82 up to'85-'86. lt starts at 1, 093; it goes down to 1, 060; down to 1, 049; then up to 1, 084. HON. J.

STOAIE: Most of that increase would not be instructional. In fact, I don't believe any of it is. I think there is actually a small decrease in instructional staff. What has happened is that we have decentralized some of the functions that used to be in the department to the communi ty colleges, some student payroll personnel, vouchering, program ming. MR. C. BIRT: Looking at the report for the community colleges, it would appear that the bulk of the students are night-time students, or I'm trying to remem ber, there was like 25,000 or 28,000 and about 15,0 00 were going to night school. HON. J.

STORIE: Two-thirds, yes. MR. C. BIRT: Okay. Is this the short-term upgrading type of training or is it apprenticeship type training? Does this lead to their full-time attendance there or is it just upgrading skills for people who have regular work and are gaining extra credits? HON. J. STOAIE: I'm told that it's mostly upgrading, but it can also lead to certification. it's like a degree by night school. MR. C. BIRT: So these are programs that people are taking on their own primarily to upgrade their skills in the hope that it'll lead to something perhaps a little better for them. Is that correct? HON. J.

STOAIE: Yes. MA. C. BIAT: Mr. Chairman, referring to this page, I understand why all the lines are in there, I just don't understand why they have a line Current Value of Canadian Dollar. What relevance does it have? HON. J. STOAIE: They saw it on the National, I guess. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, we're reminded Roland Penner had this attitude too and it got him in trouble. HON. J. STOAIE: There is an explanation but I don't want to give it. MR. CHAIRMAN: So there! The Member for Fort Garry. HON. J. STOAIE: As a nationalist, I found it insulting. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, I understand that the Finance and Admi nstrative Services Branch also adminis ters the Inter-Provincial Training Agreements, but I believe (f), where it says "Co-operative Training Programs," also relates to the Inter-Provincial Training Agreements. Is that correct? HON. J. STORIE: That's correct. MR. C. BIRT: Why the split or the two functions? HON. J. STORIE: The explanation is that (

b) is the operation providing the Admin. and Supp ort, and (

f) the inter-provincial grants is really a pay-out of the money that's owed to the other jurisdiction as a result of the Inter-Provincial Agreement. That's essentially why the breakdown. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, there must be some admin istrative function in the (

f) portion because it says Salaries and some 67,000 is referred to. Why just aren't they combined and the grant portion just be shown as a third line in that Finance and Adminis trative Services Branch? HON. J. STORIE: lt could be. it's simply been set up that way. The staff are not simply administration. There is a programming element to that and that's the International Program. There are a number of projects that Red River Community College is involved in, and I guess the division as a whole are involved in, providing training on an international basis. MR. C. BIRT: Is this Kenya Project and things like that?

HON. J. STORIE: Yes, the Kenya Project is one and the Tanzania . MR. C. BIRT: I had asked the Mini ster a question in the House about the number of Inter-Provincial Training Agr eements tha t we ha ve and I think he list ed approximately six. I'm not interested in the number. How do we enter into agreements? How do we know that when we we've got a need and we should be entering into an agreement with some other province or jurisdiction whereby we will cost-share or do some funding for them? HON. J.

STORIE: We both buy and sell on the basis of inter-provincial agreements, but essentially it works something like this, that in a very specialized area, Veterin ary Medicine as an example, rather than establish one for the limited number of people that 2525

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 might be interested in Manitoba, we have chosen and have for many years, had an interprovincial agreement whereby we purchased spaces at the Veterinary College. We were talking earlier this afternoon about the possibility of esta blishing an institution for the hearing impaired. That would have to operate on the same kind of basis. If we established it here for whatever reason, I would assume that many other jurisdictions would enter into interprovincial agreements to purch ase training in those kinds of spaces. So that's essentially how it's initiated.

We expect generally that because of the cost of establishing an institution that this is going to become more common over the next few years. MR. C. BIRT: How were these agreements reached? Is it through negotiations with the other Min isters of Education or does a student who wants to take some particular training apply to the department, and if it's not available then an agreement is made to transfer that student over and make some adjustment financially. HON. J. STORIE: Essentially it hasn't been particularly pro-active.

What happens is that a need is established and a facility is identified and then a formal agreement is entered into. But it tends to be only in a very specialized area. Obviously there are many Manitobans in post-secondary institutions across Canada, around the world. it's only in areas where there's limited enrolment and a defined need that we enter into those kinds of arrangements. MR. C. BIRT: Do I understand the Min ister right? it's more by national agreement, agreement between the other provinces as to what sort of specific programs you can buy or sell with some inter-transfers of monies,

whereas if an individual just says I'd like to go to University X and take Project Y, if it doesn't fall within that sort of co-operative agreement then they're out of luck. HON. J. STORIE: That's right. I was just going to add, I think everybody's aware of the fact that of course a student that goes out of province for training that isn't available, whether it's funded by an interprovincial agreement or not would be eligible for student aid so there's support for that. MR. C. BIRT: Yes that's not the issue. Mr. Chairman, we could pass (b)(1) and (2). MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, (b)(1)- pass; b(2)-pass.

We're now at (c), Red River Community College-the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, in the early part of this year an annou ncement was made to establish sort of a library facility at Red River Community College. I don't see any reference to that expenditure, I think it was some 4 million. Is it in those Estimates or is it someplace else, is it not proceeding this year? What's the status on it? HON. J. STORIE: No. I think we touched on this previously that the Department of Government Services is responsible for capital facilities. MR. C. BIRT: In these places? HON. J.

STORIE: Yes, they're all part of government. So any, I believe, planning dollars would show up in Department of Government Services. There are monies set aside for planning for this year, planning and design. MR. C. BIRT: Because this is departmental, really a department of government, that's why it's over there,

whereas universities are deemed to be arm's length and ... HON. J. STORIE: Separate. MR. C. BIRT: Okay. One question I have: What appeal process is in place for students at any of the colleges if they feel that they have a problem, they've either had a failure in a course that they take exception to or they are told not to return to the college or whatever. Is there some appeal mechanism in place? If so, what is it? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, there has always been an academic appeal route for the appeal of grades, course marks or what ever.

A new non-academic appeal procedure is being developed to deal with any other dispu tes between students and the community colleges, whether they be staff-related, whatever. MR. C. BIRT: Could you tell me how the academic appeal system works and then how this proposed non academic appeal system is to work, like composition of the board, who can do what, that sort of thing. HON. J. STORIE: The Appeal Boards are made up of faculty, students, community rep. and admin istration in both instances. MR. C. BIRT: And a simple majority decision carries the appeal. Is that how it works? HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C.

BIRT: Could the Mi nister outline just the procedure that's involved. HON. J. STORIE: The decision to appeal is left to a decision by the Vice-President of Student Services and his assessment of the request is based on criteria that were established by the student body and the college. So there are a list of criteria, the Vice-President of Student Services acts as the arbitrator and if the criteria are met then an appeal proceeds. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, if the criteria is met and an appeal is filed then is it a hearing and people can produce evidence and call witnesses and a decision is made by the body? HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Deputy Chairman, when will the non academic appeal procedure be in place? 2526

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 HON. J. STORIE: lt is in place. lt has been in place for six weeks. MR. C. BIRT: Could it hear appeals or matters that occurred prior to its creation? Is there a limitation? In other words, if a student had a problem say two months prior could he apply and qualify for this process now? HON. J. STORIE: I understand that there is no problem with that, assuming that it hasn't been resolved either between the student and the college prior or if it was believed or some other processes has been used as an avenue to resolving it. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Chairman. Dealing with Red River Community College, I think with dollars beco ming in crea singly shor t, a great number of us are concerned about the relationship between community colleges and the universities to make sure there is not anymore overlap than absolutely necessary. I know, for example, Red River Community College gives a communications program which is so strong there are many graduates of university who then go post-grad to Red River Communi ty College in order to take the communications program.

I also kno w a numb er of high schools are recommending students who are really interested in doing computer education at university, go first to Red River Community College and pick up their computer course, and then end up at the university. I'm wondering if we're not muddying the waters somewha t between what we really want the community college to do and what we want the univ ersity to do, or does the Min ister not see any difficulty with this movement of students back and forth between the community college and the university? HON. J.

STORJE: Well certainly to the extent that there is duplication, it is cause for concern. I think there needs to be a better mechanism for cooperation, for the establishment of courses and making sure they're complementary, if you will. lt is true the community colleges have established an extremely good reputation in a number of areas. You mentioned a couple. Business admi nis trat ion is anoth er. Ob vious ly, there are advantages to the community college system in that the program is intensive. it's ten months, two years and, therefore, looked on with favour I guess by many.

To date, there has been very little real work done on attem pting to elimina te dupl ica tion. Tha t is something we're working on and the un iversities have expressed an interest in. So I expect we will be doing a review of the complementarity of the programming over the next little while. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: We've certainly heard quite a lot since this Session has opened about the lack of Federal Go vernment fun ding int o post-secondary education and health care.

I am concerned about the figures that are listed as recoverable figures from the Communi ty Colleges on Page 53 of the Estimates, because it would appear 43 percent of Red River Community College costs are recoverable; 52 percent of Assiniboine Community College's; 66 percent of Keewat in Commun ity College's; 62 percent of Coop era tiv e Training Programs, which seems to certainly come out at a 50 percent or better share from the Federal Government. Do you not expect to receive that kind of appropria tions or recover ables from Canada? HON. J.

STORIE: Well, I had indicated again those are in some areas of the PACE Division alone. Recognizing while it is true we recover a great deal in some areas in the community college, there are a whole range of other adult training endeavours from which we recover none or very little. Overall, the federal share of direct purchases in terms of the number of training days available represents about one-third. The total federal share of communi ty college costs is about 37 percent in '86-87. Just to comment on your earlier quest ion, I had said the duplication issue is an important one.

I just wanted to add, apart from the discussions that are going on, I think there's also the possi bility that credits can be transferred . There has been a reluctance to do that, but I think given the recognition of the high quality of training in commu nity colleges, that' s becoming increasingly likely. The final point I wanted to make about the dollars, the apparent significant contribution from Canada - I've given you the overall figure -recognizing the Department of Government Services now builds the building and provides the capital in most instances, provides the ongoing maintenance.

So all of the costs that go into post-secondary education are not depicted in the Estima tes of the Department of Education. I have pointed out and other Min isters have pointed out to the Federal Government, the Federal Government underestimates post-secondary spending by about $2 billion in Canada. So the provinces, I think, have a reason to be concerned about the signifi cant under representation of provincial spending. Despite the fact we've pointed that out, we've received no recognition of the extra dollars that are put in in a variety of ways. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: I really don't want to get into a full-blown discussion today about post-secondary funding vis-a-vis federal-provincial. However, I think it is very difficult for those in Opposition to ever get straight figures from either level of government. I certainly have asked federal people to provide me with the figures. I get entirely different sets of figures always than the ones which I get from the Provincial Government. How are we going to resolve this problem in order we make sure we get our fair share for both education and health care, recognizing we are one and the same taxpayers?

I pay federal and I pay provincial taxes, and it all comes out of my pocket and of several other millions of people in this country. I become extremely frustrated with the narrow self-interest -and I don't wish to put it all on the side of the Provincial Government; there's just as much narrow self-interest 2527

Thursday, 31 July , 1986 on the part of the Federal Government - to give us a clear set of facts. For example, how many of the costs you speak about today were ever agreed upon to be paid by the Federal Government? HON. J. STORIE: I don't know I want to get into a long discourse on what was, has been, should have been paid by what level of government. I can only indicate, and I have done so already, the total federal commitment to training is decreasing.

I believe the information was provided through the Fair Sha re Office which showed the federal contributions to health and post-secondary education are decreasing. They have been since 19 80-81, and they are going to until 19 90. lt is going to leave all provinces -and I don't know why anyone would have any trouble deciding who was presenting the right figures on the question of transfer payments, because it is not Manitoba that is saying it alone. Every other province is saying essentially the same thing, some more vociferously than others, but every province is saying essentially the same thing.

We presented a brie f dir ectly to the Stan din g Commit tee on Bill C-96. The Province of New Brunswick sent in a very detailed presentation. The Province of Newfoundland has tabled a Green Paper on its im pact. There is no doubt in, I hope, anyone around this table's mind about what the Federal Government is about. lt hasn't decided the training -particularly in the post secondary area, the only area in which they have any responsibility or ever assumed any responsi bility-has decided it is not a priority with them. So the record is clear. Certainly there is a difference of figures.

They're presenting their best case scenario; we're presenting what we believe to be the actual case, so I don't want to say any more about that. On the issue of, does it matter because we' re taxpayers. Yes, it does very much matter. The Province of Ontario is in a much better position to assume full responsibility, to not pay, not care too much about the extent of federal participation; but for provinces like Newfoundland and Manitoba and maybe many of the other smaller provinces, it's not a question of whether it's important, it's fundamental.

The difficulty is, it's a question of our ability to equalize our opportunities as provinces. Confederation was founded, the Constitution talks about the principle of equalizing the ability of provinces to provide relatively the same services across Canada. Education, in my opinion, is an essential service, and to the extent the provinces cannot afford to maintain, to enhance their post-secondary education institutions, they are going to very quickly become the Third World of Canada. it's an absolutely asinine backward policy, and I don't say that in a partisan way. Okay, maybe a little. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: To get into the operating budget of Red River Community College itself, going through it, I couldn't understand things like "other fees" or "other operating costs," particularly in other operating costs, when rentals and professional services and repairs and maintenance and office and operating supplies are all taken care of and yet you still have $1 ,568,400 for Other Operating Costs. Could we have some more detail on what those Other Operating Costs are? 2528 HON. J. STORIE: I'm certain we can get the facts to you, Mr. Chairperson. MRS. S.

CAR STAIRS: We could deal just briefly with the com petency based learning concept, in which I understand there are a number of modules that have been already introduced and more, in fact, will be introduced this year and on into other years. When the concept was fi rst int rod uced in the Legislature, it sounded very much like individualized instruction for each and every one of the 1, 000 students at Red River Community College, which I must admit at the time, I thought was a wonderful educational concept.

However, I wondered how you were going to do it with the staff in place -sorry, that's 1, 000 staff and goodness knows how many students.

I'd just like a little bit of discussion on just how it is working, at what levels are you taking them from in any one given course or are you in fact putting them in other courses, training them there until they reach a competency level and then putting them in the curriculum which they ultimately want to graduate from, because that's not how it was first presented. 1t was presented as if you would take everyone from, someone with maybe a Grade 7 and somebody with a Grade 10 and another one with a high school education and perhaps somebody else with two years of university and you put them all in the same class.

As a teacher, I can't imagine that happening and working. HON. J. STORIE: I have a small diagram which may or may not be helpful, depending on how I go with it, but essentially it is intended to work something like this, that the entry points may in fact be different. At the entry point there are different education levels, exactly the scenario that you painted.

There are a number of different entry points throughout the year as well, and when the individual is there, what we have is the course set up in units or modules, whatever you want to call them, and that it is individualized to the extent that they progress through them. Some, of course, are much more able and progress much qu icker than others. Those that have difficulty, there are provisions of student support services. That's where some remedial work may be offered.

On the other side, you have the ability, in some cases I guess, for computer-assisted learning and so forth, but the entry points, although they're specified, the entry point can include people from all grade levels, adult to those with less than public school education. The principle behind it is that it doesn't really matter, the academic qualifications of someone coming in. What's im portant is their ability to cope with the material and their speed through the course is dependent upon their ability to cope.

We try to provide some other services to assist that, but the whole idea behind competency based learning that you deal with the concepts that need to be learned. Once you've mastered them, you move on. I'm reminded that it's not just academic services, that there is a package of support services that are offered for those who come in with a different life experience, so there's housing support, there's day care, there's fina nces, health, a whole range of services and

Thursday, 31 July, 1986 that's simply designed to assist those who come in with di ffer ing backgrounds. The y'r e not all Gr ade 12 graduates and they needn't be. Their speed through the course is determined by, obviously to some extent, their experience and educational background, but it's also to a greater extent based on their determination and their ability to cope with the material directly. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss the kind of evaluation of this competency based training that's going on and to put in some kind of perspective.

I remember teaching in a semester at high school, the first semester high school in Alberta. We were given a five-year evaluation program. By the time we were ready to evaluate the program, there wasn't a high school in Alberta that wasn't on the semester program and our evaluation said that it worked for some subjects and it didn't work for other subjects. What kind of assessment are you do ing of com petency based learning through the modules that are presently in place before you, in fact, embark on putting the entire college on that kind of a program? HON. J.

STORIE: I'm informed that there is an external evaluation being done of the success to date. There are seven courses which are on ICBL, an additional 20 are planned. Now there are 85 full-time courses so you can see that we're moving, but the experience to date has been extremely good, recognizing that the key, in ICBL, as with anyt hing else, is with the teacher determ ining what is required, the timely intervention of the teacher in terms of what additional skills, what remedial skills are required and also in determ ining the progress, when competency has been reached.

So it's not a science, despite the fancy title. lt's still an art, but it has served a couple of purposes, in that the entry point is much more flexible; the requirements are much more flexible. lt gets rid of the expectation that someone needs this or that to achieve competency in a particular area. That's, I think, a pretty old notion. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Will the Min ister be looking to spreading this concept to the other communi ty colleges, or would th eir num bers ma ke th at much mo re complicated and much more difficult? HON. J.

STORIE: lt's obviously somewhat more difficult in some program areas, but all the communi ty colleges are working on translating, if you will, their courses into some form of ICBL. I should indicate that probably there are models across the country for use of ICBL. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I was pleased to hear in an answer to the Member for Fort Garry that a Non academic Appeal Comm ittee has been set up at Red River Communi ty College.

I have to admit that as a teacher I was very shocked at reading a letter to a student which read: "We would consider admitting you to the college at such time as you were able to provide written assurance from a psychiatrist that your behaviour is appropriate for attendance at the college.'' I, quite frankly, am not aware of the fact that Red River Commu nit y College ha s on staff either a psychologist or a psychiatrist who could make the kind of evaluation that would suggest that somebody needed a psychiatric evaluation. HON. J. STORIE: Well, the letter of cou rse has a number of precedents.

Anyway I'm just trying to get my terms straight. There are a number of things that precede and pre-date that letter and they include, of course, the number of incidents at the college which are obviously unfortunate. The manner in which Red River Community College dealt with the student - I believe it's referenced in that letter and the Ombudsman has reported that he did not suggest that there needed to be any redress in that question - I agree that the wording of the letter could have been perhaps done in some other way.

But I think it came about as a result of a serious problem and although there was a dispute about whether the action taken was appropriate, I think there was an internal review of that matter which was independent of the community college and found that the original action that the community college took was justified. I believe the Ombudsman came to essentially the same conclusion. The wording certainly could have been better, but I think the action certainly appears to have been justified. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: While the Ombudsman certainly said he was satisfied the decision taken was reasonable.

He too said: notwithstanding the above, we questioned the method used by the college in determining the need for a psychiatric assurance. In contacting a psychiatrist, I was informed that no psychiatrist would feel comfortable in writing such a letter that they could not in fact assure the psychiatric conduct of any human being and therefore they could not, in fact, put such a thing on paper. I would hope that the appeal process now in place would be opened to this particular individual in light of the fact that he's still unhappy with his relationships with the communi ty college. HON. J.

STORIE: I have indicated that certainly could be possible if the individual wished. I point out that an independent review, and I believe the Ombuds man indicated that the action was warranted, certainly I guess you open yourself to the question. I'm not disagreeing essentially with what you say about how any psychologist, psychiatrist could attest to the conduct of an individual for any length of time. lt does create the problem for the admin istration in terms of readmitting an individual such as that who has obviously been disruptive.

I can only say that hopefully the new appeal process that's in place for non-academic grievances will prevent the need for this kind of a situation and the need for that kind of a letter in the future. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Will this particular student be returned fees paid for the entire year? HON. J. STORIE: I'm not sure whether the Ombudsman dealt with that issue or not. I believe the community college does have the right under certain circumstances to expel students and that they should not in that event expect a refund of tuition.

But again, if that was something that wanted to be appealed under the new process, that's certainly possible. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you. 2529

Thursday , 31 July , 1986 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 5.(c)(1) to 5.(e)(3) were each read and passed. 5.(f)(1) and (2). MR. C. BIRT: The Minister indicated to me earlier when we were discussing this in parallel with subsection (

b) of this category that this dealt with the funding, of the buying and selling of monies. Why is it that Canada gives a Recoverable amount in this, roughly two-thirds of it? HON. J. STORIE: The Co-operative Training Programs involve more than just the inter-provincial agreements. lt also involves cooperative training in the South Winnip eg Technical Centre or Vocational Centre and the Manitoba Technical Training Centre so that the Recoverables are as a result of essentially those two operations I guess. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, then I would take it, that portion allocated to the South Winnipeg Technical Centre would disappear, if not next year the year after, because it's primarily a high school training. Or does this apply to the adult portion of the training centre? HON. J. STORIE: This wou ld only apply, Mr . Chai rperson, to the adult component and that will be continuing. MR. C. BIRT: Could the Min ister advise roughly how much is being allocated to the South Winnipeg Technical Centre? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, $679,000 from PACE. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, would this be a fairly constant number or is it possible that the number of adults at that training institution will be increasing, or is it now pretty well at maximum. HON. J. STORIE: No, it is not at maximum at this point. The previous year some $500,000 was allocated. There is an expectation that will increase some; it is not at capacity yet. MR. C. BIRT: Roughly what percentage of capacity are we at? When do you anticipate to be at full capacity? HON. J. STORIE: That of course depends. 1t depends on the demand.

The demand has been growing; it's approximately one-third full after less than a year really. This is the second year, but of course there is an expectation as well that the private sector again will be involved in the purchase of training. So it was the creation of three school divisions. lt nonetheless has a separate board with the expectation that the training will be purchased from many sources. MR. C. BIRT: So approximately a third of the adult space is now being used. Assuming everything goes according to schedule, roughly when would the 10 0 percent capacity be reached? HON. J.

STORIE: Again, assuming capacity and our abili ty to fund if th e private secto r doesn 't take advantage of the program, it would probably be another two or three years. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARS TAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairman. Can the Min ister tell me how many students are involved in this Co-operative Training Program? Again, an approxima te figure? HON. J. STORIE: In terms of out-of-province? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Out-of-province and Manitoba Technical Training Centre in Winnipeg, South Winnip eg Technical Centre. HON. J.

STORIE: Yes, the Manitoba Technical Training Centre has a core of approximately 50 students a day and they are in there for a five-month period. In addition to that, spot training in essence, is sold and the range is from 10 to 15 students and they may be in for as short a period as two days or three days and longer. In the South Winnip eg Technical Centre, approxima tely 200 students; and involved in the interprovincial agreements between 75 and 80. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: One of the questions that has been raised with me about the South Winnipeg Technical Centre -and I'd just like an opinion through the Minister with his staff - is that some of the equipment at the South Winnipeg Technical Centre is so state-of-the-art that they are in fact training to use machinery and technology; that there's no company in Winnip eg that has the same level of state-of-the-art technology. Is that in fact true? HON. J.

STORIE: There may actually be pieces of equipment which are state-of-the-art; however, the training on those pieces of equipm ent of course subsumes a lot of other training that goes on in program ming and involves other skills besides the actual manipu lation of the equipment, recognizing as well that really Manitoba industry is simply gaining momentum in the high-tech area, that you have a tremendous number of CAD/CAM operations that are designs by computer and so forth.

So that technology is growing and obviously while there may be some specific pieces that are ahead of their time in terms of Manitoba, it's unlikely that will be very long. The other training that goes on is also filling a need at the same time. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: The specific reference was apparently to the drafting part of the course in which the equipment that is available there is in fact far more advanced than anything we have in the city. And the question raised was, will those people really be able to get jobs?

Are they still learning the basic skills of drafting skills, the old-fashioned way if you will, in order to be employable? HON. J. STORIE: I don't think so, at least not in an intensive way. You know, draftsmen are now going back 2530

Thursday , 31 Ju ly, 1986 to school to develop skills in com puter-assisted design so it's certainly our expectation, I think industry-wide expectation, that it will be the art of the future and we're certainly timely in being able to provide that. There are drafting courses obviously in the community colleges if those are the skills that an individual wanted. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I received a letter which was add ressed to the Mi nister - I received a copy of a letter addressed to the Minis ter; I presume the Minis ter got his own copy -with regard to the Co operative Vocational Education Program.

I assume we're talking about the same program here; or are we not? HON. J. STORIE: No. The Co-operative Vocational Education Program is substantially different. That involves high school students who are involved in what used to be called "work experience" and has been very successful. lt's not in the PACE Division; it is part of the Curriculum Program Development. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: No, that's it. Thanks very much. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 5.(f)(1)- pass. The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: 5.(f)(1)- pass; 5.(f)(2)- pass. Mr. Chairman, if the comm ittee is so inclined, I'd be prepared to call it ten o'clock. MR.

DEPUTY CH AIRMAN: Is the com mi ttee so inclined? HON. J. STORIE: Oh no, I want to continue. Let's go for it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee rise. SUPPLY - ENERG Y AND MINES MR. J. DOWNEY: . . . willingness to make sure the Opposition had, in fact, a hearing opportunity or an opportunity to fully explore the perceived benefits or, as was indicated comparing it to Hydro, the third party would have the opportunity to, what he said would take an objective look at it.

I would like the Min ister to just elaborate a little bit on that concept, because it's one which I think could possibly give some precedent-setting as far as the Crown corporations. He's possibly in a position at this time to elaborate on what he's really going to try to accomplish by this. Wh at do es he perceive as a mechanism that would work in this regard? MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: The Honourable Min ister. We are considering Item No. 2.(a)

(1) Energy, Policy Planning and Project Dev elopment: Salaries. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have anything more I could add at this stage. I'm just simply saying it would be nice if we had something like that. I'm not sure it's possible to put it into place. lt just happens we have that mechanism 2531 with respect to energy sales because of the federal legislation which requires that kind of examination, that kind of objective third -party examination prior to a sale being allowed.

As I've indicated as well, there are certain areas where we must maintain our position in terms of our commercial relations with potential partners and competitors, for that matter, exactly how to work it out. I don't pretend to have anything more in place than what I've referred to this afternoon. If anybody has any specific proposals that keep in mind the circumstanc es that anyone getting into a project like this would find thems elves in, I'd be glad to hear from you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just by way of notice to the Minister, it would be my intention to stay on this item for a period of time. I prefer, under this appropriation, to be able to speak more generally to the overall direction this government has with respect to energy matters, energy conservation matters, and future implications of some of the decisions the government is making. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, further on down in the Estimates we have the specific programs line-by-line and any time we spend on this item in a more generalized way we'll make up with relative dispatch on the other items. Mr.

Chairman, we dealt earlier on in the comm ittee session with the question of potash and, although other members may want to continue that discussion, for my part, we've given it a reasonable airing. We've expressed our concerns to the Min ister, to the government. He's given us some indication of willingness to share with us some additional information that perhaps will make our observat ions in the future somewhat more constructive. I hope that is the case.

I just reiterate from this afternoon's discussions that, to date, we believe that we have ample reason to express the most serious concerns about the extent to which the public taxpayer is being asked to become involved in this venture at this time, that they remain. We accept the Min ister's statement that final decisions are still somewhat off, and indeed will not be made till perhaps this time next year following further exploratory work, further refinement in terms of market conditions as to eventual dedication of considerably more public funds and private funds to that venture. But, Mr.

Chairman, under this general heading of dir ection tha t this group of analysts provides the department, we'r e aware the department has undertaken, over the last number of years -indeed it was cer tainly starte d, you kno w, I suppos e by Departments of Energy throughout the country ever since the oil crisis of '73 that we really haven't developed over the past decade and somewhat beyond that, extensive programs of energy conservation.

They run the whole gamut of encouraging the individual home owner to conserve energy, the businesses to conserve energy, community facilities, curling clubs, what have you, all to make better use of the available energy that we have now that we've put a higher premium price on it or that the major suppliers of that energy source, petroleum, have forced us into that position in '73.

Thursday , 31 July , 1986 I'd like to hear from the Mi nister at this particular time. You know, he is responsible for a series of programs. He has announced not so long ago a new $50 million program of energy conservation, of which the details in the short press release were not all that inclusive. What kind of success is the department having with the se programs? I mean, are we making a noticeable dent in the energy costs that the average Manitoban, whether he be private, business life, community life, is facing?

We have a host of programs, different incentives involved, better construction of our homes, better insulation of our homes, the more sophis ticated use of our energy supplies, particularly where hydro-electric energy is being used. The introduction of demand billing some years ago by Manitoba Hydro has forced the user to be more cognizant of how that energy is being used and indeed, although there are still some rumbles about it, the truth of the matter is that, if properly used, considerable savings in energy demand have been achieved.

Is the Mi nister in any kind of position to give us kind of an overview at this point in time? For instance, how many individual homes, how many people have taken advantage of the various CHE C Programs? I know that we had done work with specific communi ties. I know tha t several commu ni ties, in my cons ti tuency of Stonewall being among one of them, have availed thems elves of the services of the department in this particular area, but it's a program that we have been feeding some substantial dollars into.

Over the past number of years, under several previous min isters and admin istrations, some of the original energy savings programs were certainly in place or being developed during the period of 19 77-81. They have become, no doubt, more sophisticated, but are they being pursued with the same vigor? Are they being picked up by the general public in the same way? Or has there been a backsliding taking place because energy costs have eased somewhat? I'm now talking particularly petroleum energy costs. We have seen over the last year or eight months, six months, a downward trend in those costs.

Has that met with a slacking off on the part of the general public from availing themselves to these programs? What I'm looking for, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the attitude of the department, is this still -as in my judgment it ought to be - a priority item in the programming of this department? What kind of targets are we setting for ourselves? Do we think that we can make substantial further reductions in the utilization of energy by applying the various programs the department offers and just the kind of discipline that individual Manitobans have been forced to accept because of the resulting costs? HON.

V. SCHROEDER: I thank the member for that question. We see energy conservation still just as important as years ago and in fact we're one of the few jurisdictions in Canada which is still going ahead with energy conservation. The announcement the member refers to with respect to the $50 million in loans is a Federal-Provincial Project, one of few new arrangements the Federal Government is getting involved in because we are quite specifically priorizing that area. I'm sorry, that one isn't federal- provincial. There's another component to it which is - the 50 million over five years is the provincial portion.

But overall it appears to be working. Just as an example in 1975, most homes in Manitoba were being built with R-7 to R-12 walls and due to programs, prices, the market and technology changes now, most buildings are R-20 to R-27 walls as an example. The projects we get involved in I am told we generally are able to achieve 20 percent and better reductions in energy use so they're still quite efficient.

I refer the mem ber to Page 27 of the supp lementary information on the department which shows a number of the kinds of projects we completed in the last year, recreation centres, where total energy reduction on four of them with monitoring complete on three out of the four is in the range of 32 percent. The arenas didn't achieve the 20 percent but then 15 percent is still a fairly signific ant amount. There's six arenas and so on. There's the Home Demonstration Projects, the schools as well as nursing homes.

In terms of the num bers of CHEC Loans -that is, the Cut Home Energy Costs Program (CHEC) -there were 5, 148 of those loans put out in'85-86 valued at $4,301, 800.00. That program of course is delivered by Manitoba Hydro and Winnipeg Hydro. Since the start of the CHEC Program in 1977, 45,700 Manitobans have used the program to upgrade their homes. There's other in formation on tha t as well on Page 31 of th e supplementary. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, not that I'm moving toward is these are indeed impressive energy savings.

If just referring back to the supplementary guide, if large building complexes like our recreational centres we have in the province can effect upward to 30, 32 percent savings on their energies; individual homes - these are home demonstrations -savings of 26 percent; schools 20 percent; hospitals 20 percent.

My question to the Minis ter, my advice to the Minister would be with those kinds of demonstrated savings, and I assume there's fairly sophisticated monitoring taking place, that these are not just guesstimates that books are actually checked in terms of what previous energy costs were as compared to prior to the refit and these figures are pretty hard, that these are in fact real savings. There are those, Mr. Chairman, various people who believe that a great deal more can be accomplished in this area.

There have been some striking examples of energy savings through new sophis ticated innovative methods that have occurred in some of the states to the south of us, the northern states particularly, where energy use is somewhat higher than in the more temperate or warmer climates. My question to the Min ister, to the department is, surely this program effectively delivered, and perhaps even more strongly supported than currently has been supported, could bring about still further savings.

The fact that some 45,000 individual homeowners have, in one way or another, taken advantage of the program ought to be encouraging to all of us. The fact that a numb er of the community centres, recreation centres and arenas are taking advantage of this program again ought to be encouraging. Can the Min ister give me some idea? Let me talk about the institutions first of all, the arenas, community centres, municipal centres. 2532

Thurs day, 31 July , 1986 Are we touching half of them over the years that these programs have been in effect, or we are still just scratching the surface with 5 percent or 10 percent? I'd like some idea about how far this program is reach ing out, how many communit ies are taking advantage of this. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, of course beyond what we do with this program and the energy audit and so on and, as I indicated previously, there were some 19 6 audits over the last year and we anticipate that -that identified a potential $2 million in annual savings and we expect that a similar number of audits would be undertaken this year.

In addition to these things, there are a num ber of brochures out which in fact let people know how to go about doing a lot of their own things and we expect, we know that a lot of people are out there are taking advantage of some of the information that is available to do some of their own work, in terms of insulation and weatherstri pping and many other ways of saving energy, so that is happening at the same time.

Also I would expect that municip alities and other public institutions would be similarly concerned and would have kno wledgeable people general ly, and certainly they can get information from us and there are other sources and so on. So I would expect that, overall, it is having an impact. We can only move so fast in terms of the dollars that we have available, in terms of budgetary commitment, but we do think that there has been a continuation of interest by Manitobans in this area, even though there may not have been the urgency in the last few years because of pricing that there had been some years ago. MR.

H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, being more specific with respect to the area of energy savings and energy conservation, let's deal for a moment with the hydro energy users.

I believe the Min ister indicated earlier on in his opening comments that roughly a third; 30 percent of our energy requirements are from that source compared to some 40-44 percent from other sources - I may have those figures not quite right -but a program that has demons trated its capacity of reducing by anything upwards from 20 percent to 32 percent in hydro-electric energy savings,tThose units that are using that source of energy, surely must have some im pact on the predicted annual load growth for domestic use of Manitoba Hydro in this province.

I would like to think that this department is not caught in any conflict of interest in this matter; that on the one hand projected load growth as presented by Manitoba Hydro is often presented to us at commi ttee stage as a rationale or as a reason for future dam building, futur e pr oje cts, because of do mestic requirements. What I'm trying to ascertain from the Minister is that the success of these programs obviously impacts on the future demand and the growth rate of future demand domestically in Manitoba, you know, for Manitoba Hydro. The Min ister can appreciate where I'm coming from.

I am suggesting on the one hand that where we're dealing with -you know, money is money and $1 million is $1 million. I won't ever be caught in a position as one Charlie Wilson once got caught in the United States of saying what's a $1 million? Or something like that. But nonetheless, the application of several millions of dollars in this area may be considerably more prudent than the ill-advised advancement of large-scale hydro project developments if not required for dom estic purposes.

There are those -and I think there was recently one of th ose touring experts here from a think tank, somewhere from Montana or somewhere in the States; the Min ister may have caught it on television -who spoke very knowledgeably and volubly about some of the dramatic kinds of energy conservation programs that have been in effect in various parts of North America; he was speaking particularly of the United States.

He questioned very seriously the long-term wisdom of not being aware of what can be achieved in these kinds of better use, conserving use, of our existing energy supplies before we commit ourselves to many hundreds of millions, if indeed not billions of dollars of new hydro-electric dam project construction. My question to the Min ister, quite frankly is,

whereas he on the one hand no doubt wishes to wear the hat of expanding our hydro-electric facilities for whatever reasons; for export sales or other reasons, that there has to be a very hard look at what our domestic requirements are when these decisions are being made because, Mr.

Chairman, if we are building hydro-electric projects like Limestone and contem plating other projects like Conawapa principally for export sales, then I submit it's totally unfair to the Manitoba taxpayer who, 30 or 40 or 50 years ago, has paid for the dams on the Winnipeg river system or even the other systems, and then enjoy the purchaser of this power system rate, which is of course occurring right now with the NSP sale. If we are building Limestone primarily for export sales then, Mr.

Chairman, we know, and we know from the same information and the National Energy Board knows because they were apprised of that information, that power comes on stream at something like 7 cents per ki lowatt hour, compared to the 2.-something systems rate that we, as Manitobans, are being charged - (I nterjection) - or up to 3, as my colleague says. So when you tell us that you've concluded deals and power sales to the Americans in Minneapolis at 5 cents per kilowatt hour, that still washes pretty good and it sounds good. That's where you get your profit figures from. But, Mr.

Chairman, if we ourselves are not requiring, because of success of the very kind of programs that you're admi nistrating, the ones that we're talking about, then the question of the role and the path that this government is on comes into very serious question, because we are building dams for export sales. If we're building dams for export sales, then the purchaser of that power ought to be paying, ought to at least be returning our money out of those purchases. I see the Mini ster and this department in, as I said before, a bit of a conflict of interest here.

If he is too successful in this program of encouraging Manitobans to conserve energy and thereby reduce the demand on energy -I'm now speaking hydro -and if our load growth does not grow at the projected rates that Hydro has put before us, you have to remem ber, those projections were by and large put before us because of past tradition. They're talking about 3, 3.1, 3.5, although the actual experience has been closer to 2, 2.5, 2.8. But to what extent is Manitoba Hydro taking 2533

Thu rsday, 31 Ju ly, 1986 into consideration the success of the very programs that you are putting before us in these Estimates? If you're telling us, Mr. Min ister, that you are reducing by up to 32 percent the energy req uir ements of recreational facilities, by up to 20 percent the energy requir ements of hospitals, by up to 26 percent that is available to individual homes because of the success of your programs, surely, Mr. Chairman, that has to impact on that load growth projection. Furthermore, Mr.

Chairman, if we can effect these kinds of savings that put off the necessity for ourselves to have to invest what is now $2 billion and $3 billion projects, why shouldn't we be putting an extra couple of million, not hundreds of millions, into this program? If we can further reduce the demand on Manitoba Hydro and, in the course of doing so, save ordinary and everyday Manitobans, whether they are custodians of comm uni ty clubs, recreat iona l arenas, private businesses or private homes, if we can encourage them -and I hope the Minister's newly-announced $50 million program is successfu l.

As I understand the program, the program has to be successful in order for loan repayments to be made. An approved set of impr ovements will be made to the facility. The use of energy will be carefully monitored, and it is with the savings of the programs that the loan will be repaid, if I understand the program in general terms. Now, Mr. Chairman, that seems to me it expresses a great deal of confidence on the part of the department, the authors of the program, in putting forward $50 million. Fifty million dollars is not to be sneezed at.

They are confident of the soundness of the program, in that indeed the public treasury will have those $50 million returned in energy savings. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's one program. Now, if that program is successfu lly applied to the vast majority, 89 percent of Manitoba Hydro users, what does that do to the projected load growth of Manitoba Hydro? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, on the NSP sale, which the mem ber referred to, the num bers he's using are not correct if you're looking at either 1990 dollars or 19 84 dollars.

If you take one num ber and put it in 19 84 dollars or 19 85 dollars and another num ber in 19 90 dollars, you get a completely different picture on it. The fact of the matter is that there is going to be a profit on that sale. That is something that we've gone through. If his numbers were correct, then there wouldn't be a profit. There will be a profit on that sale, No. 1. So those num bers are incorrect. Secondly, in terms of our energy conservation - I shouldn't say that they're incorrect, but they're not oranges and oranges and apples and apples. They're oranges and apples.

Second ly, in terms of th e energy co nservat ion program of this province, we're fortunate that there is no conflict of interest, because in fact if we save more energy we make a larger profit from the sale of hydro electric power. The longer we can delay the next dam, keeping in mind the costs involved with respect to advancing Limestone for two years -that's one cost. The other costs are the advancement of several dams on the other end. If we can drop down our consumption, then theoretically we don't have to build the other dam or the other dams at the other end.

In fact, the National Energy Board, if you look at its numb ers, they show that on a scheme of greater use of power, our profit goes down; less use of power, our profit goes up. Therefore, we have a very direct benefit, if you look at it from that perspective, from conservation. The member referred to increases in energy use. The latest number I have, year over year, for energy use in the province is 9.6 percent increase in hydro use in this province.

Now adjusted for weather, it is 6.4 percent, but that's still a fairly significant increase. lt's not anywhere near the zero some people have suggested, and certainly not the Opposition. The Memb er for Lakeside was referring, I believe, probably to Mr. Lovens (phonetic) who was in town recently. Mr. Lovens pointed out he hadn't read the contract we'd entered into. He didn't say there wasn't going to be a profit from that sale and his theory, as I understand it, goes something along the lines that there will be no increase in energy use.

That theory is one which isn't met with a great deal of agreement in the industry which is required to make plans to ensure power is available for consumers, not only for this year and next, but over the decades to come. He may well be right that there are all kinds of interesting alternatives in some parts of the United States, but when you compare those alternatives, and I've heard other critics refer to wind farms and that sort of thing. Well, quite frankly, the costs of those things are enormous compared to what we are able to produce here with our great renewable resource -water power.

We're not in a position where we have to worry about those kinds of alternatives. The conservation alternative, though, I'm told we lead the country in the area of conservation and conservation programs. We're very serious about it. We have no in tention of slackening off in our encouraging of Manitobans to use our programs. As I mentioned earlier, there is the Home CHE C-Up Program, only costs $20 for the homeowner, and if they com ply with the recommendations, or any of the recommendations within a one-year period following that CH EC-Up, then even the $20 is returned and so on.

We're encouraging people out there and I know occasionally we run out of money. I had a letter from one business where a particular fund for a particular type of energy conse rvation program had run short, but we're indicating there is a renewal and hopefully we will be able to work that business into our project certainly over the next 12 months. Those things happen. We budget and you can only go so far and so fast, but certainly we're not backing off of conservation. We think we have to have a balanced approach. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister has on several occasions ticked me off for not using accurate figures. I appreciate he hasn't got Hydro officials before him, and it's not my intention to make this a Hydro debate as such -I'm talking general energy questions -but I would invite the Minister to give me the accurate figur es. There are three figures I'm interested in; the current systems rate -what we call the integrated system's 2534

Thursd ay , 31 July , 1986 rate, which I understand to be around 3 cents a kilowatt hour -the rate we are selling the power to under the NSP contract, which I understand, not from my saying so, but by a former colleague of his, the former Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs, indicated it was being sold for in the order of 5 cents per kilowatt hour. My understanding from reading some of the documentation at the National Energy Board hearings, the kilowatt hour cost of power coming out of Limestone is 7 cents.

Now I would ask the Min ister to take this occasion to correct me or provide the House with the correct figures. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you made that figure comparable to the 5 cents, the Limestone number would be in the range of 2 cents. If you take it on a few years down the line that number changes, but if you want -the 5 cents is comparable to 2 cents. So you have a better than a 2-1 ratio. MR. H. ENNS: We ll, Mr . Chairman, we'r e not grandstanding here now. There's no press around, really, and I'm simply asking for straightf orward information.

I do not like to repeat misinformation if I'm wrong. I ask the Min ister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, what is the current integrated systems rate? I believe it's somewhere in the order of 3 cents and, for easier understanding, I'd like to use the term per kilowatt hour which many of us are familiar with. I'm given to understand the integrated systems rate in Manitoba is 3.1 cents per kilowatt hour.

Now I'm asking, and surely the Minister won't dispute, if we're building a brand new plant now, that 3.1 cents per kilowatt hour includes the long amortized cost of the plants we built on the Winnipeg River system: Seven Sister , Point du Bois, Point Douglas; those plants have served us and Manitobans well over the many years. lt includes the older plants in the North: Grand Rapids, Kettle, Long Spruce.

Surely he's not telling me a new plant built at today's cost, even with the savings the Min ister will point out that they are accomplishing because of economic situations, better bidding and what have you; but, nontheless, the per kilowatt hour of production of electricity to Limestone has to be the highest. lt has to be higher than 3 cents that the integrated systems rate is. Then I'm asking him what is the rate we're selling it to the Yanks in Minneapolis for? I'd appreciate, Mr. Chairman, a straig htforward answer. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: The numbers I gave were 1984 dollars, the 5 cents and approximately 2 cents per kilowatt hours. Both numbers, of course, will inflate up. What the member has to keep in mind about this dam is most of the costs, or many of the costs, have been prepaid.

There is no new transmission line. lt is using the same storage facilities which have been developed over the past 15 or 20 years. lt is using all of that infrastructure and is simply -you know one of the facts of hydro-electric power, one of the great facts about our power is because we have developed it in that fashion, over the next 10 or 20 years, our real cost of power -if you don't look at only the particular year in which a new plant comes on -will be coming down, and that is a tremendous advantage we have because we built this system.

If you stop and think about it, you build that whole system, the storage system, the Churchill River Diversion and so on, you build one dam out of that or a couple of dams to get the power. All of the infrastructure costs are already there. For the next dam, those infrastructure costs are there and all you have to add on is the cost of one dam. The other costs don't increase at all. What you're doing is you're getting more power using that infrastructure more fully.

Those are the numbers and that is why hydro-electric power is so attractive and will become more attractive for Manitoba and will be our economic advantage, our area of opportun ity. MR. H. ENNS: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little rancher in Woodlands and I have trouble understanding the economics of this Mini ster. I know, for instance, Mr.

Chairman, if I can put through 500 steers through my facilities without buying any new equipment, adding it to my plan, that my overhead on those cattle are fixed and I know what they are and that's what I have to get out of those cattle before I can talk about making a profit. If, on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I have to purchase a $30,000 piece of equipment or install some new feeding equipment to accommod ate those 500 head of cattle, my profit is going to be less or there may not be any at all.

Surely the Minis ter will agree with me the most profitable position for Manitoba Hydro to have been in with respect of the sale with NSP is not to have to build Limestone at all. That is elementary arithmetic. Mr. Chairman, it was pretty clearly demonstrated we, in fact, could have done that. We might have been short 55 megawatts in the last year of the contract. That's about all, and we might have been better off to have entered into an interchange agreement, di versity agreement for those 55 megawatts. But the Min ister is not going to argue with me.

If we would achieve maximum profits of that sale, if we could have got it from the system, as the Mini ster says, that's in place, that we're paying for or had paid for, that would have been the maximum profit picture, Mr. Chairman. What I'm trying to drive at with the Mini ster and the department at this particular time is, for some of us who are viewing this from the Opposition benches, we are building dams primarily for the export market. Mr.

Chairman, I don't fault that, although a considerable argument could be made against that proposition, because exp orti ng electrici ty, export ing energy , exporting power is exporting jobs out of Manitoba. I would like to know what this department has done latterly about trying to find high energy-using companies to come and locate in Manitoba and use the energy here in Manitoba. A few years ago, from the former Minister of Energy, there was at least still the effort being made, at least publicly, that we were still looking at people like Alcoa or other high energy-intensive users to come to Manitoba. Mr.

Chairman, it would be doubly wrong to be exporting energy and power from Manitoba which means exporting jobs. We're going to keep the plants humming in Minneapolis and in the northern United States, but we're doing pre-::ious little for permanent job creation here in Manitoba. 2535

Thur sday, 31 Ju ly, 1986 After having spent 2 billion, 2.5 billion, $3 billion, whatever it is, the permanent jobs created by that public investment is very small; 30, 40 people, technicians who run those huge silent plants, compared to the 600, 700 who are requir ed to operate an aluminum smelter or other intensive energy-using industries that ought to be attracted and lured to Manitoba.

Our contin ued skept icism of this gove rnment's proposals with the export sale of energy, first ly, has that as a basic philosphic problem because, as we ded icate our energies in long-term contracts to our southern neighbours, we lose certain options for future job development in Manitoba. More important ly, Mr. Chairman, then to add salt into the wound, if we're doing this at a subsid ized rate, if it should end up costing us money, then it's a double insult.

Then we haven't been doing our job as Opposition critics in alerting the general public to what's going on, and we have allowed a public policy to go forward that is not in the int erests of most Manitobans. Now, Mr. Chairman, no amount of window dressing, introduction of bills as the Minis ter did the other day, Bill 14, the Energy Heritage Foundation; all that is at this particular point in time is an acknowledgement that other jur isdictions, in th is ins tance Alberta, have est ablished quit e a reputat ion with those words, "Heritage Fund." You know, Mr.

Chairman, there is no profit to be made at this point in time, none to be made until the year 2000, and then questionable. Mr. Chairman, who in their wisdom would predict a decade, two decades hence what precisely the issue will be and what the prices will be on such a volatile thing as energy? Who would have predicted what's happened to the oilfields in Alberta or in Texas or around the world today? Five, six years ago, there were all kinds of experts who said that oil was going only one way, out of sight; $35 a barrel, $40 a barrel, $45 a barrel. We've made all kinds of decisions based on that kind of advice.

We gave a company like Dome Petroleum $4 billion or $5 billion in tax money of our tax money which we will likely never see again, Mr. Chairman, only to see oil prices tumble back down to 14. 15, 11 -the latest New York Exchange price for oil just the other day actually hit below the $10 a barrel mark in U.S. funds. That means about $14 for us.

This government is betting that they know better, that they know what energy costs are going to be and what the practices and the requi rements for energy are going to be in the year 2000 and, on that basis, are presenting this Chamber with legislation talking about Heritage Funds. Mr. Chairman, it's not just a matter of them versus us in this Cham ber. it's simply the hard experience that people -goodness knows! -much wiser than I am in this particular field who were convinced to invest millions if not billions of dollars, because they felt energy costs were going a particular way.

Well we are being asked right now by this government to invest millions, yes, and billions of dollars, because we assume certain things are going to carry on as we perceive them to be today. Mr. Chairman, the record will at least show there were some in this Chamber who expr essed their concerns about it. I have some difficulty with this department under this

section right now who, on the one hand, have the responsibility of providing energetic, attractive incentive programs for Manitobans of all descriptions, private, in business, in communiti es, to conserve energy, and indeed, Mr. Chairman, have demonstrated, come before this commi ttee and shown us how they can effect savings of upwards of 32 percent, 20 percent, 26 percent, tell us 45,000 homeowners have taken up some of these programs.

No w my qu estion to the Minis ter and to this department is -and it's not just myself asking these questions; other people more expert than myself have asked these questions -how much more can we do in this field? Wha t kind of breakth roughs, technologically speaking, are going to take place before this decade comes to its end or before we enter the next century, by the time some of the profits have to start flowing from these export sales? We have seen just unbelievable savings in the way and the manner in how we use energy.

Look at our automobiles of just a short decade, two decades ago used to scoff at the smaller European models, the smaller engines. We're all driving 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder units; we're all getting mi leages of 30, 35 or 40 - well, not all -and this is what this gentleman the Mi nister referred to -and I'm just forgetting his name -from that American Institute on Energy, and was particularly drawing our attention to.

But we have no idea that the next generaton of refrigerators, stoves, any of our electrical appliances could be using one tenth of the energy they're using today; but we're making decisions, we're putting into place massive structures on the premise that those things will not happen. Mr. Chairman, what happens if 12 years after that contract the Americans say, fine, thank you, it's been good having your power for 12 years. Now we don't need it any more. We have no guarantees that they won't do that. But I'll tell you one thing, we're going to be around here to pay the bill.

We'll be around here to pay the bills and we'll be paying them for a long, long time -and our children will be paying them. I just think the Min ister's in a bit of a qu andr y here. On the one hand, he is understandably proud of some of the success of his energy savi ngs programs and I'm prepared to acknowledge they're good programs. I've seen some of th em work. Some of the com muniti es in my constituency have applied to the very programs that are being listed in this

section of the Minister's Estimates and we are using relatively small amounts of money in this area. We are talking in the $1 million, $2 million. What would happen if we priorized some of these programs and brought about those kind of 20 percent, 25 percent and 30 percent savings right across Manitoba with respect to Manitoba Hydro use and what then happens to your project load growth as to when, domestically, we would need another multi billion dollar structure? And then indeed we are paying, we are building these dams for two reasons, Mr. Chairman.

One to furbish up the political image of the New Democratic Part y, this government and more importantly, principally for the use of export sales to our friends the Americans. On that basis, this whole question of hydro development that this government has embarked on is highly questionable. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask the Minister, he keeps on fudging that answer. I still believe that he can 2536

Thursd ay, 31 July , 1986 give me a correct 19 86 answer for what today's integrated systems rate is in Manitoba Hydro and , if I'm wrong, just correct me. Is it 3.1 cents per ki lowatt, 3.2, 2.9? I believe it's 3.1. My colleague, the Member for Morris, told me that's what it was. I believe everything the Mem ber for Morris tells me. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you. MR. H. ENNS: I am told and I heard this, my colleague, the Member for Pembina heard this. In fact, he was in the audience when a former Mini ster of the Crown, Mr.

Andy Anstett indicated not once, but on two occasions, that the per kilowatt cost of energy that the NSP sale was yielding was in the neighbourhood of 5 cents per kilowatt. I'm trying to put it in 19 86 terms, not answers or something like that, just in today's terms, so we can argue apples and apples, not apples and oranges. 1y understanding from the documentation that I've seen with respect to Limestone, is that Limestone power costs 7 cents per kilowatt hour. If the Mini ster wants to talk about 2 cents worth or 5 cents in 19 94, I'm talking 19 86.

Give me a com parative list of figures of the kind I'm quoting and, unless he's prepared to do that, I will continue to use those figures because I will not be shown to have been wrong. HON. V. SCHROEDER: it's obvious the member wasn't listening when I made my opening remarks and I dealt at length with energy. I'm going to go over that again, because I said that the main thrust of our activities in the energy area is to improve Manitoba's energy security through a balanced approach which encourages more efficient energy use and, at the same time, develops our indigenous energy resources.

He certainly did listen to some of it because he was referring to the numbers. Energy consumption here is approxima tely 44 percent petroleum products, 33 percent natural gas and 23 percent electricity, which means that more than one-half of our current energy needs are im ported. In the case of petroleum, the province produces 30 percent of that required, while it imports 100 percent of its natural gas requir ements and hydro-electricity is the only energy form in which Manitoba is self sufficient, producing enough to meet domestic needs and to export large amounts to neighbouring provinces and states.

The department 's efforts and support of attracting energy intensive industry and expanding the export sales of electricity are provided by way of an analytical assistance to the Manitoba Energy Author ity. The activities of the MEA have been, as I say, discussed in the context of a balanced approach to energy development and use. The department is continuing its conservation efforts through a variety of programs. I want to repeat, it is continuing its conservation efforts through a variety of programs.

And I've said, since then, and I'm told by staff that we are leading the way in Canada in terms of energy conservation. If the member has something to refute that, stand up and do so, but we have provinces like Alberta and Ontario coming to us and asking us how to run programs that we have initiated here. We are seen as leaders in that field. Energy saved through more efficient use means impr oved security, savings for Manitobans and employment generated by conservation measures.

Then I went through a num ber of the programs which the member is aware of -and I won't bore him with that -so there's no question that we sup port energy conservation. What the member is saying with respect to our Limestone project, part of it makes some sense. He says if you can sell something without having to add to an investment, then you're better off than if you have to add to the investment in order to make the sale. That is exactly what we're attempting to do with our energy conservation program.

If we can delay the building of the next set of dams as a result of energy conservation, we will save money; we will make a larger profit from this sale. For some reason, the Member for Morris always looks puzzled when we talk about that, although he doesn't look puzzled at all when the Member for Lakeside basically says the same thing. lt could be, but the member suggested that we were building a hydro-electric dam for the purpose of export. Of course he knows that's not correct. He knows that in two years we would have had to build Limestone with or without the sale.

Tha t's based on mo re conservative energy consumption forecasts than are the case today. Our load growth is increasing more rapidly than those forecasts were based on, and it may well be that it was in fact only a one-year saving when we look back on it. We are not building that dam for export; we are building it two years ahead of time because we have pre-sold firm power for a 12 -year period of a dam that is going to last at least 70 years; we have sold five twelfths of the power for a 12-year period, that's what we've done.

At the end of that 12 years quite frankly we may well require all of that power, and we may not want to renew an agreement with this par tic ular customer. They have, by going into this agreement put them selves into a position where they don't have to build another coal-fired plant. But they will have to make their decision in terms of their next plant obviously well before this contract is over. The member makes the suggestion that we're going to lose money on this sale. He and the Tories in Manitoba are the only people in the world practically, who can come up with that kind of an argument.

Even the energy conservationist whom they were quoting was not suggesting on television, or on radio, or on anywhere else, that that NSP sale contract wouldn't be profitable. In fact, he felt that it would be. He was suggesting that we should be careful about future contracts and of course we will be careful about future contracts. We were careful about that one and we will be careful about any contract.

I repeat, the only objective body which has reviewed the numbers with respect to the NSP sale has agreed with our numbers, has said, and the Member for Lakeside, the Tories were at the hearings, they were putting their case after they heard from them. They must have said the same thing there, well, we're going to lose money on every kilowatt hour. We're going to lose money on it, after they heard all of the arguments of the Tories, and they heard all of the arguments of the NDP and Manitoba Hydro. What side did they come down on? 2537

Thursday , 31 Ju ly, 1986 A MEMBER: The angels. HON. V. SCHROEDER: That's right, the angels, they came down on our side. They said you're absolutely right. There will be a profit in 19 84 dollars of $385 million from this sale if you advance Limestone by two years. There will be a profit of $365 million if you only advance it by one year. On the basis of that after you had put your best efforts into it, we put our best efforts into it, an independent body appointed by a Federal Conservative Government said that we were right.

We had a decision to take at that time, a decision on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba. There were only two things we could do. We could proceed or stop. If we stopped, we had in our face a document that said that we were going to lose the taxpayers of Manitoba $385 million in profits. We would still have to build Limestone in two years. The only difference would be that at the end of building Limestone we would then be in a position where we might only need a couple of hundr ed megawatts of the power; the other 1, 000 megawatts for the first few years we would have to sell on an intermittent bas

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-58b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 58b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9fe143bd4f552a8a28059c8e24d1703914764069

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