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

35-5-32b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Sessi on • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Publish•d uiUkr lh• tllllhorlty of Tlu Ho110urabl• D•ttls C. Roean SJHabr Vol. XLm No. 328 • 8 p.m., Tuesday, May 24,1.994 JSSN OS42-S492

NAME ASHI'ON, Steve BARRE'IT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERllLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOBR, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER. Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENN S, Hany, Hon. ERNST, Tun, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon.

FRIESEN, Iean MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constltueacles and PoUtical AlftUation CONS'ITIUENCY Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.Rose Seine River Roblin-Rossell Selkirk Concordia Arthur- Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley GAUDRY, Neil Gll.LESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis St. Boniface Minnedosa Ctescentwood Gimli HEL WBR, Edward R. IDCKES, George KOWALSKI. Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA Tin.. IN, Oscar LAURENDBAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Iim MANNES S, Clayton, Hon.

MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCORMICK, Nonna MceltAJB, Iames, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. P ALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, Iohn PRAZNIK, Dam:n, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad SCHELL ENBERG, Harry STEP ANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon . WOWCHUK, Rosano Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St.

Johns Elmwood Morris Bllii'OW s Sturgeon Creek Osborne Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonn et Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Rossmere Kirkfield Parle Fl.in Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry Swan River PARTY. NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal Liberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Liberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

2160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 24, 1994 1be Bouse met at 8 p.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (continued) COMMI1TEE OF SU PPLY (Concurrent Sectio ns) ED UCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening. W'ill the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Trainin g. When the committee last sat, it bad been consideri ng item 4.(b)(1)(

a) on page 42. Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwo od): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we recessed at five o'cl ock, I was asking questions about the GWE, and I was wondering if, including the program that the Assini boine Community College is assisting GWE in, could the minister give us, including that amount, the total amount of dollars through incentives or grants for that particular company? Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): From memory, I canno t. I am not the lead minister, obviously in that file, so I cann ot. I can pr obably addre ss Workforce 2000, but I cannot talk with any degree of certainty with respect to the total level of support to GWE. •

(2005) Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition Bouse Leader): Just on a point of order, not to interrupt the questioning, but I would suggest that this line item should be pass ed. The question is really relating to the operating natur e of Workforce 2000. It pr obably would be more app ropriate under Other Expendi tures, some of the other line items rather than strictly staff. So, just as a point of order, it may be a way of dealing with it Once again, not to interfere with the questions . Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order, but I would advise the committee that we have been dealing with (

a) and (

b) basic ally, Other Expenditures at different points . So the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) bas not bad an opportunity yet to ask on either line. ••• Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairper son, in the Workforce 2000 program-and I know that our Leader bad sent a letter to the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) asking for some details on World'orce 2000 of which, I think , most of the information was provided to us in regard to that-the indust ry-wide partnershi ps, the 26 individ uals, does the minister have information on the nature of those partnerships? Mr.

Manness: Yes, I read those into the record, I thought; but, if not, we will und ertake to provide that information. I am sure it is part of the record, but the breakout, the 26 or 27 agreements break into the fol lowing sectors, and I repe at this: ba sically, nine sectors, and they are manufacturing-goods produ cing; construction; agriculture-related; transportation communica tions; business community services; financial insurance; realty; whole sale-retail, primary and other; bus inesses relocating-expanding to Manitoba. Within those general breakouts or sectors in 1994-95, I will talk about the 26.

Ten are expected to be in the manufacturing-goods producing; one in cons truction; six in agricultural -related; three in transportation communications; six in business community services. At this point, we do not see any candidates in the last four areas. Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with the 26 that the minister bas indicated in the breakdown in

2161 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 the various categorie s, can the minister tell us: Is there any particular prioritization that is done in terms of deciding with whom in industry these partnerships should be formed? Is it based on industries that actually come forward to the government, or is there a particular prioritization that the department is using for 1994-957 Mr.

Manness: 1bere are basically two criteria at work: the first priority would be directed towards those sectors that align themselves very closely with the strategic areas as laid out in the framework for economic growth; secondly, manufacturing, our prim ary indust ry where obviously there is a tremendous contribution in wealth generation for the province. Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under this program, Workforce 2000, does the department advertise to various industries, and does it indicate to them, this is what the criteria are?

Does it assist the industries so that when businesses are applying for incentives through Workforce 2000 they might have an idea if they are going to be successful or not? Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, like all government program s, there are brochures available which lay out the criteria. In this case, I gu ess we do not do broad advertising as such, as I have indicated to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), and yet we expect others to help carry the messa ge .

Those others include indu stry associations, chambers of commerce, the CMA, Ca nadian Manuf acturers ' Association, and, because many of these sector agreements are in partnership with the federal government, Human Resources Development. We expect them, of course , in their contacts to also provide some information to the people who appr oach them . So we honestly believe at this point that there are very few businesses and/or sectors that are not fully aware of Workforce 2000. •

(2010) Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister mentioned this afternoon that his department or be as minister does not direct the Provincial Auditor in terms of audits; however, there are re gular auditing functions that go on within various depart ments. There used to be an audit group attached to each department. I do not know if Education and Training bad one, and now they have centralized the audit function. Certainly there are regular reviews that do go on. Can the minister tell us, bas Workforce 2000 as a program bad any internal auditing done in the last couple of years? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, internal review at this time is doing an internal review as to process and administra tive proce sses that are in place . 'The only area of specialized audit that was done, and I cannot say very much about this, was done in accordance with an

article that was written maybe a month ago, that did come to light basically a month ago. So that is the auditing that is taking place or bas taken place to this point in time. Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, can the minister elaborate on, when be talks about special processes, what be is referring to? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are trying, again, to ma ke our administrative procedures fit into the overall program. I mean, we are reviewing criteria We are also trying to look at the scree ning p rocess on entry.

We are also trying to make sure the evaluation procedures that we have in place, although they, by definition, cann ot be exhaustive-again, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and I engaged in a long deba te on that. We just have no opportunity really to go through all of the files, and yet we want to do a survey and put surveys into place to make sure that we are eva luating in a scientific fashion the program. These are the processes to which I refer. Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us bow his department defmes a small and medium firm versus a large finn 1 Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, it basically is a rough estimate in association with the payroll tax cutoff. Right now we have no payroll taxes paid below $750,000 payr oll, and we sense that that must be appr oximate, de pending on what divisor you use, 135 employ ees . •

(2015) Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the program administration, the changes to the Workforce 2000, the two SYs' reduction, can the minist er

Ma y24 , 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2162 explain what happened in that reorganization and why? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Olaiipe rson, we did a combination of Youth Programs and Workforce 2000, and we had a situation where a manager was reporting to a direc tor. We sensed there was overlap and duplication, and in our attempt to streamline and in our attempt to reduce hierarchy of positions, we sensed that we could save a position. Secondly, a data entry clerlc, that position was one that we sensed that we could red uce. Ms.

Gray: What was the classification of that particular position, and how many other positions were in the same classifi cation within the Workforce 2000, if any? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperso n, I am led to believe the classifi cation was a program director and there were no other positions of that nature within this branch. Ms. Gray: Has that position or that person as wen as the data entry cle dt-have those two individuals found other employment within the a vii Service? Mr.

Manness: The first position, the manager position , the individual has found a position in Industry, Trade and Tourism as a consultant within that deparunent. 1be other position was vacant at the time. Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in this particular section, the Workforce 2000, with the one manager and about 18 SY s in Professional/Techn ical, are there any outstanding grievances in regard to staff in this section? Mr.

Manness: I can say there are a number of outsta nding grievances within the whole deparunent, but I think protocol would dictate that I do not comment upon them because that would certainly be highly improper. Ms. Gray: I wanted to know basically if there were outstanding grievances. I was not about to get into details on what they were. I just want to know the number of outstanding grievances and what the relationship was of those grievances in relation to other parts of the department, and so I had no intention of getting into individual grievances with the minister. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? 1be item is acc ordingly passe d. Item 4.(h)(l)(

b) Other Expenditures $4,040,900. •

(2020) Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask the minister about some double entry on some of these grants, and I notice that, if I compare '93-94 list of the individual grants to the payroll tax deduction grants, there are several names which crop up on both lists: Inventro nics, McMunn and Yates, Mediacom , Regal Furniture and Beddi ng, Faroex, Russelsteel, and I think one or two others . What distinction does the minister make in his mind when be is recommending these grants? Why are some people applying under both?

Are they not receiving enough money under their payroll tax deduction fund? Mr. Mannes s: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, the member is correct. The general rule is that the maximum per employer under Workforce 2000 under all its programs is $10 ,000, and in some cases the payroll offset does not add to that, or come to that total. Consequently, the employer makes application under one of the other two programs. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, does the minister have an estimate of bow many companies have done that in the history of the program? Mr. Manness: No, I would not estimate, but we can provide that. Ms.

Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, wen, the minister has the numbers. He could provide it. Will he provide it? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I said I would. I said we could provide that. Ms. Friesen: You said you could not. Mr. Manness: No, I said we could provide that, but I cannot do it now until we do the count, but we could provide that, yes. Ms. Friesen : Mr. Deputy Chair, would the minister just clarify and tell me whether he is going to provide it or not? Will he provide it?

2163 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 Mr. MlliUleSS: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not much trust left at this table. I am shocked. I am reall y, really disappo inted. I did not know that this professional relationship between myself and the member for Wolseley had deteriorated to a point where there is absolutely no trust When I said we could provide it, my intetpretation was that we would provide that Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am glad to hear that So the minister will provide that. Can the minister tell us at this sitting how many companies have done that in this past year? Mr.

Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cann ot, and when I do give the result, it will be for the past year, because I cannot speculate as to how many it might be in the present year until the present year is over, and that will not be until April '95. Ms. Friesen: My earlier question was directed to the minister over the history of this program. Will he provide that infonnation for all the years of this program? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, we are back into history again. 1be member is asking me to drag up years of history. This is not the place to do that. Ms.

Friesen: No, I am just clarifying what it is the minister has undertaken to provide, and it is my understanding that the minister will provide a list of companies that have en joyed the benefit of both the payroll tax deduction and an individual grant. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, I am beginning to fe el like I am on the witness stand here and that the member is thinking I am playing loose with words. As I have said before, we will provide this infonnation and we will do it. We will go back into the past year, the last year for which we have records , that being '93-94. Ms.

Friesen: Is the minister indicating he has no records in the two years before '93-947 Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, I think we have given all that infonnation to the member. She can do her own counts to see how many of the companies are coming under two of the programs. We have given her all the raw infonnation. What more does she want? She can do her own count for the years prior to that. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Chaitperson, there have been instances in the past when the inf onnation the minister has provided to me has been in correct: the companies, for example , which no longer exist; indications where the minister has said later that training did not occur, and that abuses have occurred. So I wanted to be quite sure that the inf onnation I got was correct, that the minister agreed with it, and that it was in fa ct the right infonn ation. So that is all I am asking. Over the last three years, how many people have en joyed the benefit of both types of grants?

I know that the minister has the infonn ation, and I am asking him to provide it. •

(2025) Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, because I do not want to cause problems, I am not going to raise a point of privilege and indicate that the member is imputing motives . She is indicating by inf erence, she is saying that I am leaving infonnation on the table, as I had walked over to the NDP caucus room, that was not in keeping with the actual fact. 1be infonnation that the member has been given to her is exactly the infonnation that we have available to us. So, for sure, I have no alternative but to again ask the member to do her own counting to see what finns are on both lists.

She can do that just as well as I can. For '93-94, we do not have the infonnation collated at this time, but when we do, we will share it with the member. Ms. Friesen: Obviously, Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, what I am trying to do is to be quite specific about the minister 's apparent generosi ty, and

whereas his claims are for an open, accountable system , there are severe limits upon that. A minister who will one minute propose that he will in fa ct provide inf onnation over three years, in the next sentence then says, no, it is only going to be in one year, and then only when be has it collated. At other times, he has provided us inf onnation that has not been correct. Now I am sure it was the best infonn ation he had at the time, but then he turns around and then criticizes others in Question Period for not

Ma y24 , 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 64 putting on the record correct information which is exactly the infonnation he bad given us two days earlier. So I am not impugning motives in any way. I am simply indicating the kind of experience which we bave bad with this program and my desire to bave exactly the same inform ation as the minister bas-public inf ormation, publicly arrived at, publicly paid for and publicly acco untable. So I do not think the minister bas to really be too upset about professi onal relationships here.

This is really just an attempt to as certain the sa me inf onnation as the minister. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know why the member plays revisionist history one minute after she bas made the first statement. She never did ask for three years of data, and if she did, I never consented to providing three years of data. I never conse nted to providing three years of data, at no time with respect to the overlap and whether or not two firms or firms were eligible under two of the programs to take their employer value up to the maximum.

So, if the member is going to correct me with respect to specific commentary and cballenge me as to the accma cy of my statements, I am afraid I bave to do the same thing with respect to her. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will certainly bave to check the record. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to make a motion. I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plobman), that

WHEREAS the minister bas not provided adequate public inf onnation on the curriculum, eff ectiveness and educational outcomes of the many training grants and millions of dollars spent in the Worldorce 2000 program; THEREFORE BE IT RES OLVED THAT 16.4(bX1X

b) Other Expenditures be omitted. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am just going to take it under advisement, and we will carry on in a few minutes. Motion presented. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The motion is in order, and it is debatable . Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Cbaiipe rson, I must tell you, I am very disappo inte d-not surprised, but very disappo inted-that the member would see fit to bring forward this motion. The memb er throughout the review of Worldorce 2000 bas gone on and on again and said -the last time being about four o'clock this afte moon- Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I want to repeat for the fourth time, I am not against workplace-based training. Wbat the member did not say was that she is totally against Worldorce 2000. She bas been. It bas been the thrust of her questioning in the House now for the basic of two months. Wbat we bave , Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, is the protectionist, small "c" co nservative approach from members opposite, of co urse, who do not want to see changed the whole training regime in this province. They want to see it maintained within the institutions as we know it-universi ties, community co lleges-and no changes . •

(2030) Now, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, memb ers opposite were totally against gove mance when we brought it into the college system when my colleague the member for Roblin-Rossell (Mr. Dedcacb) was the Minister of Education. Members opposite, of course, did not want to see the changes that were encomp assed within that change. Once and for all, the bureaucracy that bad encumbered community colleges, particularly in some respects the department, was finally taken away, and colleges now could react to the marketplace.

They could listen quickly and make changes with resp ect to the requirements of the empl oyers , pe ople who create, in co mbination with emplo yees, the wealth of our province . So the NDP were opp osed to that, because I can remember sitting in this very commi ttee room when Bill 70 came in and Bill 22 came in and, indeed, all of the questions surrounding that public poli cy, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, that the members were at that time, when they were giving some input with respect to that bill, always talked about bow it was we were providing greater governance to the community colleges .

2165 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 Mr. Deputy Cbailperson, that is in keep ing with their reaction to some of the recommendations that came forward in the Skills Training Advisory Committee report. Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, the STAC committee bad canvassed all of our empl oyers, had asked for input from the community at large , had asked for input from the education community , bad tried to find a method of bringing into the modem age training within our workplace. So what did this government do? Well, it could have listened to the NDP.

It could have maintained the level of funding , and, theref ore, maintaining the same courses that bad been in place within the comm unity college for basically 25 years. It could have followed the app roach of, through Tre asury Board review, reducing a course here or there every year, and then trying to build in a new one; or it could have come into the modem age and recognized that the aerospace industry, recognized that the health products care industry , recognized the telecommunications industry- An Honourable Member: And the chicken industry. Mr. Manness: The member says, the chicken industry.

Well, the member bas got a fixation with chickens, Mr. Deputy Cbailperson. I do not why the member for Wolseley is so against chick ens. Now I know the NDP. They hate rural Manitob a, and they hate the farm , but I did not realize they hated chickens, so I know there is a resentment towards anything that- Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin) : You do not know that Mr. Manness: We ll, Mr. Deputy Cbailperson, we just had one of the better contributions from the member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plobman) of this whole debate , but the reality is the NDP bas been totally opposed to a change in training re gime in this province, so what we have here is obviously a clash of philosophy. The members opposite, of course, want to maintain the status quo.

They want to see, first of all-and I sense, of course , it is to their political agenda, that every time when we ask them where we can find millions of dollars to help them with their spend-more slogans, which, of course, occur daily in the Legislature, they can always point to Workforce 2000 as some programming that possibly the resources supporting should be directed elsewhere . I wish at times, though, the members would realize whom they are attacking. I can remember just a month ago when the member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) on public radio attacked one of the staunch corporate citizens of our community- An Honourable Member: Which one? An Honourable Member: Accused him of being a Libe ral-or a Conservative . Mr. Manness: No, Birchwood motors. He went after the Chipman fam ily, Mr. Deputy Cbaiipe rson; be called them a bunch of Tory backs in essence and offended them greatly. Then you realize what is at work here.

What you realize is that this is now taking on overtures of becoming a class warfare issue, because, of course , the members want to be able to talk about, they want to be able to relate this to the corporate welfare bum themes-the last time that they were anywhere in double digits in the polls in the country. So the members opposite are desperately trying to make an issue around Workforce 2000. What does Workforce 2000 try to do? It bas tried to take the focus away from those who are the professional educators , those who think they know everything about the economy, those that think they know the world, Mr.

Deputy Cbailperson, and say what courses are important and what prioritie s. They have shifted that focus of training to the employer, because the employer in large measure was turning away from the fo rmal institutions within our community, saying they really were of little relevance to the modern, day-to-day decisions that had to be made. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson , a government ca rne along, after having ca nv assed the wealth-produ cing sector, saying, what is it that we should do to bring training into the modem age, to cause an aware ness of bow important training should be?

What is it that the government can do?

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 66 Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in loud chorus, the members of the community said this: Focus the training on the employer. Let the employer decide in con junction with the senior management, in conjunction with the supervisors, in conjunction with the employees as to what basic skills are missing, No. 1; what are as of management capability are missing; and, thirdly, what areas of comm unication sld1ls and other sld1ls are missing. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the community also said, do not drive us into the fo rmal insti tutions for this type of training.

Let it happen at the workplace. Let it happen without an incredible bureaucratic association. So this is what we endeavour to do, so we took, some would say, a small er amount of money, $4 mill ion to $5 million depending on what fiscal year we were in, and we directed it to the workplace. I know the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) fe lt off ended. She sensed that her insti tution and, indeed, the fo rmal post-se condary institutions were under attack. that somehow they might be suffering long term over this. An Ho no urable Member: I just want accountability. Mr. Manness: The member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway ) wan ts accountabi lity. The members opposite by virtue of their questions made public, the Provincial Auditor looked into this program, and what did the Provincial Auditor say? I quote, Mr. Deputy CbaiJ:person: In 1993-94 the Workforce 2000 program was cited by the Provincial Auditor as a positive initiative of government, and I underline positive initiative. Positive initiative . It did not say negative initiative .

But the Auditor went on to say, concluded: "The program objectives are: clearly defined "-! have never seen that stated bef ore in a Provincial Auditor's report on any area of programming -"and consistent with the mandate; linked to key result areas; and reflected in the plans and organizational structure. " Listen, and I repe at, "li nked to key result areas," meaning evaluated. Evaluations-meaning the evaluations. These are the Provincial Auditor's words , not mine: "Linked to key result areas; and reftect ed in the plans and organizational structure. " So, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, what the Provincial Auditor said is that, as regards the program as conceived, as the plans and organizational structure put into place in support of the program, the linkages were there. Furthermore, and I quote : "The training activiti es are app ropriately org anized .... "Wel l, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, who is doing the training activities? Well, the Train the Trainers-the people that are hired to be the consult ants. ''The training activi ties are appropriately organized and controlled, .... "We ll, whose responsibility is to control that process?

Well, obviously , it is the department 's. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to go on then, the Provincial Auditor says: "Perform ance criteria are in place .... "The member bas been hounding us and dogging me day after day on accountability. What does this mean when the Provincial Auditor says that performance criteria are in place? Does that mean the evaluation process, the standards fo r measurement is against that process , the bencbmuks, that some evaluations are-that the evaluation processes are in place? To me, that means exactly that; "pe rformance criteria are in place to monitor achievement of results, .... " Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, what the Auditor is saying is that the evaluation process is in place. Furthermore, management decisions are timely and relevant 1be 12 rules of eff ective attributes of effectiveness accounting, the Provincial Auditor, from my memory, bas said already this program bas hit on half of them, on half of them . There is not a program in government that does that well. Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, again, I quote: "Perf ormance crite ria are in place to monitor achievement results, ....

"Management decisions are timely and re levant, and, furthermore , the program provides accountability reporting on financial activities, which means that you do not get your money if you are an employer unless you have spent it in a man ner in keeping with the commitment you made with respect to training. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member now wants us to do a better job of riding herd on 2,800

2167 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 files. As a matter of fact, she wanted me to drag the SO filing cabinets we have-she wanted me to bring them here tonight; she wanted to have them here tonight so that I could talk about every one of those 2,800 files. •

(2040) Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, what nonsense, what abject tomf oolery. The member is being mischievous. I gave the member more credit. I thought she was seriously interested. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, ple ase. Hansard is having a little bit of trouble picldog up the minister, so could I ask the honourable members to keep it down just a little bit? Mr. Manness : I am very disappointed in the member for Wol seley (Ms. Friesen).

I thought that this was an exercise of sincerity on her part; I thought it was an exercise of trying to find out all the iof onnation that we could impart with respect to Wolkforce 2000. I realize now, by virtue of this motion, that the member is just trying to make a political issue out of Workforce 2000. It is obviously going to be a major plank of the NDP election thrust, and they are going to, obviously, totally ignore what the Provincial Auditor said. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I have also indicated because the member -1 am growing a little bit sensitive to this charge of no accountability associated with this program . I said in coming to office that I had concerns about some of the criteria around Wodcforce 2000. I have also laid those concerns on the record. I have said what areas have concerned me. Now the member says, which companies are you going after? I have shared them.

For the record I will state again: The greater concerns that I have are related to those industries that are purely within the service sector, and which may not be contributing any greater to the provincial economy as a result of the training than they might have before that. Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, I have also said, because the service sector is so wide in its description and its definition, there are significant portions that righ tfully should be included. There are some others that we should look at in a second look. My department has been doing that over the course of the last several months.

A year from now, when we review the list, when we share the list, which we will do again because we are an open and accountable government, just as I did for the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) when I sent the list for '93-94 up to a point in time-1 believe it was February or early March that was the cutoff date because I know that the member wanted to have this infonnation before coming into the House. I sensed that it was the proper and responsible way to be open and accountab le. We will do that again. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, there is no doubt in my mind there will be some businesses that have been on the list for the last two years and will not be there in terms of '94-95 final results, and that is because we will have changed some of the criteria. I recognize, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I say to the member for Wolsele y, I still take sincerity out of some of her statement I am trying to reflect some of the good parts of her commentary into decisions around criteria. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to move on with respect to evaluation.

An evaluation that was done internally of the Workforce 2000 program was completed in late '93 and the key findings included, and, again, I indicate this, and this has been shared with the Provincial Auditor -well, we will share it with the Provincial Auditor if we have not [inte ljection] This is open. When the Provincial Auditor comes and asks for evaluations, they are shared For the record, they were shared with the Provincial Auditor because I mandated that be done on coming into office. Now, what they really said.

Key fi ndings included that 85 percent of businesses surveyed in October '93 stated that training increased their productivity. [inter jection] The survey was scientifically conducted. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 71 percent of businesses increased their competitiven ess, and 64 percent of businesses increased their profitability. [inte ljection ] By the tone of the remarks from the members opposite, they seem to be referring that all business people are croo ks, and anything for a dollar, they

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2168 will do anything for a dollar. To them, I say, shame. [interjection] I sense that the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) believes that everybody that is in business is basically a used-car salesman. That is the picture; he tries to paint everybody with the same wide brush. Other results, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on: 78 percent of the companies surveyed indicated that their company 's investment and training would have been less without the participation of Workforce 2000. An Honourable Member: Of course. Mr. Manness : Well, the member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plobman) says, of course. By that, he means, na turally, they are receiving govermnent money. So he thinks , even though they have bad to put in many cases two dollars, three dollars for the one they got from the govemment. •

(2050) Of course, Mr. Deputy Chailperson, I found out one thing about socialists. Socialists will take money, but only if they do not have to put up a dollar. That is one thing about a socialist. Socialists will only take it if they put up nothing. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 97 percent of employers stated- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please . We are getting a little carried away again. Do you want to get it out of your system now? The honourable minister to contin ue. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, it also fo und, and I am talking about the evaluation, that the program 's approach to restructuring Human Resources committees was endorsed by industry and sec toral clients-to structuring Human Resources commi ttee s. You know where the thrust is towuds Human Resources commit tees. An Honourable Member: Where? Mr. Manness: It is directed tow ards quality control, Total Quality Management. Today , if one wants to believe anything they read, and if anyone wants to believe that to be part of the globalized world today, you have to put fo rward a quality product and service. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, that starts right on the worltplace floor. It starts right within the office. It penneates every dimension of the wolkplace, and yet the members opposite say, no, we want this training to be within the institution. If it is a six-month or eigh t-month course, so be it, because what we want for sure is we want jobs for those instructors, those instructors that belong to the MGEU. That is what we want. I know where the NDP is comi ng from.

There are achievements in '93-94 that should be again noted for the record, 992 contracts with small- and medium-sized businesses providing ttaining to 3,021 employ ees. Members opp osite do not even know bow many businesses there are in Manitoba. The members opposite have no clue beca use, of cour se, they have no re gar d whatsoever for the total number of businesses. They just assume-you see , the diff erence between the NDP and the Conservativ es, they assume that business will be there to create wealth . That is their basic assumption. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, 992 contracts with small- and medium-sized businesses. I go on to point out 27 sectoral activities initiated, providing ttaining to 2,563 em ployees; 14 courses developed and delivered through province -wide special courses. The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) bas really grilled me on these special-courses component attended by a minimum of 44 businesses and a minimum of 243 employ ees. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the members of the NDP party are totally against wolkpl ace- An Honourable Member: The Liberals are not against this . Mr.

Manness: Well, I am not sure about the Liberals, but, of course, the Liberals, as they have said many times, like to ride that fe nce in the middle and have it both ways . So, Mr. Deputy Chairper son, no doubt the me mber for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) will want to put the Liberal position on the record. Mr. Deputy Chair pers on, 267 companies submitted training plan applications, representing approximately $8,760,000 in wolkplace training to 31, 792 empl oyees. That is the pent-up demand for wolkplace training.

2169 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 Mr. Deputy Cbabperson, one can read all of the comm entary by the Economic Council of Canada in the past, and the C.D. Howe Institute , and everybody will tell you that within Canada there is a void with respect to training culture in our private sector. The member opposite says, it is true. Do you know what the NDP did, what their solution to it was? You tax the devil, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, by way of payroll tax out of the company; you take that money and you put it over in the imtitution and then you force the companies to buy places in the institution.

Whether or not they bad the right mix of jobs , whether or not it was marlc et-related, whether or not it was in kee ping with the demands of the workplace or not, it did not matte r. What mattered was you bad to have that staff there, who were part of the MGEU; you bad to have them employed. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was the modus operandi of the NDP. So I say to the members opposite, Mr. Deputy Cbaiipe rson, that we can see what the ess ence is of this motion. The members opposite really could care less about the training aspect of it.

Really what their big issue here is to force training back to the model which worked well 2S years ago, but which bas been reluctant until we gave it gove rnance, been reluctant to change in a fashion that was necessary. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I suppose I should leave my commentary there, other than to say that the government remains very supportive of this program. Yes, there bas to be some fine tuning.

We will do that fine tuning, and a year from now, I know the members of the NDP party will app laud, will absolutely applaud Workforce 2000, having taken into account some of the changes that we are contemplating. Ms. Gray: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, it is very intere sting sitting here in the committee listening to the fo rmal debate that is going on that will be on the record and the inform al debate that is going on, and I sometimes think that the real people out there in the world, whether those individu als are small or medium employers or whether they are indiv iduals who are looking for retrai ning , re ally want to ensure that government does provide leadership and that government is there to initiate and assist businesses where possible and to create jobs .

I am not sure most of them would appreciate a lot of the particularly informal comments that have gone around this table tonight. When we think about the real people out there, I think it is very important that we keep that in mind . The motion by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Frie sen) indicates that the minister has not provided adequate public information on a number of areas, and she cites curriculum eff ectiveness and educational outcomes.

List ening to the debate that went on this afternoon, and I understand that there was much more debate on Workforce 2000 in the days preceding, it is clear that the minister to date and to this point bas not either been able to provide that inf ormation or bas not been willing to provide that information, but up to this point, we still do not have that in regard to what some of the educa tional outcomes are in regard to those training grants. I think it is important to note-and the Minister of Education (Mr. Manne ss) made ref erence to this, and I think the MLA for Wolseley (Ms.

Friesen) agree s-that there is a void in training, and that there is a void out there with sma ll businesses and industry in terms of providing retraining opportunities for their employe es. I know the one example I can think of is a computer program in Dauphin, Manitoba. Being fam iliar with some of the retraining that went on and the Workforce 2000 input, I think fo r that particular business and those employees it was important. Now the question that remains, and when one looks at this motion, is the number of dollars that is spent in Workforce 2000: Are we getting value for our money?

That is what we do not seem to have a clear answer on. The minister has certainly indicated that the Auditor is going to be looking at this program. We need to look at more of it. I do not think it necessarily makes sense to throw the baby out with the bath water. If a program is not working, if we are not getting good value for our dollar, then we should make changes or we should be willing to scrap programs.

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2170 Governments in the past have been slow to do that, regudless of political stripe, but I think we need to look at that in the future. I would have preferred in the RESOLVED part of this motion to hear that in fact we would have a def enal of this

section till the end of the Education Estimates when we have given the minister an opportunity to provide some of the information and some of the evaluation. [inteljection] •

(2100) The member for Wolseley (Ms . Friesen) indicates the minister has no intention of providing anything . That may well be true . Certainly, when we wrote a letter to the minister in regard to Workfo n:e 2000, it was very clear that some of the information was fo rthcoming from the minister, but the rest of the inform ation was not I certainly support the

WHEREAS of the motion, that we have not seen this inf ounation. I do not want to see the program elimin ated until we have an opportunity to evaluate . Now, unfortunately, the way these motions read, in order for a motion to be in order, one has to be very clear on the resolved part of the motion. I look fo rwanl to the other members speaking to this, but I have to support the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) on this particular motion because we have not seen the information yet.

I would hope that the Minister of Education would have been able to provide this inf ormation and would still come forward to provide this informati on. [inteljection] What inf ormation? The minister says, what information? Well, I have to disagree with the minister, because even in the two and a half hours this afternoon when there were questions being asked on educational outcomes and curri culum on a number of various grants and program s, that information was not fo rthcoming . We have not seen that inf ormation. The minister indicates that there is not a curriculum.

Well, then that is a grave shortcoming of this particular progr am, if we do not have inform ation, if the staff of the departments are not aware of the particular programs that we are giving money to. It is very easy to write a course outline and talk about problem solving, human relations, communications and decision making. Those are all buzzwords. Those are all basically principles of any kind of course mate rial that one hears. It is very easy to write that kind of a course outline.

I would hope that the department would want inf ormation, and very specific information on actually what is being taught on that. I know those ques tions were asked this after noon. We have not seen educa tional outcomes ; we have not seen any written material about the effe ctiveness of some of these programs . The minister has indicated the Auditor is going to be looking at this program , but we have not actually seen that from the minister. So I think it is very reasonable that we have asked for that information, and, again, I still hope that the minister is able to provide that type of inf ormation.

I would think it is incumbent upon him as Minister of Education to want to have that inf ormation so he knows how to proceed with the Workfo n:e 2000 program . Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my comments will be relatively brief. In fa ct, I am almost tempted, as I understand the Liberal position, to quit while I am ahead, but I am not sure yet, and we will see. I hope the Liberals will support this. It is not a matter of delay. If there is any doubt in anybody 's mind , there are times in this Legislature we have to make choice s, we have to make decisions.

We moved this motion because we feel given what is happening in this Education budget that it is not acceptable for the government to have a program; in this case, we are dealing with $4 million. I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is here, and I am sure that in his heart of hearts he is looking too for ways of ensuring efficiency of government services, but we have cuts to public schools, we have cuts to universitie s, we have cuts which we debated of 20 percent to ACCESS funding. What we have said, and we cannot reallocate the money , but our position is that this program is

2171 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 seriously flawed. We would like to see this money taken out and the kind of money that is budgeted here, $4 mill ion, be put toward some of the other items that we have raised in this Legislature. That is our concern. Let us not fo rget, I will just point very briefly to why we feel this whole program is so flawed. I think the irony of this is the minister talked about class struggle, he talked about socialism. What we are see ing here is cotpmate socialism.

In fa ct, it is ironic that the larg est item that we are deleting here-and I want to be quoting this for the record here-is described as social assistance. This is not social assistance for single parents , which the government has cut. It is not social assistance for the poor. It is social assistance for corporate training that we have exp ressed serious concern about. This is the kind of priority of this government. 1be bottom line is we are saying this item should be delet ed.

We are saying that if the minister wants to talk about worlcplace training, he has to totally start again, because this program is seriously fla wed. We are saying our priority is not for Kentucky Fried Chicken, for major corporations like IBM, for virtually every car dealership in the province to receive grants for training, it should be for public education. I would say to the minister just as one final comment, because I kno w the minister is someone who always talks about the taxpayers' money, et cetera.

I wonder if he w ould care to go and talk to a lot of the taxpayers about where the money is going under this program, because you know, he talked about how the employees who received this money were satisfied with the program. Well, Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, I would say if you wer e to give grants to anyone, they are probably more likely than not going to be happy with receiving the grants. If the minister talks about accountability, I am sure that people out there would expect more accountability than to have someone who receives a grant make sure that they have spent it first, and they claim for it then.

That does not deal with the public issue of whether you want IBM and Ke ntuc ky Fried Chicken and all the other companies we have mentioned to be receiving corporate grants when you are cutting back the public education system . That is where we are saying cut this line item, put it towards public education. H you want workplace training, come up with a proper program, an accountable program. That, by the way to the Liberals, is why we moved this motion. It is not to delay consideration.

We have made that decision, and we expect all members in the Legislature to show where they stand on this issue by voting on this motion. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? The question bef ore the committee is as fo llows : It has been moved by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), seconded by the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman),

WHEREAS the minister has not provided adequate public inf ormation on the curriculum, effectiveness and educational outcomes of many training grants and millions of dollars spent in the Wolkforce 2000 program; THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that 16.4(hX1) (b)Other Expenditures be omitted. Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Deputy Chairperson : No? All those in fav our of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, say nay . Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have il The motion is def eated. Formal Vote Mr. Ashton: I would request a recorded vote . Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is ther e a se con d member supporting the hono urable member? A formal vote has been requested by two members.

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOB A 2172 This

section of the commi ttee will now proceed to the Chamber for a fo rmal vote. The committee recessed at 9:09p.m. After Recess. The committee resumed at 10 p.m. •

(2200) Mr. Deputy Chairperson : The hour being ten o'clock, what is the will of the co mmittee? Is it the will of the commi ttee to sit until midnight? An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr. Deputy Chairperso n: I will check with the comm ittee's wishes at that time. Item 16 .4(h)( l )(

b) Other Expenditur es, $4,040,900-p ass. 16 .4(h)

(2) Stevenson Aviation Centre (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits, $307,600. Should the item pass? Ms. Friesen: Since the line has not yet passe d. An Honourable Member: Yes , it has. Ms. Friesen: No, it has not. I have not voted on this. Mr. Deputy Cbairpenon: We are now dealing with

(2) Stevenson Aviation Centre (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $307,600. Ms. Friesen: It has not passe d. An Honourable Member: I am sorry, it has not. Ms. Friesen: I do not recall this item passing. Could the Chair peibaps explain when and where it passed and what the vote was? Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Which line was the honourable member ref erring to? Right now we are dealing with Stevenson Aviation. 1be last line we passed was (l) (

b) Other Expenditur es, $4,040,900. Ms. Friesen: How could you have passed it? An Honourable Member: We did not pass it. Ms. Friesen: We did not pass it. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Well, if the honourable member checks the record prior to your arrival, that line had passed, and we moved on to

(2) Stevenson Aviation Centre. An Honourable Member: The committee was not constituted. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I had ca lled the committee to order. We had asked what the will of the committee was, whether it was to sit until midnighL 1be committee said that that was the will of the committee . Mr. Plobman: 1be committee was not sitting. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The committee was sitting. Mr. Plo bman: No, we were not- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Dauphin has a statement he would like to make? Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, the practice has been, and the Deputy Chairperson knows full well, that until such time as the official opposition is sitting in the chairs and participating the committee is not sitting. 1be committee was not officially sitting prior to our arrival. We are here, let the rec ord show, at ten o'c lock, and fo llowing the vote we gathered our stuff, materials , and came right here, and I would suggest to the Deputy Chairperson that this is not app ropriate . We will certainly challenge this kind of behaviour on behalf of the Deputy Chairperson.

As a matter of fact, the Deputy Chairperson has told me on various occasi ons that he would not call or pass the line unless the official opposition unless we were here as critics. We came here immediately fo ll owing the vote. Is the Deputy Olairperson trying to indicate to the committee that he would pass the whole Estimates of the Department of Education in one minute if someone was not sitting here? It is just a sly effort at maneuvering, and I am really quite upset with this Deputy Chairperson, because, in fac t, the Deputy Chairperson is supposed to chair in an impartial way. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: I would like to thank the honourable member for Da uphin (Mr. Pl obman) for that remark, but, as the Chairperson in the House stated when she called our committee back to order, I came into the committee room and we established ourselves in our seats. The

2173 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 honourable member for Inkster was here (Mr. Lamoureux), and I asked what the will of the committee was. I asked whether we were to sit until midnight, and the answer was yes. Then I called off that line, and that line passed. Mr. MllDileSS: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, in your defence, because you can lwdly defend yourself in the position you are, but I did not rush to the committee room. 1he member for Dauphin (Mr. Plolunan) knows that fully well that I did not rush to the committee room. I came here very casually. I sat here for at least two or three minutes .

An Honourable Member: No. Mr. MllDileSS: Yes . Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was here, and, as is past practice through the days , you are right, you will not start these committees until there is an opposition member present. Mr. Deputy Cbailperson, we have started this commi ttee over the course of the last week when there were Liberals prese nt and no NDP and vice versa. As soon as the committee sits, as you have called it to order, given that there are opposition members here, and there were, you did the right thing in calling the particular line.

The members say, well , would you pass the whole Estimates? No, not without opposition critics being present. But does the off icial opposition have to be here or a member of the Liberal Party have to be here? Mr. Deputy Chairper son, in the eyes of the Chair, an opposition member is an opposition member, so I come to your defence onl y because in my view you have done nothing wron g. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Well , as the Deputy Chairpers on I will seek what the will of the committee is again. I have already called that line that is in question, and it was passe d, but I seek the advice of the committee .

What is the will of the committee ? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Dep uty Cbailperson, I think that there is a valid point that bas been at least raised, and that is, of co urse, the calling to order of a committee . I have attended committee meetings, for example, in the past where because of the lack of a presence of one of the opposition parties it has resulted in a pass age of a full report. I perso nally felt that that was most unf ortunate. We bad a vote. We were called to go back into the committee process.

I, too, bad opportunity to, in fa ct, make a call prior to you calling this committee to order, as I was watching down the ball when the Minister of Education (Mr. Ma nness) walked in. But it begs the question in terms of when is, in fact, the proper time to call a committee to order. My personal pref erence, and I stress my personal prefer ence, is when ther e is acknowledgement of all oppositions . In this case, there are two opposition parties, but that bas not, to the best of my knowledge, been what bas been happening in the past.

So I guess before, if there is a challenge of the Clair, I would seek to get some form of clarification just what obligation there is of a Chairperson or a Speaker or a Deputy Speaker to have to call a committee, in fact, to order. I am sensitive in terms of what the members for Dauphin (Mr. Plobman) and Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) are saying, because, unfortunately, they might not have been here when you bad called it to order, but it is, in fa ct, not the first time that I have personally seen that occur. But it does beg the question in terms of clarification on that particular issue.

At the very least, it is something that should be brought to the rules committ ee. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the member fo r Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for those rematks , but I still ask the committee , I am seeking the advice of committee on this. I have passed the line; it would take unanimous consent of the committee to revert to that line. Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): As I understand it, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, this is not an issue that bas bad only cursor y consideration, under circumstances wher e something was passed, either hurriedly or whatever, where adequate consideration perhaps was not given. That is not the case, certainly here; we just had a vote in the House on the same line. We have just had days of questioning in discussion with regard to this issue, so, Mr. Deputy

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2174 Olairperson, I take your w<ml that-1 was not here at the time that the matter was passed, but I am assuming you properly acted in this case, and that bas been corroborated both by the minister and by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). So I am assuming that your mling is correct, and I would not want to cballenge it Mr. Ploh man: Mr.

Deputy Chaiipe rson, further to this, I think it is rather absunl that we even have to dis � this, and that tbis type of maneuver would be tried without the offic ial opposition here, considering we were just in the House to have a vote which deleted tbis whole section, and which would have deleted this whole

section had it passed. We had clearly indicated our position. The minister knows that we were unhappy with tbis particular program. The Deputy Chairperson knows that from the vote, the motion that was made. It is not the same as saying, well , we just had a vote on this in the Ho use, and that, theref ore, the question has been dealt with. We still had not agreed to pass this particular line. As a matter of fact, we wanted this line omitted. So that is even more reason why tbis should have been dealt with when the opposition is sitting at this particular table .

We had, as the minister noted, passed in the washroom one minute bef ore , and when the minister came in here and sat down and agreed to pass this, he knew very well that this would be a provocative move that would be unfair with the official opposition. It is certainly not in keeping with our rules in prac tice, and certainly, if the Deputy Chairpers on is going to rule that this line is passe d, we have to challenge the Chair on that particular decision.

In addition to that, I want to say that, as far as the Liberals are concerned, they just voted to delete this line and now they vote to pass it in here when the official opposition is not here. Where are they on this Wodcforce 20007 All over the map-it is a typical decision. Mr. Deputy Chairperso n: Order, please . •

(2210) Point of Order Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, the member from Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) was not here , so he does not know how the Liberal Party voted. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honour able member does not have a point of order. ••• Mr. Deputy Chairperso n: Order, please. Can I remind the honourable members that you are not supposed to refer to the absence or presence of any members? Mr. Ashton : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we started this committee tonight at five after eight, because the minister was late in arriving at the meeting. We had- An Honourable Member: Five after eight? Mr.

Ashton : Five after eight, yes. We had opposition members from both parties . We had government members . In fa ct, we even had the Speaker here. In fa ct, the Speaker was even sitting in the minister's chair, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but we waited for the minister out of common courtesy, and eventually the minister arrived.

We actually probably would have gotten better responses from the Speaker, but we did wait, and I do believe it is common courtesy, particularly after a vote is held in the House, a recorded vote, to wait, the same way we do every day after Question Period when people are often detained on the way, perbaps talking to the media following Question Period. So I do believe the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) does have an important point here.

I just thought that is where we could spend probably another couple of hours discussing this and debating it, but since there are still questions that are being asked perbaps if we can deal with those questions, reopen up the line , Mr. Deputy Chairperson- just in the same sense of accommodation that we waited for the minister for five minutes. I am not criticizing the minister; I know that the government caucus probably had a meeting the same way that we do on Monda ys, or in this case 'Tuesda ys, and just out of some courtesy I would suggest we do that and perhaps

2175 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 deal with further questions on Workf orce 2000, because we have a lot more questions . Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chair pers on, to maintain, I do not know what spirit there is at work here. I mean, we have been on this line now fo r two days, and so the member can talk about the spirit of the moment, but I do not sense there is a heck of a lot of spirit, certainly, not in my mind anyway. Let me say, Mr. Deputy Olairperson, I hear the argument of the members opposite, and I have waited for ministers, too.

I do not know how you start this commit tee without ministers. I have also seen our ministem wait considerable time when the Chair has ruled that both opposition parties have to be here . Then we fo und out that sometimes there has been an agree ment between opposition parties that one , the crit ic, will take on a line of questioning for a period of time to keep it going. Mr. Plohman: No, we did not pass iL Mr. Manness: We do not know that. When the Chair sat here and called the committee together, I did not know, for instance, that the member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) was not going to pose a number of questions on this line , had no knowledge of that with certainty, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. So I understand, that is right, there is no way we should start a committee , but if we make a hard rule that everybody or that all three parties have to be represented, Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, a lot of times there is a lot of wasted time. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson I- Mr. Plohman: You have wasted as much time as anyone. Mr. Manness : Well, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) said I wasted all this time. I have wasted maybe a total of eight minutes . Mr.

Plohman: Yes, and we wasted one min ute. Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chair pers on, in keeping with the request from the NDP opposition and the spirit they talk about, given that we have been to the House for a vote on this, on a much greater position of power than indeed the committee, and we have voted on the issue, I am prepared to accept the will of the two opposition parties. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee then to revert back to line (

b) Other Expenditures? [agreed] We are now dealing with 4.(h)( l )(

b) Other Expenditures, $4,040,900. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, I wanted to ask the minister about Murray Chev Olds, which has three grants under the individual training grants, the small grants. Collectively these add up to approximately $1 0,000, and it is for 11 employees. Could the minister give me an ide a, first of all, whether those, it is in three separate grants, and I am trying to understand how to read these account sheets. Two grants we re, in each case, one person was ttained and then one grant where nine people were ttained.

Does that mean that a total of 11 people were trained or does it mean that some people received training, different types of training or additional training? (Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, maybe the member can tell us to what list she is refening and maybe we can answer the question. Ms. Friesen: This is page 21 of the minister 's sheet, the 19 93-9 4 Training Sc hedule by Employer, Murray Chev Olds Cadillac sales. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, one company, three grants totalli ng under $10,000 for human resource development and quality assurance. Ms. Friesen: Could the minister be a little more specific on Murray Chev Olds Cadillac sales, a human resource development? What is exactly happening in that case? Mr. Manness : No, I cann ot. Ms. Friesen: Would the minister anticipate that a reasonable assum ption that a grant to Murray Chev Olds Cadillac sa les for human resource development has so mething to do with salesmanship? Mr. Manness: No, I would not accept that.

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2176 Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give me some other ex amples of what human resource development might include at Mumy Chev Olds CadiDac sales? Mr. Maoness: It could be directed toward quality management; it could be directed toward computer training, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. I imagine I could go on and on. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairpers on, I do not believe in the minister's first round that anything to do with computers was suggested. It was human resource management Tbis is not the teclmical training. I will remind the minister that this is the most recent

section of grants. This is the time at which he told me that salesmanship had been eliminated from the program. Tbis one looks unusual in the context of the minister's assurances, and so I am asking for some specific inf onn ation on what kind of human resource development took place at Mumy Olev Olds Cadillac sales. Mr. Manness: I am assured by staff this was not for salesmanship or for salability of cars . Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, well, if the minister's staff were able to assure him of what it was not, could the minister's staff assure us of what it was? Mr.

Maoness: Yes, quality assurance and human resource development Ms. Friesen : Will the minister tell us what is meant by quality assuran ce in the context of the Chev Cadillac sales? Mr. Maoness: I do not know about the Cadillac sales, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but I imagine the Olds sales deal specifically with making sure there is quality in the sales. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is one of the larger grants under this section. Tbis is close to $10, 000. An Honourable Member: No, no, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. Ms. Friesen: Ye s, it is. An Honourable Member: No.

The Acting Deput y Chair person (Mr. Sveinson) : Order, please. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the human resource development aspect of it was $142.60. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairpers on, so I assume then that is the training of one person for seven hours and one person for six hours, and that was the quality assurance human resource development What was the other $9,258.23 for? •

(2220) Mr. Manness: That was for quality assurance. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister just indicated that quality assurance meant quality assurance in sales, so that nine people were ttained for $9,258.23 to assure that there was quality in sales? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will try to find that gre ater detail out for tomorrow if the member wishes. I cannot say with certainty where the training went at this time. As the member knows , I did not bring along the 50 filing cabinets that might have that infonnation. Ms.

Friesen: As the minister knows, I never asked for filing cabinets . I asked for him to comply with the Auditor's report of publishing an annual report. In the absence of that, I have asked for specific inf onn ation on specific cases. 1be minister is able to tell us what this grant was not for, but he is not, for some reason, able to tell us what it was fo r. F'll"St, it was quality assurance in sales, then it was not quality assurance in sales . Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member sees another listing on the list she has, and that is the code, and I can tell her what the codes mean.

Codes 4030, the line to which she has referred, has quality assurance, and that is all I have in front of me. It is all that staff have available to them tonight. We can look into the file and try to ascertain in greater detail what specifically was meant in this case in support of a training initiative of Dan Mumy Chev Olds. Ms. Friesen: The minister then will undertake to table that at the beginning of the Estimates period tomorrow? Mr. Manness: Most certainly. I would not want to fail in that endeavour.

21n LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, one of the other grants I have been puzzled by in this particular list has been the two grants to balloon compani es. I wonder if the minister could give us an indication of why those two balloon companies could not have been put together in a collective training enterprise. I am referring now to page 4 of the 1993-94 training schedules where Balloon Creations and Balloon Tycoons each received a grant to train in one case two people, in the other case one person. Mr. Manness: Again, the question is out of older.

We are dealing with the '94-95 Estimates. I do not have again that information. If the member bad shown me any courtesy at all and wanted inf ormation with respect to these items, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would have tried to have had that available. 1be member did not show me any courtesy to prepare me for identification on that, so Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson I do not have that inf ormation. It is out of older, and I guess I am not going to answer any more questions that are out of older. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Acting Deputy Cbail:person, but I repeat, in the absence of tabling a list of programs for next year, the only way that we can evaluate the amount that the minister has requested for this year is to try and evaluate, in the absence of an ann ual report, in the absence of tabled public documents on this, what exactly the money has been spent on in the past in older to develop the kind of general assumptions about this program that would give us some assurance when we again look at this line. I rej ect the minist er's indication of lack of courtesy.

I would expect that a minister who sits here with his staff is fully prepared to answer detailed questions on what be has spent in the past and what his Estimates are for. That seems to me the courtesy that is at issue here. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know whether the mem ber-w ell , she is more than a rookie, she bas been in this place for a long time. I would not pretend to have the detail associated with 3,000 files. I could not expect my staff to have the detail associated with 3,000 files. Mr.

Acting Deputy Chaitperson, if the member wants detailed questions answered, she has two choices. She can go to Estim ates-or panlon me, review of Public Accounts when indeed the Minister of Finance may have to have that inf ormation available, or she can file an Older for Return. Today we are considering the Estimates for the '94-95 fiscal year. That is looking forw anl from April 1, '94, to March 31, '95. So the member cann ot have it both ways either. My staff does not have today , toni ght, the detail associated with 3,000 files, and nobody in their right mind should expect that.

Somebody only who believes that they have got some political axe to grind would do so. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I suggest that the member specifically tell me what company she wants more inform ation on, put it on the reconl and we will endeavour to try and provide her with that inf ormation, because it is useless to dialogue on the past. Not only is it out of older, we do not have the information, because we are unprepared, and we are unprepared because the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) did not have the courtesy to allow us to be prepared. Ms. Friesen : Mr.

Acting Deputy Cbaitperson, could the minister tell us what the total amount of money that has been spent on Workforce 2000 in the past year, including all sections of the Worlcforce 2000 program , including the payroll tax deduction? I believe the Auditor's report spoke of something in the region of $7 million a year. I am wondering if that is something with which the minister agrees. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I always agree with the Auditor, and that is why when the Auditor came out with a glowing report on the Worlcforce 2000 program, I also agreed with her at that time.

I want the memb er to know that in '93-94, $2.934 million were spent in the two compone nts, in support of the .two component s, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, not incl uding the payroll tax offset. Further to that, the final numbers are not in from Finance. 1be payroll tax refund, it was estimated,

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2178 at this point again, these are not final numbers, that the '93--and I believe , yes, the payroll tax wOiks in a calendar yea r. The amount offset against payroll tax is $3.261 million. Again, that is not a fiscal year equivalent, that is a calendar year. Ms. Friesen: So that in the last calendar year, the minis ter's estimate is in the region of$5.5 mill ion, total program? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, yes, in the sense though that one is fiscal and one is ca lendar.

If you wanted to make those comparisons from year to year to year using that same data base, yes, $5.5 milli on. Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us an ide a of what was spent in the year before on the same basis? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, the year bef ore, in the two components within my department, $3.2 million, and on the payroll tax $3.13 million, so slightly more the year before on a comparative basis. •

(2230) Ms. Friesen: As we look to next year, does the minister have any grants approved yet for this coming year! Mr. Manness: Ye s, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have reviewed that, we reviewed that the other day when we were talking in terms of when I went over the listing and I ref erred to some of the '94-95 grants, and they were in the special proje cts, in the industry-wide initiative and province-wide special courses. Ms.

Friesen: What about in the other portion of the program, the approximately $2 million to $3 million worth to be spent in fiscal year '94-95, have there been any individual grants yet approved? Mr. Manness: Well , as I pointed out also on the record, Mr. Acting Deputy <llairperson, some of these agreed upon training agr eements were flowing over two fiscal years. It is not the case that the training runs out as of the end of the fiscal year, and so some of the signed agreements would be flowing into two years.

So it is very bard to know with certainty what pe�eentage of this year's total budget was as a result of a commitment made previously. Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what new grants have been approved for the coming fiscal year under the grant program ofupto $10,000, the individual company grants? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, we believe there are roughly 40 approvals since the beginning of the fiscal year, but again we can have that information to her tomoll'Ow. Ms.

Friesen: So I understand the minister will be tabling at the beginn ing of Estimates tomoll'Ow both the account of the Cadillac Sales and also of the 40 new approvals under the small grants program? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Cbaiipers on, I do not know of a company called Cadillac Sales. They probably did not have an application or certainly an agree ment with the government, so I do not know of what the member speaks. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy.

Chaitperson, I think the minister knows very clearly of what I speak, although my apologies for not citing it directly as Murray <llev Olds Cadillac sales in this case, that be is going to table that inf ormation tomorrow, along with a list of the 40 new approvals in the smaller grants program. Mr. Manness: Ye s, Mr. Acting Deputy Cbaiipe rson, I have made that commitment. The Acting Deputy Cha irperson (Mr. Sveinson) : Item 4.(

h) Worldorce 2000 and Youth Programs (1 )(

b) Other Expenditures $4,040,900-pass. 4.(h)

(2) Stevenson Aviation Centre (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $307 ,600-p ass; (

b) Other Expenditures $476,200-- pass. 4. (h)(3 ) Youth Programs (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1 ,065,400--p ass; (

b) Other Expenditures $294,200--pass. 4.( h)

(3) Youth Programs (

c) CareerStart $2,567,400. Shall the item pass? Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, I bad a couple of questions on spe cial government initiatives and Partners with Youth. Could the minister tell us what these special government

2179 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 initiatives are that anticipates placing 75 students and youth in this coming year? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there are two components to this line . Firstly, where we attempt to place disabled people within the employ of the government within the STEP program, and, secondly, an exchange program in support of an exchange program , a student exchange program with the Province of Quebec. Ms. Friesen: On the Partners with Youth, could the minister undertake to table again tomorrow a list of those pro jects?

Have they yet been appro ved, the pro jects for this coming year. Mr. Manness: No. Ms. Friesen: When will a list of the programs appro ved be available? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, because there are four decision points through the year, the last being in November of '94, we will not have a list until after that time. Ms. Friesen: Are these primarily for summer programs for '95 or are there some programs that will begin after Christmas? Mr. Manness : Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, I suppose the largest quantity would occur in association with summer work, but there are municipalities that are sponsoring activities throughout the fall and leading into the new calendar year, also. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask about co-operative education for a minute. I am not sure if that is on this line in your book. I wanted to ask about a committee or a council which bas been composed of a number of repr esentatives of not only the department.

I believe somebody from the department was seconded to staff that particular council, and the council bas been dissolved. I am not sure of its exact na me, I think it was called the wolkplace education council, or something along those lines? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Cbailperson, I think the member is refening to a business labour group that established itself, and we provided support in kind. I do not know whether we provided some space, but certainly no monetary support, and I gather that that organization on its own decision disbanded. Ms.

Friesen: I believe the department did provide space, and I think also staff on secondment. I am interested, first of all, fo r con finnation of that, but secondly, also in the reconstitution of that council. Could the minister indicate what the department 's connection is to this council and bow it fits with the department 's plans for co-operative education and for woikplace-based education? •

(2240) Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the group did come to see me early on when I assumed this responsibility , and made a strong presentation and support of their outreach and their co-operative education approach. It seems to me they were re questing some level -from memory-they were requesting some level of funding, and no detennination bas been made . As a matter of fact, estimates reviewed did not and decisions did not accept the request.

If the member is talking about an individual who was seconded three or four years ago, over the last three years, the government bas not provided seconded support to the efforts of this organization. Mr. Acting Deputy Cbailperson, I might point out that there is a separate organization to which all the education, the coipOrate education partners do belong. It is a provincially constituted council. We are certainly in dialogue with this organization. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, does that mean that the minister is not in dialogue with the reconstituted version of the business and labour groups?

What I am trying to get at is I understand that this group bas reconstituted itself, that it fe lt that as it was constituted it was not meeting the objectives which both it and perhaps the department bad set out for itself. I am looking for some response from the minister as to the new directions of this council and where it tits with the department 's broader perspe ctives in co-op education or workplace based education for young people . Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Cbairperson, anybody that wants to take a lead or a

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2180 partnership lead with respect to providing greater matching of co-op education in linking the fo mal education institution with the workplace has our suppo rt, certainly our moral support. If we are thinking about the same group, and I think we are, they made a presentation to me to indicate who they were and how it was that they sensed that they were going to try and proceed over time, and that is my only involvement with that group up to this point Ms. Friesen: Does the minister anticipate further involvement? Where does this fit with government policies ?

Is the government going to be working through this group? Is this group a group that perhaps are going to offer advice to the minister? Is it a group that is going to proceed on a school di vision by school division basis, or is it going to proceed on the basis of pilot pro jects, and where does this fit with other initiatives of the government? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Olai!person, it is not our group. They are dialoguing, I gather, as between the school divisions and employers and, to the best of my knowledge, have not been actively seeking a greater involvement from the provincial government.

I point out, Mr. Acting Deputy Chaiiperson, with respect to ed refom there will be certainly an awful lot of attention directed towards apprenticeship training and vocational training within our schools, and obviously co-operative education is a pretty close cousin to all of this and will have to be addressed at that time. The Acting Deput y Cha irperson (Mr. Sveinson) : Item 4.(3 )(

c) CareerStart $2,567,400- pass; 4.(3)(

d) Partners with Youth $1 ,400, 000- pass; 4.(3 )(

e) Less: Recover able fr om Rural Economic Development Initiatives ($500, 000} pass. 4.(

j) Appr enticeship

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1 ,256,600. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, I see that the minister anticipates 600 new apprenti ces registered in this coming year. I wonder if the minister could give us a sense of the magnitude of that by telling us how many register ed apprenti ceships, new registered appre nticeships, there were last year and the year before? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will go through the ledger in the calendar year '93, the carr y-over -and we are talking now registrations into '93-was 3,197. Those are active apprenti ces. Regist ered I guess is new.

New app rentices, 520; cancelled, 541; completed study, I suppose that meam, 413; leaving an active count of2,766 that were those totals, I guess, at year-end. So the active number at year-end was 2,766. (Mr. Deputy Olairpers on in the Clair) Ms. Friesen : So this year we are looking at establishing 80 new app rentices if last year there were 520 who were registered, and this year you are looking at registering 600. Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just as the first line indicates on page 11 0 of the supplementary infom ation, we are expecting 600 new appren tices. Ms.

Friesen: And last year there were 520 new appre ntices. Mr. Manness: That is correct, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but there was quite a reduction last yea r because we went through the file and expunged the files of all of those who were inactive. There was quite a reconciliation of the total numbers last year, cleaning up the accounts. That is why, even though there were 500 and some new, there was a reduction of 541 , I think the number was, and there was, in essence, a net reduction only on paper. Ms. Friesen: In the year before , in '92, how many new appre ntices were registered? • (22SO) Mr.

Manness: We do not have that information, Mr. Deputy Chailperson. Ms. Friesen : In expunging sever al hundred people from the apprenticeship program, could the minister give us a sense of what the re asons -when the minister evaluated this program , there must have been a pattern to some of this. Why could so many be taken off the rec ords at this particular time?

2181 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaiipe rson, we did not expunge people, we expunged the registrations because they were no longer active. I guess if there was one area it would be the attrition rate with the Limestone Training agree ment, where a number of people bad been provided with registrations, but over the course of years, obviously there were not active trades being fo llowed, and consequently, we decided to clean the files. Ms. Friesen: What proportion of the 541 were from Limestone? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaiipe rson, they are broken out by trade.

We can provide that inform ation, but certainly a large portion of the trades came under that trade agree ment So we can try and provide that information by trade. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister made a claim that the larger proportion came from Limestone and I would simply like to verify that If the minister made that claim, he must have some basis for it. So, yes, there may be two ways of approaching this, one is to look at the particular trades , and one is to look at the nature of an app renticeship program in the North.

So could the minister undertake to provide me with the numbers which, in fact, come from the Limestone program in discontinued registrations? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly in the area of carpenter apprenticeships 11 8, and staf f tells me certainly the largest percentage of that 11 8 we re di sco ntinued registrations that had been achieved through the Limestone Training pro ject Ms. Friesen : Of those carpentry registrations, would it be 70 percent, 80 percent came from Limestone ? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, without doing an in-depth analysis I cannot say, but certainly the larger majority. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chaiipe rson, I am trying to get a sense. We are looking at 520, of which the minister said the large st proportion come from Limestone, then the only other number he can give me is 11 8 carpenters. Is it 51 percent of that? Would the minister undertake to table the inf ormation, the basis on which he made the assertion about Limestone? Mr. Manness: We ll, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is veey sensitive about Limestone . I mean, you cannot help but dete ct that.

Of course , I misspo ke when I said probably the majority, but as an identifiable training program certainly there were a significant number within the carpentry are a, and also within the industrial welding section. Again, it was a general statement, and I just provided this information, nothing more. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chaiipe rson, it was the minister who raised the issue of Limestone. I am simply fol lowing up on that. In the absence again of broadly available public inform ation on this, my job is, in fact, to try and understand the basis on which the minister makes these assertions .

So we have now gone from a large number, not necessa rily the highest proportion, and we are loo king at two sections, carpentry and industrial weld ing. How many industrial welding registrations were cancelled? Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 50. But the member is so sensitive around Limestone. I raised it because over the years 1,700 people that the members boasted about training have left the program, because they were not supported. They were not supported by private employe rs, they were supported by a government program . Seventeen hundred people were given false hope because of the NDP program .

When 1,700 people are pulled out over the course of a number of ye ars, naturally, when one looks at this in historical trends, the large number, when you want to foc us where they are as compared to what sectors, they are discontinuant registrants having come out of the Limestone Training program. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is the minister who has raised Limestone and the minister who is getting quite excited about this. I am simply trying to find the basis of the assertion, which he said that in the last year the largest proportion of people having their re gistration cancelled came from Limestone.

So far what I have been told is a proportion of the carpentry ones, 11 8, and perhaps there were 60 out of that, I

May 24, 1994 LEGISLA'TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2182 do not know, and of the industrial wel ders, pedlaps there were 2S or 26, I do not know. I am giving the minister the benefit of the doubt on those numbers because be is not able to tell me, but he is able to make these broad sca le assertions about the reduction in registrations in the last year coming from Limestone . Now, perhaps he does have the numbe rs. I would like to believe be does, but unless be is prepared to table them, then I think surely the assertion is open to question. Mr. Mann ess: Mr.

Deputy Chairpe rson, the member for Wolseley is having a bald time taking. You know, she can give it, but she can't take it, and the fact is Limestone Training after 10 years has been kind of a dismal failure, and the member of course cannot tolerate thaL She is a poor loser. The fact is that 1,700, virtually all of the-or half of them at least over the course of the last number of years have gone by the board because of a dismal fai led program brought forward by the NDP. Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, I do not know why the member for Wolseley is so sensitive to these issues.

I know she is defensive of the program, but I am sorry, I apologize for mentioning the wold Limestone Training, I regret having done that. If I could expunge the reconl, I would do so. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, I think if the minister is not prepared to put the evidence on the line, then be should expunge thaL It seems to me that it is the minister who has a knee -jelk reaction to apprenticeship , and be has a little clip in his brain that goes off and says, oh, NDP and Limestone, and that is what went off again this time.

When we actually got down to looking at the numbers of this particular year, and of the reductions in this particular year, he did not have it handy, the evidence that he need ed. Now, if he is able to provide that evidence, I think that would be interesting and I would like to see iL So far we have not heard it. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, why does the member not ask me about the 1, 700 apprentices that were trained in the program and ask me how many of them today are registered? Why does she not have the courage to ask me that?

Because she knows fully well that indeed most of those do not exist because the program was a dismal fail ure. 1be member talks about courage . 1be fact is I sense that the trend, if one wants to identify the largest area from which the reductions have occune d, and it probably is not the majority in this context, although we have not gone through it fine tuned, but the largest area is Limestone Training and app rentice area. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am trying to establish what the minister intends to do with the $30 0,000 extra that he has applied to apprenticeships.

I am getting a sense of the trends. The fact that the minister might be interested in answering questions on specif ic issues of Limestone Training that go back more than one year is fas cinating, particularly given the arguments that be has made about not answering any questions and not having the information available on anything in Wolkforce 2000 that does not include in the '94-95 Estimates. So, again, the principles that the minist er is fo llowing in Estimates seem to vary by the line and by whatever particular ideo logy he wants to put on the reconl.

Pedlaps we can look specifically at the $300, 000 that the minister is going to apply to this program. What I was looking for was some sense of the number of new apprentices hips that would be registered under this, where they were going to be applied, what the minister had fo und. This was the second part; maybe I will focus on this for now . •

(2300) The minister raised the issue of Limestone, but in fact what I was looking for is what general pattern had the minister established in his evaluation of the registrations in apprenticeship? What has been lost? Is it the carpentry ones that are a problem ge nerall y? Is it industrial welding? Is it some elements of plumbing? Where are the difficulties appearing in the historical record in appren ticeships in Manitoba? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, the question around the $300, 000; $21 0,000 is being used to facilitate the revitalization of the Apprenticeship Branch,

21 83 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 including the increase of four st aff years, and another $87,700 bas been provided in Other Expenditure areas, particularly in Transportation, Communications, Supplies and Services. Now we have done a lot of talking about Limestone Training, Mr. Deputy Cbaiipe rson, and I just want to point out to the member that we all understand what happened. There was Level I and n training. and then there was not the experience or the opportunities to build upon that and carry the study through to term .

The member is probably aware of discussions that have gone on over the course of the last several months with respect to another aboriginal apprenticeship training initiative , and we are going to tty again to support a program that will provide Level I training towar ds native ec onomic development in the N ortb so indeed that individuals with this basic level of training may be able to be involved in, particularly, the building in the areas of carpentry , plumbing and electrical trades.

As the member would fully well know , because I know she is very well connected into the labour movement, there was some consternation around this whole issue for a period of time , but it seems to have been addressed, and there is a willingness to see this program directed towanl native economic development Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I want to check on that Level I. Level I in cm:pentry, I believe it is more than Level I in some cases. Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Cllairpe rson, it is Levels I and n. Ms. Friesen: I and ll in carpentry. Levels I and ll in electrical'! No. Mr.

Manness : Just Level II in carpentry . In plumbing and electric al, Level I. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Cllair, that was bow I understood the proposal existed What will be the department's participation in tbis'l Mr. Manness: We ll, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are providing staff support, existing staf f. Of course , obviously, there will be some thrust, too, from some of the new st aff in support of all of our Apprenticeship developm ents, but the fe deral government is contributing.

There is a third area, a curriculum development, which right now represents the basis of discussion with respect to the fe deral government and ourselves and, I suppose, the native communi ty. Ms. Friesen: What is the source of financial support for the curri culum development'! Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Cbaiipe rson. we are in dis cussion now with the fe deral government under strategic initiatives program , the pilot programs in trying to make this a worthy candidate for fe deral support. Ms.

Friesen: Is there a proportion of the expenditures under this line that we are on, 16.4(j), that is appropriated for curriculum support for the aboriginal apprenticeship program, other than the st aff years'! Mr. Manness: No, I believe not, Mr. Deputy Cbaiipe rson. Ms. Friesen: So in terms of the Estimate s, the provincial government 's proposed support for this program rests in the staff years support. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Cbaiipe rson, that bas always been our primary support, nothing new. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, bow many apprenticeships does the government anticipate will be developed under the aboriginal apprenticeship program, and do they expect them to be any of the 600 new apprenticeships proposed for this yeatl Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Cllairpe rson, not this year because, of course, it takes some time . The 600 is exclusive of any numbers that might be coming subsequently with re spect to the new aboriginal apprenticeship program. Ms. Friesen : What areas does the minister anticipate the new apprenticeships will come in, then'l Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Cbaiiperson, across the board, in the broad range of apprenticeship areas. Ms. Friesen: So the minister is not anticipating creating any new areas of apprenticeship. These

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2184 are the existing areas, and 600 will be placed, created. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are in the process of developing, but certainly we will not have new apprentices or trainees within these areas this year. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when the minister looked at cancelling the registr ations, what areas by trade were the areas perhaps where he fo und the most difficulty? Carpentry was one be mentioned, ind ustrial welding was another, but that might have been in relationsh ip to his argument on Limest one.

I am wondering if we looked across it on a sectoral basis is there a different argument to be made? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not have it by sectoral basis. The member would know fully well that it is broken out by trade. Certainly, the greatest cancellations occurred in the two areas mentioned, plus motor vehicle mechanic, plumbing, motor vehicle body repair, sheet metal wor ker, and heavy duty equipment mechanic, and co nsttu ction electrician. Ms.

Friesen: Did the minister look at these numbers and try to evaluate at what year people were losing their registration or losing their participation? Is there a pattern here that people are going to the end of the appre nticeship, or are they losing their pl acem ents early on, or are they going almost to the end? Is there a pauem there? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, there is no pauem, and again, I state fo r the record, a lot of these cancellations were old in the sense they could have been performed years ago. Ms.

Friesen: Has the minister looked at the impact of unemployment upon apprenticeship, people who come particul arly in electrical, for example, to their third year or into their fo urth year and then find themselves laid off'/ Are some of those people the ones whom the minister has been looking at cancelled registrations? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, we have done no analysis on that, but there is no question that recessions , in this case the North American recession that we are involved in, lasting longer than we hoped, was particularly cruel. Ms.

Friesen: Has the minister cancelled the registration of any people who have been caught in that situation? •

(2310) Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, these are people who have been inactive for a long period of time. They have been notified, and we have been in dialogue with them, I am led to believe, and we are fully understanding of the rationale for exclusion. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, where does the minister anticipate that the 600 new apprenticeships will come from ? As he is looking at deregistering in c;upentry, industrial, wel ding, motor vehicle s, plumbing, et cetera, where does be anticipate the new apprentices hips will come?

Where are the new industries in Manitoba that are going to be looking for apprenticeships? For examp le, I am interested in the printing industry. Are there apprenticeships which are being developed or expanded in that area? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, again, just because there has been a lot of cleanout of dead paper with respect to the trade, there is no relationship between that and areas where there may be new enttants.

I point out for last year, in '93, these were the areas where the greatest activity occurred and I sense the same trend will occur in '94: aircraft mechanic, 23 ; carpenter, 65; construction electrician, 58; heavy duty equipment mechan ics, 72; 82 in the motor vehicle mechanic area; 36 in the pl umbing area; 25 in painting and decorating. So they are the traditional trades and, in many areas, correspond pretty directly to the same reduction that was ref erenced before . Ms. Fries en: What changes does the minister anticipate making in the connections to secondary schools?

One of the critiques that is often made about apprenticeships in Manitoba is in fact that the average age of an apprentice is 27, which is considerably higher than that in some other provinces and certainly in other countries. What initiatives is the minister taking in that area?

218S LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, I cannot be as fully open as I would like to be because this will be part of the blueprint on ed reform when it comes fo rward, but generally speaking, we want to see students who decide to select this type of training within the high school setting be provided with high school credits for time spent on the job and, of course, in-school apprenticeship training.

Furthermore, hope fully in time, we would like to see even a contribution to first-year level standing if we could set into place the right programming in either senior -certainly in Senior 4. Ms. Friesen: Does the minister anticipate any of those changes coming in this next fiscal year? Mr. Manness: We ll, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, as much as I would love to see that, the reality is this is tied to the whole package of ed refonn , so there is going to have to be an awful lot of acceptance of the whole package before we can begin to see parts of it being accepted.

I mean, it goes forwud as a whole package, and I am hoping that it will happen as quickly as possible . Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson : Item 4. (

j) Appre nticeship

(1) Sal aries and Employee Be nef its $1, 256 ,600 -pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $297 ,300-p ass. Resolution 16 .4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Ma jesty a sum not exceeding $4S,7 1S, 400 for Education and Training, Advanced Education aixl Skills Training, fo r the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 199S. We will now move on to 16.S. item S. Support to Schools (

a) Schools Finance

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $802,SOO. Mr. Plohman: While the minister is getting his st aff that are responsible for this area, I wonder if be could give us a bit of background on bow the decision was made to arrive at the figure of reduction in funding to the public schools this year. The figure, I believe, was 2.6 percent overall. Can the minister just provide the committee with some rationale for that figure this year? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, this would come as a little swprise, I think , to those who bad studied last year's budget We said, given the knowledge we bad at that time as to the revenues coming in to government, flowing into government , we were almost sure that on average across government there could be expected a 1 percent reduction in funding that we would need to reduce expenditure levels across the boud, the $S.S billion of spending, if we were to move to a reduced deficit leading to a balanced budget by 19 96-97. That was well identi fied in the last budget I brought down as the Minister of Finance. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, subsequent to that, the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) was in receipt of the latest estimates of fe deral funding and realized the federal fo recasts, with respect to economic growth and taxation therefrom, fo recast a lower level of transfer. Consequently, that was taken into the fiscal framewoik and again, given the path that we were on towards reducing the deficit amongst all the options provided, a number of 2.6 percent was detennined by government to be most fair under the ciic umstances . Mr.

Plobman : Would the minister agree that as a result of this, and the way the reassessment and declining enrollments and other fac tors which I will ask the minister about later impacted on the funding fo rmula, some school divisions were in fact rolled back to pre- 1991 levels in terms of the amount of funding that they bad at the present time? Does the minister accept that, that there are some school divisions that are below 1991 funding level s? Mr. Manness : Well , Mr.

Deputy Cbairperson, not knowing for sure bow the enrollment numbers have impacted specifically that school division, I would sense that there would be some school divisions that have levels of support that would be close to '91, and yet there are many public funded -indeed the Province of Manitoba itself is almost back to '91 level of support So there is nothing that stands out as being a highlight with respect to that statement. The reality is revenues to government are reducing. Mr.

Plobman: Well, we will deal with that more especially when we compare it to where some of the other schools that the minister funds are, as

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2186 compared to these ones, and some of those elite , exclusionary schools that have been increased the last couple of years. But I wanted to ask the minister whether be could tell us precisely bow the reassessment impacted on aff ected funding for individual school divisions, just bow that manifested itself in the form ula. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Cbailperson, it seems to me, from memoty, the total value of all property, real property in Manitoba increased by, on average, close to 10 percent.

The '93 assess ment is compared to the '91, and so those school divisions that bad average increases above 10 percent totalled-those that bad gains, as a result of the funding form ula due to reassessm ent, totalled 34 of the districts and school divisions, where those that were net losers totalled 19. So $5 million shifted away from those that lost as a result of reassessment, to the same $5 million being received as a bene f it, to the 34 who were benefactors under the strict application of the reasse ssment impact on the form ula. •

(2320) Mr. Plobman: Does the minister have a sheet that would show who gained and who lost under reasse ssment and the precise numbers for each that be could table? Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Olairperson, we have thaL We can share a copy of thaL We can make it right now, possibly, and give it back in a few minutes. Mr. Plob man: Does the minister have at his disposal, at the present time, also the latest completed Frame Report, I guess that would be for '93-94. It bas been traditional to table these in the Estimates, and we certainly bad that last year.

We would appreciate receiving another copy for the latest year that is available. I ass�me that the '94-95 will not be available but '93-94 is. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, we have '93-94, but these are budgets we have now. These are budgets of the school divisions, but they provide a myriad of infonnation. I have only fo ur copies tonight. Mr.

Plo bman: Did the min ister consider the previous year's funding level in considering the present ye ar's, the 2.6 percent reduction, and then, as a result of reasses sment-of course, it bit some divisions balder than others did-did the minister consider what happened with those school divisions the previous year and look at the cumulative effect of the two years when arriving at a decision? Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, the answer is yes.

After a thoughtful review, an in-depth review over many painstaking hours, we decided to maintain the status of the funding fonn ula, letting it flow, taking into account the new reassess ment inf onnation. Mr. Plo hman: Did the minister do a computer model of various funding options? Did they have the various scenarios prepared prior to making a final decision on the one that was adopted? Mr. Manness: Oh, yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. The practice bas not changed any. It bas been in place for many, many years. Options are presented by the Finance division of the department.

Of course, policy options are also contemplated at that time, but nevertheles s, the final decision is made and resulted in the decrease ann ounced. Mr. Plohman: So the government was fully infonned about the impacts obviously; the sheet just passed to us on the effect of reassess ment was clearly available as it was a result of the modelling that was done, and the impact of the cuts and bow that would impact on various divisions was clearly outlined. So there were no surprises really in tenns of bow this impacted on school divisions. Would the minister say that is a fair statement? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, we waited with bated bre ath to receive this infonnation from Rural Development, who are the keeper of all the assessed values throughout the province. So I will not say that we received this matter of facdy because it bas such great impact on the fo nnula, but we did know that shifts would occur gene rall y, and we knew that certainly within the area of real estate, within the larger cen tres, cit ies, commun ities, there had been an appreciation for the most

part in housing stock, and that bare land, there bad certainly been a decrease in value throughout the province.

2187 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 1994 We knew that in general terms . We did not know the magnitude of the shift until we were provided with this inform ation from the Department of Rural Development as a result of running the inform ation put into the MACS system . Mr. Ploh man: So the decision was made to decrease the overall funding fiiSt to 2.6 percent, and then along came the reasse ssment information after, or was the rea ssessment inf ormation received prior to making the final decision on the level of reduction? Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, they were two independent decisions.

We are well aware of the impact by school division, but the exercise around selecting the level of funding was certainly unrelated to reasse ssment. Mr. Plohman: And were there any exceptions made in these school divisions as a result of the impact of reassessment, any exceptions made insofar as additional funding ? The minister bas talked on many occasi ons about maintaining the form ula, keeping it pure, not playing with it in terms of providing additional supplementary grants to which the form ula actually provided.

Was there any excepti on made for any school divisions, and if there was, can the minister just provide us which ones? Mr. Manness : Mr.

De puty Chairperson, from memory, no exceptions were made with respect to assessment In looking at that as a single item , we did try to offer some support to Transcona Springfield and Agassiz, taking into account both factors , taking into account the impact of reassessment and also the general level of decreased funding, given that they bad reduced professional development days as a board policy last year and also that they bad in their cases virtually no swplus in which to rely, to fall back upon. So those were the only exceptions . Mr.

Plohman : So what the minister is saying is that if a division did not re duce prof essional development days to the extent that the minister thought was appropri ate, ther e was no consideration given, but because there are some school divisions who were in worse shape in terms of the reductions-and what was the level if I am reading that correctly then? Was it eight days? Is that what the minister assumed was the level that be would accept as providing the best effort by the school division or a satisfactocy effort? •

(2330) Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there were no bard and fast rules around the exception, but we were mindful, for instance , of Agassiz School Division bad used ei ght days under the reduced work legislation. So it was a combination of the fo ur factors of which I spoke earlier. It was not a bard fo lDlula, because indeed I do not want to s tart another fo rmula that overrides the existing fo lDlula, but we are mindful that some divisions that bad taken actions under the reduced work area still fo und themselves in a difficult position. We tried to provide some measure of relief. Mr.

Plohman: Just to cl arif y, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the reassessm ent impacted on supplementary funding. Is that correct? Is that where it finds itself in the fo lUlula, when there is an increase in reasse ssment, supplementary funding is reduced? Mr. Manness: The answer to the question is yes, because of course municipalities now are deemed to have greater or lesser weal th, and to the extent they are deemed to have greate r wealth then they receive less under supplemen tary funding and vice versa. Mr. Ploh man: The grant that was impacted was the one called suppl emen tary fund ing.

I just wanted to ensure that I have it clearly understood that where the 19 school divisions were losers in this and 34 were gainers was in the area of supple mentary funding. Those that gained actually got more supplementary funding, and those that lost got less supplementary funding. Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Cbailperson, those are the numbers the member is looking at. That is supple mentary funding. Mr. Plohman: Was there any effort to phase that in so that the impact of the losse s for those that lost or gained was over a longer period than one year, or was that re ject ed as an option?

Was it considered and was it rej ected?

May 24, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2188 Mr. Manness: We fo und out we have a bistOIY with some phase-in and it is very diffi cult to know when you should consider phase-in, and it is very bard to convince those who have been overpaying, in essence, fo r years that they should hold back the benefit that should come to them right now. So you find that you are only dealing on one side of the equation and have to find ad ditio nal money to offset the impact in a phased-in way on those who have lost.

When we went and looked at the list on the right-hand side and saw in almost all cases the tremendous smpluses that were available and, in most cases, also where no days bad been taken off under the reduced wodcweek, we sensed that these school divisions that were on the right side of the ledger certainly bad two options available to them. Mr. Ploh man: Well, the minister would agree though that those that incur red the losses in funding this year did not have the ability to make up those losses even though they bad increased wealth to offset those losses by way of local mill rate because of the cap.

Is that fair to say, that they were, on aver age, not able to recoup, and were there some that could recoup all of it? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you cannot make a general statement in this area. The two divisions that I have highlighted, that we tried to find, yes, were certainly effectively capped at the effective rate of 2 percent as stipulated in Bill 16, but many of the other divisions, because of special sets of circum stances, were able to levy increases above 2 percent. Mr.

Deputy Chaiipe rson, if the member wants to generalize, most of the school divisions shown as having losses bad incredible surpluses and very few of them, to this point in time, have bad to even reach to the reduced workweek to any great extent. Mr.

Plohm an: Well, I want to get into that question about the surpluses and see how relevant that statement is from the minister, if we could take a look at those on the losses side as well as on the gains side, because I have a fe eling from information I have seen that a lot of those who gained also had large surpluses in comparison to their overall budget, relatively speaking. I would like to be able to see that inform ation.

Perhaps the minister would be able to provide us with a listing of the smpluses by division and broken down on gains versus losses; aCCOiding to this sheet, 34 that gained and 19 that lost. ut's take a look, what kind of smpluses we see there , just since the minister has raised this, particularly in light of his statement that it seems that those with large smpluses were invariably on the loss side with regard to reasse ssment. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chailperson, the member has two options here.

He can take my word for it, or he can request that privileged inform ation from the school divisions themselves. It is their inf ormation. When I ask for it as a department and a ministry, I treat it and I receive it on the basis of it being privileged inform ation. It is not public inform ation. I know the member has certainly been asking several fo rmal questions of school divisions and he may want to ask them that question too. [inteJjection] Well then, you did not need to ask me. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairpe rson, the minister knows, talking to some trustees perhaps or school divisions, that in fact we have asked for a lot of form al financial information from school divisions. Of course, some have co-operated fully and provided all of the inf ormation and more. Others, up to this point, have not yet done that, and so we do not have a complete listing. So that is

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-32b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 32b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	adac2f2b0c5c4d791e168bbe9f72196fdbc36d6b

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