COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

INDUSTRY, TRADE AND TOURISM

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 1.(b)(1) on page 97 of the Estimates book and on page 13 of the yellow supplement book.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Just a comment, it is appropriate that I introduce the deputy minister, Mr. Fred Sutherland, who has joined us in Estimates today.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I want to continue on with some questions with respect to capital and ask the minister what this government has done over the years to try to make capital dollars available for small business.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be repetitious if I said what I said yesterday. I think we debated that fairly extensively, however, I will try to keep it brief.

We have put several programs in place both directly under the Industry, Trade and Tourism, plus we have developed a capital pool fund known as Vision Capital Fund which is also a mechanism available and the Crocus Fund which has also been made available to provide capital.

There are programs which we will go through as we go through the line by line which are identified within the department, as I have indicated. We also have, as I said, had a task force in place which recommended some other actions that they would like to see taken place. Basically, that is it at this particular time.

Mr. Lamoureux: I have a few questions and the Deputy Premier will have to bear with me if, in fact, some of them seem to be somewhat repetitive.

To go through some of those funds that the Deputy Premier has made reference to both yesterday and today, the Grow Bonds Fund is, from what I understand, in terms of a rural program, more of a rural program than in terms of within the city. Is that correct?

Mr. Downey: It would be more appropriate to ask the questions on Grow Bonds under the department which they report to and that is the Department of Rural Development.

Mr. Lamoureux: I know the minister had indicated yesterday that Grow Bonds, and he talked about this in terms of making the availability of capital dollars--I do think it is an appropriate thing to ask the minister for the simple reason is that we have some programs that are in rural Manitoba, whether it is REDI, the Grow Bonds, and I am curious as to what programs the government has that are within the city of Winnipeg that allow individuals who would be interested in investing in the city of Winnipeg the same opportunities as other programs that are offered to rural Manitobans.

* (1110)

Mr. Downey: At this particular time, the rural Grow Bond program does not apply to the city of Winnipeg. We have other programs that I have referred to that are listed in the departmental Estimates, like the Manitoba Industrial Opportunities Program, Manitoba Industrial Recruitment Initiative, and they report directly to this department. The small business support program, which is a loan guarantee program up to $10,000, also applies to the city of Winnipeg. I think that basically is it.

Mr. Lamoureux: I understand the Grow Bond Program is something in which, for example, rural Manitobans, if they want to invest money into the rural communities, can filter money into the rural Grow Bonds. That, then, allows rural entrepreneurs access to these dollars. I believe there are different criteria, if you will, different forms of applications that would be made. For example, I would trust that the Industrial Opportunities division, capitaled Business Start programs, these are all programs, no doubt, also available to rural Manitobans. What I am asking the minister, is the government looking at the possibility of a program similar to the rural Grow Bond Program for the city of Winnipeg?

Mr. Downey: I can appreciate what I am taking and interpreting from the member's questioning, that he is supportive of the Grow Bond Program, and is actually advocating that program now be made available to the city of Winnipeg. Is that a correct understanding?

Mr. Lamoureux: The Liberal Party has always been supportive of the Grow Bond Program. The minister, I am sure, is fully aware of that. What I am suggesting is that it is a good idea, and I think that good ideas, where they can be expanded, should be expanded. It does not mean that you have to open up this particular program for the city of Winnipeg. It does mean, however, that the government could be considering looking at a program similar to the rural Grow Bond Program for the city of Winnipeg. Would he not concur with those remarks?

Mr. Downey: I thank the member for his endorsement of the rural Grow Bond Program, and I will certainly take as notice his request for a similar program for the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the minister--is this the first time in which he has felt that there could be a need for a program of this nature for Winnipeg entrepreneurs, if I may, and individuals that live in Winnipeg that would be prepared to invest in their communities? Is this the first time? I believe that to be the case.

Mr. Downey: First of all, I should make a clarification. The people of Winnipeg are not denied the opportunity to invest in Grow Bond programs, so I want to make that clear on the record. I have not had, either from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, and/or any representative group, an official acknowledgment that they would like to, on their behalf, see that introduced into the city.

I do not believe the capital markets task force dealt with that subject, and I cannot recall whether or not there was a recommendation in that report as to whether or not they wanted to see it applied to the city of Winnipeg.

Again, what I have said to the member was, it is a principle that I think is one that is sound. It has demonstrated in other jurisdictions that it has worked. It is working in rural Manitoba. Again, I accept the recommendations from the member for Inkster as a potential possibility of considering it for the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, ultimately I do believe that in fact this is a very unique program. It is being made available to rural entrepreneurs and businesses, and I think that there are many benefits to this particular program. That is one of the reasons why I believe a program of this similar nature might do well within the city of Winnipeg.

I wanted to comment with respect to some of the industries, and yesterday I made note of a number of the different industries that the Deputy Premier made reference to, in particular, furniture, farm machinery, aerospace, garment, agri-foods, calling centres, telecommunications, computer services, tourism, printers, if you will. Does the Deputy Premier actually have access to a list of what the different industries are or classifications of industries?

Mr. Downey: I wonder if the member could make the question more clear.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister provide for the committee members a listing of the different types of industries in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Downey: Yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: I appreciate the offer of the minister. I would hope that we would be able to anticipate seeing that in the relatively not too distant future. We will see in terms of what form it takes.

I am wondering if the minister can indicate what sorts of approaches the government takes dealing with industries in terms of trying to take down trade barriers. I want to use one specific example, that of course being busing. We do have a very significant busing industry, bus manufacturing industry, in the province. There have always been concerns with respect to the Province of Quebec and us not being able to gain access to that particular market. Can the Minister of Industry and Trade indicate what sort of actions the government takes on the industry's behalf?

Mr. Downey: First of all, this government, this ministry, previous ministers in this ministry, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), have been very strong advocates of making sure Canada has an internal trade agreement which is as open as possible to make sure that capital, people, services, can move freely within Canada, so that our government policy has clearly been stated and will continue to be stated to the point of which we have played an active role with the federal government in co-chairing the internal trade agreement. So we do not say specifically any one industry. We are saying we are trying to broaden it and make sure that all industries in Manitoba have an open access to the activities going on throughout Canada.

The member makes specific reference to the bus industry. I recently communicated, or the government recently communicated, to the premier of Ontario, the premier who is still there, who I did not get a chance earlier today to acknowledge. What I would put on the record here is that we on behalf of the bus industry in Manitoba have tried to say to them, let us not just let Ontario bid for Ontario buses, and we did communicate to them our position on a recent tendering activity.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate whether or not over the last seven years that there has been any headway made with respect

to that particular industry?

* (1120)

Mr. Downey: In general terms I have to say yes. We have seen some extremely good successes with New Flyer buses, which are marketing into the United States. They have particularly good success with the most modern technology in transit buses available in the world, with a low-level bus for making it easier for handicapped or older people to enter the bus at street level without having to climb stairs. It is a technology that I am not aware of anywhere else in the world, and we are marketing that bus very heavily in the United States. Manitoba Motor Coach Industries, as well, has had some major successes and has recently signed a contract to sell buses to Taiwan. So the bus industry in Manitoba, we believe, has been moving along very aggressively.

Another assistance to the bus industry is we have assisted all other manufacturing industries--a move made by this government, which the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) voted against--and that was the removal of the 7 percent sales tax on electricity used in the manufacturing industry. That is a major initiative. To remove a 7 percent sales tax off of that type of activity gave them a major shot in the arm. I am just disappointed the member for Inkster did not support it when it was presented to the Legislature.

Mr. Lamoureux: There are a lot of good reasons why I could ultimately argue I did not support a budget that did not provide training dollars that are necessary for businesses that are out there, and, unfortunately, the Deputy Premier and I will never agree in terms of the voting patterns that we have taken over the years.

Would the Deputy Premier then say that the busing industry as an industry has a very prosperous future in the province of Manitoba? The reason why I ask that is Motor Coach, for example--and the Deputy Premier made reference to it--was opening up additional plants. I believe there was going to be, I had heard, at least up to two other plants that were being opened. I know for sure one, and there was some concern in terms of the one being opened, I believe it was in Mexico, that it was going to have an impact on the busing manufacturing industry here. Would he comment on that future of that particular industry?

Mr. Downey: Yes, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, I think the bus industry, as all other manufacturing industries with the tax regime, again with the removal of the sales tax off of the electricity, I think augurs very well.

I guess one of the further supporting evidence of that actually taking place are the job statistics that came out today, where it clearly indicated the numbers of jobs in the manufacturing sector continue to rise, up 5,000 more jobs this year over last year. Again, a tremendous growth in manufacturing employment. Specifically about the bus industry, I am not aware of anything that would be negatively affecting them. We do have Motor Coach Industries, which has a plant in North Dakota which adds American content, which is part of the trade agreement basically and puts American content to it.

Again, New Flyer is one which, with their new technology and the activities that are being carried out there, I think the future augurs well for them and also for Motor Coach Industries.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am wondering, you know, one could actually go through the many different industries there and listen for some sort of response from the government in terms of this government's opinion on that specific industry.

At times, I think that there is a need to get some sort of an idea on how government feels. I can recall the whole debates, many of the debates with respect to the garment industry during free trade, which the Deputy Premier had made reference to yesterday. There was a lot of skepticism, believing that the garment industry would suffer dramatically with respect to free trade.

Actually, it has done considerably well. When I look at the economy, I think that there are no doubt some industries that have, in all likelihood, better growth potential than other industries. I think that the training that is made available, providing a trained workforce, you have to look in terms of what the future demands of the economy are going to be.

Now having said that, I would imagine, even though we would like to believe all industries are doing well in the province, are there industries which the Deputy Premier or this government feels will be able to excel above the average, above the norm over the next number of years?

Mr. Downey: It is our intent, Mr. Chairman, with the taxation policies and the policies of this government that all industries will be able to excel over the next many years. That I think is demonstrated by the, again, job statistics which are out today. I think it is indicated in the export numbers which we talked about yesterday in the opening statement.

I think it again is accepted by the people of Manitoba with the mandate which they gave this government to carry on the governing of this province for another five years.

Mr. Lamoureux: I appreciate the words from the Deputy Premier but I am wondering, is he not of the opinion that there are some industries that hold the potential of greater growth than other industries?

Mr. Downey: Yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Could the Deputy Premier enlighten us as to which ones he feels do have that greater potential?

Mr. Downey: Yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Okay, would the Deputy Premier then tell the committee which types of industries?

Mr. Downey: I thought I had already done that, Mr. Chairman, in yesterday's opening comments, but I will reiterate for the member.

I think we have certainly identified the telemarketing, the whole area of the communications industry as it relates to call centre activities, again a major growth centre, a new initiative; the whole transportation sector and the area related to transportation with the trucking industry; the plans for the development of an airport cargo centre, again, major activity; the whole industrial sector, as it relates to manufacturing furniture, farm machinery. Again, the mining sector is one which I referred to yesterday, major growth; the agriculture sector and the ag food processing industry, one in which we have seen and I believe will continue to see tremendous growth.

Again, the garment industry is one which I have referred to, major opportunities and growth. We are now exporting product to Asia. Who would ever have believed we would make garments here and export them to Asia? That is, in fact, taking place. There is the whole area of machinery manufacturing. Tourism is one where we have seen tremendous growth and have targeted to try and see the industry double by the year 2000.

Mr. Chairman, I would put it in this context for the member. I do not see an industry that is going to do badly. I just see some that are going to do better than others, and he has asked me to identify them. I have tried to do that. The whole pharmaceutical industry, one which has seen tremendous growth. We have gone to over $200 million in sales of pharmaceutical product. The companies have gone from a handful in 1984 to well in excess of 100 companies in that industry.

I can go on for most of today, Mr. Chairman, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee in telling the member about all the positive news stories in Manitoba. I do not want to do that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Actually, Mr. Chairperson, I am sure if the Deputy Premier wanted to, he could probably get it done in a fairly short time span in terms of those businesses or the potential for growth out in the different communities.

I would ask the Deputy Premier, does the government feel that, in fact, given the industries that you have just listed, that we are providing a workforce with the skills to be able to meet the demands in the future from those areas where we expect to see exceptional growth?

* (1130)

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, that is always an ongoing challenge for industry and for government, and again, the member said the reason he voted against a 7 percent reduction in the sales tax is because he would have seen that money maybe better spent in training programs.

I look at it this way, Mr. Chairman. I believe by giving the companies the opportunity to have that money themselves, they would participate more readily in a training program which they would spend some money on, and so it would not be a direct call on taxpayers to hire people to put training programs in place.

Having said that, there are two particular industries which we have been working very aggressively with to try and make sure they have--and I say two that come to mind--people who are available, and one of them is the garment industry.

For several months now, we have been meeting with them. There are training programs that are being put in place with government support through the Department of Education and Training to make sure there are people available. They have two requests. The garment industries say they want more immigration, immigration opened up, so they can bring in more immigrant workers for the industry, because they have had tremendous satisfaction with the work skills that those people bring to their industry, but also they ask for training activity. We have agreed and are working with them.

Another area that there have been requests and we have been working with them--again, questions would be better asked under the Department of Education and Training for specifics, but I can talk in general terms, and that is in the transportation sector. There continually needs to be support for the transportation sector.

Let me say another policy change that I think reflects this government's thinking and business was the fact that we changed the three community colleges into a governance system where it is made up of a lot of private-sector people not directly involved with the Department of Education, again trying to reflect the needs of our business community as it relates to the training of people. That is the overall policy direction that this government is giving, so that we can have people equipped to meet the needs of the businesses in our society.

I am troubled, and I say that I think the numbers today coming out of the employment stats are extremely helpful, and they confirm what we believed was the right way to go. This is demonstrating that we are having people getting equipped to take on the jobs that are out there.

I, for some time now, have had people come forward and say, if we could only employ more people, we would, in fact, expand our business or do certain things, but the availability of people, at the same time that you see unemployment numbers where they are, there is something not being brought together properly. The member is shaking his head in a positive way. If he has some ideas and thoughts, I think it would be helpful.

My colleague the minister responsible for Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), I believe in the programs that she is working on with the federal government will be helpful in making sure there are more available people in the workforce. I will make reference to the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and his comments yesterday that during his campaign, he was meeting a lot of people who were unemployed and could not find work, and he was distressed by it. I am distressed by it, as well, to hear these kinds of comments.

I guess the question is, is it lack of jobs or is it lack of specific jobs that the member is referring to? Is it lack of people having opportunities for retraining?

To me, that is what we have to do in our society. We have to make sure people are retrained. Jobs will change, people change, businesses change. We are in a very fast-changing society. We are no longer in a situation where you enter the workforce as an individual--and I could use it in the industry which I come from, the farm community.

If you were not prepared to retrain and upgrade as it related to the running of farm equipment today, particularly as we see diversification of agriculture taking place, then we would not be able to satisfy the international market opportunities that are out there. We would all be running combines, and no one would be learning how to run sugar beet operations and/or potato operations. There is a need for training activity which we believe is being met to an acceptable level. Never enough, but, again, we believe that is what has happened with the policies that we have put in place.

Again, I will refer to not my numbers but to the numbers that came out on employment stats. We believe our policies are working, and we believe that the mandate that we were given on the 25th of April was a further endorsation that the people of Manitoba accept the fact that they are working.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am not necessarily prepared to accept the fact that they are working.

I would ask the Deputy Premier, how many jobs does he believe are out there right now in the garment industry that could be filled if we had the individuals to fill them?

Mr. Downey: I am a little reluctant to put that number on the table because I do not want--I would say it is in the range of greater than 500.

I will further clarify my comment. In talking to the garment industry, they have said to me--they have not talked a lot publicly about it, but I will say it is in excess of 500 unless it has changed in the last month. That is a nice package of jobs. Now, one would say, what is the level? What are the type of working conditions? I think I would invite anyone to visit some of the modern garment factories in the province. They are not, in my estimation, that bad. The ones I visited are reasonable looking places to work. That is my own personal feeling about it.

Mr. Lamoureux: Like the minister, I, too, have had opportunity to visit garment factories in the past, even one during the last election. The reason why I ask that, I want to spend a bit of time talking about the garment industry.

You know, I asked questions similar to this a few years back to whomever was the minister at the time. I cannot recall. I think it was Mr. Ernst who was the minister. We talked about numbers. If we had the skilled workforce or if we had the people to fill those jobs, how many people are we talking about? At that time, the number that was being thrown about was in and around 600. You know, this is years that have lapsed since I asked those particular questions.

The Deputy Premier indicated that over the last couple of months they have been working to try to resolve this issue. That is what it will say in Hansard. It could have been the last few months, but this is an issue that has been there ever since, virtually, I was first elected.

There are alternatives for us to be looking at, and I do not believe the government has been addressing this particular industry. I do not want to claim to know the details of all the different industries that are out there, but I have a fairly good idea about this particular industry. I believe that ultimately by not filling--the Deputy Premier made reference to, it is a good sum of jobs, 500 jobs. Let us take the lower number of 500 jobs, if you will. That is a lot of tax dollars that could be coming into government. It is a significant and direct input that would have had in terms of the provincial GDP--and by not filling those jobs we are losing out tremendously. I do not believe that is the only industry in itself that has jobs that are available if in fact they had the skilled workforce.

When I posed the question to a couple of business people regarding--well, why is it then if it is just a question of training, why do you not just hire someone, train the individual and then you can fill that position. It was articulated to me, not by one, by at least a couple of individual business people that the primary reason is because of productivity. It is by far in their best interest to leave a position go vacant in many cases until they can hire someone with the experience.

Why do we not see government making that connection. If government is not prepared--again, I am only going to concentrate on the garment industry--to have the trained workforce or to assist in the training of the workforce in a more significant fashion, then why does it not do what we did in the early '70s where we actually had the Fashion Institute that went to foreign lands, concentrated primarily in Asia. I believe they also went to the West Indies, but I am not sure of that.

There was a concentrated effort at filling the jobs with skilled workers from foreign lands. The Deputy Premier, in other capacities, is fully aware that there is an opportunity to be had in terms of an attempt to negotiate a bilateral immigration agreement between us and the national government. I would assume that the national government would be very co-operative in trying to meet the demands of the local Manitoba economy in terms of trying to garner the skilled workforce, if that is what is necessary, in order to fill those jobs.

Ultimately, if we are not filling those jobs, we are losing out. The economy is losing out. Each one of those jobs is an additional income which has tremendous spin-offs, from the purchasing of material to homes, and I do not need to go through the whole story with the Deputy Premier.

I question the Deputy Premier when he says, look, our government is wonderful--under 7 percent--and he tries to put some words in my mouth, and I will try to refrain from putting words in his mouth if he attempts to refrain from putting words in my mouth. The Premier did say that government policies have been working. How can we say government policies have been working when we look at an industry, such as the garment industry? This government has failed, and it has failed miserably. It has not addressed the needs and the demands of this particular industry. We have not seen any serious attempt by this government to address the garment industry.

The bottom-line question is, when is this government really going to address the issue of the garment industry in the province of Manitoba?

* (1140)

Mr. Downey: I will try and be short and brief, Mr. Chairman, and to the point. The member does not need to give me or this government a lecture on how effective we are. We supported the Free Trade Agreement which, at that particular time, prior to the introduction of it, the member who is speaking, the member for Inkster and his party were adamantly opposed to the Free Trade Agreement based on the fact that the garment industry was going to shrivel up and die. I had more confidence in the garment industry. We had more confidence in the garment industry than he did. He was prepared to accept that that was going to take place. Now he is coming, berating the government because we have a tremendous number of job opportunities in the garment industry and says that we are not doing enough about it.

I maybe made an incorrect statement a few minutes ago when I said, working on the training activities for the last period of time. There have been training programs working with the industry over the last number of years. We have again tried to accelerate the numbers that are going into that program through discussions with the Department of Education. It is not a matter of not having one, it is a matter of trying to accelerate as we have seen more jobs. We are seeing opportunities for more than 500 people, probably closer to a thousand would be the proper figure. That is because of growth in the industry.

I can mention a couple of programs which we have been involved with, where there have been 150 jobs created in the garment industry because of government programs. These are new jobs with an expanding industry, so it is a growing industry. It is expanding. We are developing training programs.

There is another concern that has been brought to our attention, and that is, how effective are we in making sure that people who are either capable and/or available but are, for some other reasons, not finding themselves wanting to get into the industry? I think we have to. I have said this to the garment industry, and I will say it as committee. I think we have to be more aggressive in not only providing the initiatives that were talked about in training, we are going to be more aggressive in telling people what a positive industry it is, and that has not been done.

The member is not sitting here today saying, look, we have great opportunities and we should all be working on it. He is sitting here saying the government is not doing enough. I think the industry should be complimented on what they have done to grow and expand. It is a matter of a growth period at which opportunities are being developed. We all have to put our shoulder to the wheel and make sure people know about those opportunities.

I am actually pleased. I am sitting here pleased that the member is saying that we have to do more to make sure people get into that industry. I am pleased with that. I am also pleased that when he now stands up and says we have to do something more for job creation, we have this number of opportunities that are being demonstrated for people who feel that they would like to work in that industry. That is always critical. People have to feel comfortable. They have to feel that they can fulfill their daily needs through that kind of job. The point is, the jobs are there.

Mr. Lamoureux: The people that deserve the congratulations are in fact the business people and, most importantly, the workers that are in fact within that industry currently. The government has not risen to the challenge that the industry has put forward. The industry is what has been successful in creating more jobs than this government or the population can offer in terms of a workforce, from what we are being told from industry reps, from what the Deputy Premier is saying himself, that we are not meeting the demands of the potential for growth in this particular industry.

The Deputy Premier makes reference that he has had some programs through education and training and so forth. It could even be through things like Workforce 2000, no doubt, but the bottom line is that we have not been able to resolve a major industry's requirement of providing skills and individuals that would be prepared to work within that industry.

Knowing many people who work within the garment industry and the efforts that they put in and how commendable it is, I am wondering if the minister is now at least prepared, in order to address this particular situation head-on, to look at some sort of immigration agreement of sorts that would see representatives from Manitoba, possibly from the Fashion Institute, or from some of the local union reps possibly, going down to see if in fact we can recruit some of the individuals with the skills so that we can see some of these jobs being filled on the short term? If he is not prepared to look into that sort of action, then attempt to indicate to us what it is then you are going to do to try to fill those jobs in the short term.

Mr. Downey: As I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, we have been working with the industry very closely over the past years, months, probably more aggressively this last while, to make sure that Manitobans can find a job in the garment industry. I am sitting here today with, what I would consider, a pretty good problem to have on our hands. We have just had Statistics Canada report the second best unemployment rate in all of Canada, increased numbers in manufacturing jobs in a very substantive way, a thousand more people working this month over last month. Again, youth unemployment is the lowest in all of Canada. Our numbers are here in hard form with the jobs that are out there, with 523,000 people working in Manitoba.

We are also hearing the member say, well, we have not done enough to make sure people are fitting in those jobs. I am telling him, we are working very aggressively to do that. This is not the only industry, so it tells me that we could even have a lower unemployment rate, that we can even drive our economy harder and stronger with the opportunities that are there. I am pleased with that situation, that we have that kind of opportunity for people to go to work in. Again, it would be a lot more difficult, sitting here taking criticism from the opposition, if we did not have up to a thousand jobs in the garment industry to fill, if we did not have jobs in the transportation industry to fill, if we did not have jobs in all these other areas to fill.

So I sit here today trying to keep a smile from being on my face all the time because I am really pleased with the numbers we have and the opportunities we have for jobs in Manitoba for people who could work in that industry. As I said, though, and I qualify it, everybody does not work in the garment industry. Everybody does not want to work in these certain industries, but at least there are some opportunities there. How can we work and be more effective? Well, I am certainly working very closely with the garment people. This is not the first time I have heard about the garment industry's concern from the member for Inkster. We have been, as I said, for months been working very aggressively with them to try and satisfy the need, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Lamoureux: The Deputy Premier is quite happy in the sense that he says, well, look, we should not be complaining. After all, we are doing so well in terms of unemployment statistics relatively compared to the rest of the country. One could argue that, yes, we should be happy for that, but we should also be sad for the fact that maybe this particular minister does not want to see the economy expand.

If, in fact, the unemployment rates are low and we have the opportunity to expand the economy in a more serious fashion by taking stronger action today so that during a business cycle we have more jobs and more things that we are able to work with, to generate additional revenues for different sorts of programming, in particular, training programs and so forth, if we took a look at just those 500--I do not want to use a thousand. I want to stick to the low, and that is what I did a few years ago when I talked about the 500 jobs within the garment industry. How many tax dollars are being lost by not having those jobs filled?

If those tax dollars were made available because those jobs were filled, maybe then what we could be doing is we could provide training programs for the individuals that are on unemployment insurance or even for those individuals that have given up hope and their unemployment insurance has run out or have decided to withdraw from the workforce because they felt that it was bleak, or possibly even keep more Manitobans in the province by using some of those tax dollars that these 500 jobs would generate in terms of providing additional training for what else but the other areas that are in need of skills, other industries that need skills.

* (1150)

So, yes, I am pleased that their unemployment is considerably lower than the rest of Canada, but I am not pleased with the government's reaction to the whole question of providing a skilled workforce for the jobs that are empty, that need to be filled today, because you are missing out on opportunities. If we do not fill those jobs, you could see those jobs go elsewhere, ultimately, and that would be somewhat sad to see.

Again, the minister does not, I guess, have to answer the question specifically, but is the minister prepared to look at the possibility of having again the Fashion Institute or some organization go abroad, with both the provincial and national governments' consent, to try to address the demands of this particular industry?

Mr. Downey: Am I taking it that the member for Inkster is saying he wants to import people to take the jobs of people who are here, to take jobs away from them? Is that what he is suggesting?

I am not clear on it, because it seems to me the first effort should be put forward to training and making sure Manitobans and Canadians have that work opportunity. We are doing that, and I have said it again, through training programs and through working with the Fashion Institute.

I can tell him that I want to see this economy grow and expand, and we have demonstrated that, particularly in the manufacturing sector, by removing the sales tax off of electricity. He voted against that. I voted for it. We have also put in some tax-incentive measures for businesses to grow and expand. He voted against it. I voted for it.

Mr. Chairman, there is another point I should make as it relates to industry and the development of people in that industry. There are apprenticeship programs, which I believe are very important and a way in which people develop and grow their workforce. I believe, with some of the monies that those industries have left with them, it is an opportunity for them to do that, to develop apprenticeship-type programs and pay people for on-the-job training. That is a principle and a philosophy which I strongly believe in, that workforce training on the job is extremely important.

If you allow the industry, if you do not continually strangle it with taxes and overburden of costs that government impose on them, they have a little more flexibility to do that and they can be competitive. They can hire people, and they can train them in the workforce.

There is no one wants to see this economy grow any better than I do. All I am saying again is we have demonstrated, the numbers are demonstrated, that industries are growing and expanding in this province. We are seeing opportunities that are waiting for people. We are talking about industries that are waiting for people. Now, if we have to develop and train more, again, I have said we are working with the Fashion Institute. We have departmental people on a regular basis working with them to develop and to try to make sure this workforce is available to them.

These are not the only problems that the industry has, but I can tell you it is a very, very--pardon the pun--close-knit industry, and it is very much an industry that has, I think, grown as the opportunities have availed themselves.

Again, we will do our utmost to make sure that people are available to them, and if they, in their recommendations, want us to do other things, they will be considered.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, from the onset I would say that I disagree adamantly with what the minister was saying at the beginning of his remarks with respect to immigrants taking jobs or potential jobs away from other Manitobans. The Deputy Premier should be fully aware that--in particular, of all the industries we are talking about the garment industry--we would likely not have a garment industry of any significance if it were not for the immigrants. [interjection]

No, you did not say you did not want immigrants, but you implied that or the immigrants could take the jobs away from the workforce of the people that are here currently. Hansard will show that through.

The question to the Deputy Premier is, is he prepared to entertain with respect to the garment industry allowing a fashion institute or some mechanism for immigrants to fill some of those jobs in order to meet the demand from the industry?

Mr. Downey: I think, again, the member is trying to put something on the record that I did not say or imply something that I did not say. I fully appreciate the contribution that the immigrant people have made to the garment industry. Without question, there are a lot of people who have emigrated to this country who make up a large percentage of the workforce.

Yes, I am supportive of immigrant people coming to this country and taking and helping the industry grow. Instead of taking it out of context, I wish he would have listened to what I said. I believe we have to make sure that those available Manitobans who are capable and can be trained to meet the demands should be a priority which we all work on. I do not have any problem with new, additional people coming in. It is a matter of being on balance.

Let us face it, it is an opportunity for growth and expansion. We want that. It is a matter of making sure, as I said--and put it in proper context--that Manitobans that are available and capable have those job opportunities as well as, on balance, making it available for new additional immigrant workers. That is I think key to the future growth of this country and this province.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the Deputy Premier indicate what new programs? Because apparently the other programs have not necessarily been meeting the demand to fill those positions. How does the Deputy Premier assure the industry that the training that is going to be necessary for individuals to acquire the skills from within the province of Manitoba are going to be given the opportunity to acquire those skills so that they can get jobs from that particular industry?

Mr. Downey: I do not think the member understands that the number of jobs in the garment sector today are greater than they were two years ago, greater than they are today. The industry is growing. Jobs are being fulfilled. People are filling those jobs and at the same time the opportunities. The industry is out promoting itself and growing and developing because we come from a position--where he and his party oppose free trade. With free trade it is turned around to what was anticipated.

The garment industry did not wither and die as was projected. The garment industry went the opposite way. They dug in and they said, we can do it right here for Manitoba. They are now marketing into Asia and all over the world, right from here in Manitoba. It has been a growth industry. Do we have enough people to satisfy them today? No, we do not. Will there be a continual need for people? I believe there will.

If the member does not understand that, I do not think I have time in this lifetime to explain it to him. As an industry grows, you need people; you need availability of them. That is what is happening.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate the number of garment industry jobs that are there today?

Mr. Downey: Pardon me?

Mr. Lamoureux: How many garment industry jobs are there today?

Mr. Downey: I will take that question as notice and get it for the member.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would appreciate that. I would also appreciate if in fact you would go back over the last few years and get an idea in terms of just how that industry has grown and compare that to the demands of the industry, because the demands, as I can recall, at least for the last four or five years, have been for 500-plus positions that have not been filled. So the government can say whatever it wants;, the bottom line is that the positions are not being filled.

The minister also made reference to transportation as a great potential for growth. There are a number of jobs that are there today, but again are not necessarily being filled. I am wondering if the Deputy Premier can elaborate on that.

Mr. Downey: No.

Mr. Lamoureux: Does the Deputy Premier not know about the industry? Is that why he is saying no?

Mr. Downey: Again, Mr. Chairman, I am being repetitive. We have programs in place working with the trucking industry. We have a program in place to train 200 long-range truck drivers.

Mr. Lamoureux: The Deputy Premier made reference with respect to the garment industry that there are between 500 to 1,000 jobs that are potentially out there to be filled. Can the Deputy Premier give us an indication with respect to this industry?

* (1200)

Mr. Downey: It is my understanding--I do not have any recent numbers, but I believe they are greater than what are available in the garment industry.

Mr. Lamoureux: I do not necessarily have the same sort of background with respect to transportation industry. Can the minister give some sort of indication as to when this potential for growth has been there in the sense of whether we have required or had these jobs available for the last year, two years, three years? When did the government realize that there was a severe shortage of skills for filling these jobs?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, again it is another growth industry, the whole transportation sector, as your economy grows and the demands grow for services provided by the trucking industry.

I think the other thing the member has to observe is there has been some shifting in the transportation sector to more road transportation. This is specifically what we are talking about, long-range truck drivers. Again, we are the home for the majority of the major trucking companies in all of Canada. That is eight out of 13 or seven out of 14. We are in a position of having--and thank goodness we are, because it is a tremendous base for us. It has been growing and expanding over the last few years.

Again, as I have indicated, we have got a program in place. We have had not too many months ago a letter from an individual, from a company, their company had demand for some 200 people in western Canada which Manitoba would be a part of.

So it cannot get any more specific. I would have to do a direct call around to each of them to find out specifically, but I know the trend has been for greater demand of people in that sector. The numbers which I am going by from memory probably would be greater than what was available in the garment sector for a need for people.

Mr. Lamoureux: I was wanting to go into alternative forms of training, if you will, but prior to that I appreciate when the Deputy Premier makes reference to, look, we have industries and those industries have been growing, so that is at least in part the reason why those jobs are there right now.

I can recall, and I will take the manufacturing sector for example, I do not have the latest, I know the Deputy Premier has the latest stats out with reference to it, but I believe when I was first elected the manufacturing industry was somewhere around 61,000. Can the minister give an indication on what our manufacturing industry or sector is at right now for full-time employment?

Mr. Downey: Again, I will get that information for the member.

Mr. Lamoureux: I appreciate the offer of information that is going to be provided for me. I would hope and trust that it would be coming some time in the not too distant future.

With respect to training and retraining, the government does have, through different departments, different forms of programs such as the Workforce 2000. One of the ideas that we have felt would be a good direction for the province to take is more of an apprenticeship type starting right at the high school level or at Grade 9 or S1, if you like. I am wondering if the minister feels that his department has any role to play with apprenticeship beginning at the Grade 9 level?

Mr. Downey: I think what my responsibilities are to work to make sure industries have a satisfactory pool of workforce available to them. The questions he is asking, I think, would be more appropriately asked in the Department of Education and Training, which would be the appropriate place.

What I am saying is we are, through general government policy, trying to make sure that we have people trained, people educated to do the jobs that are out there that our economy and our policies have helped create the demands for.

Mr. Lamoureux: So from this minister's perspective, the department does not necessarily have a role to play with respect to providing apprenticeship or ensuring that apprenticeship to Grade 9 level is there?

Mr. Downey: I think I made a general policy statement as to what I believe, and that is, I am supportive of apprenticeship programs. I think it is an excellent way. On-the-job training is an absolute essential to provide quality people for jobs that they will be carrying out on a longer term.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, allow me to give an example. Let us say a Grade 10 high school student would work part time at a local business maybe doing lathe work or something of that nature on a half-time basis and for the other half time he is in the classroom. So when, ultimately, this particular individual graduates from high school, he has the skills to meet the demands of a skilled workforce and he also has the experience. I would suggest that that is one of the things which the Department of Industry and Trade should definitely be interested in.

I would ask for the Deputy Premier just to comment on that.

Mr. Downey: I am interested in it.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am glad to hear he is interested in it. Now would he tell me to what degree? Does he believe that we should be moving in that direction? Is he prepared to sit down with, for example, the Minister of Education to ensure that a program of this nature would be instituted?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, the concept, the principle of apprenticeship I have spoken to several times. Yes, I believe it is a proper way to go, it is an excellent way to train people, and I am prepared to sit down and discuss apprenticeship programs with the Minister of Education.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the bluntness of the answer that the Deputy Premier has provided.

I firmly believe that this is in fact a role for the Department of Industry and Trade at least to participate in to some degree, because again you are better acquainted in many ways than the Department of Education in terms of what is happening out there in the private sector. If that communication is not there, then I think that we are losing out on a lot of potential good opportunities both for business and, ultimately, I would argue, most importantly, for that young student, because in many cases it does look somewhat bleak. I am sure the Deputy Premier quite often talks to young people and has formed opinions in terms of what they feel their future is all about. So I think it is a positive thing.

The government does have programs that are currently in place. Are there any new initiatives that this minister is looking at currently?

* (1210)

Mr. Downey: Just a reference to the last comments made about the young people in our society, this government is strongly committed to making sure there are opportunities in the workforce for our young people. Again, I can tell the member that our policies apparently are working. We have the lowest youth unemployment in all of Canada at just over 10 percent. That we are extremely proud of and I, again, will put it on the record so that he can hear it.

It is just unfortunate that he, as a member of the Legislature over the past few budgets, has voted against the kinds of initiatives, incentives, that have been put in place that will develop the situation that we have today with our unemployment rate, the second lowest in all of Canada, more people working than ever before.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I am just disappointed in the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that he is now coming forward as critical as he is and then demonstrating in his lack of support in past votes as to whether or not the 7 percent sales tax removal on electricity--voted against it; other incentive programs in place--voted against it. Now he is sitting here saying there is something desperately wrong. I am disappointed in him, I have to say. I thought he was a little more open-minded and supportive than that.

I am prepared to further, as a departmental minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism, work to the development of opportunities for our young people, and apprenticeship programs are one which I happen to agree with. So we are on the same wavelength on that one. I just wish he would get on the same wavelength when I come to taking some of the pressures off of business when it relates to taxes. He just is not consistent in his approach, and I am extremely disappointed in that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if the Deputy Premier answered the question but to respond to his discussion or points, I can assure the Deputy Premier had I felt that the government's past budgets were better than what a Liberal administration could do in the province of Manitoba, I would have voted in favour of them. I have, unfortunately from his perspective no doubt, but fortunately from our perspective, felt that the Liberal administration would have done better than what this Deputy Premier--

An Honourable Member: You are actually in a minority in that opinion.

Mr. Lamoureux: In a minority in one sense.

I would like to get an answer to the actual question that I posed and that is, is this department currently looking at any opportunities for new training or retraining programs or initiatives?

Mr. Downey: We are always open to looking at new opportunities that will help enhance the opportunities in Manitoba, the workforce, business. We are always open to looking at new activities.

Mr. Lamoureux: But currently there are no new initiatives on the close horizon?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, yes, when one looks across government, one can see a tremendous lot of new activities and ideas that will be brought forward specifically within our department. We will only be part of it as it relates to making sure that the jobs like we have talked about in the garment industry continue to be there for those people to enter into when they have completed their activities.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I have just a couple of procedural questions, then I am prepared to pass this area.

I asked the minister for some information yesterday on a number of different areas. I am wondering whether any of the lists that I had asked for are available today.

Mr. Downey: I will have to check.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I can give the minister the areas if he needs them, but I believe he probably has a record.

Just a technical question on the Order-in-Council appointing Mr. Kupfer and Mr. Robertson to MDC, I think it is. Are there any other board members remaining, or that is it?

Mr. Downey: That is it.

Mr. Sale: Lastly, would the minister table a list of the officers and board members of MTC which I believe is now the central role Mr. Kupfer is going to be carrying out?

Mr. Downey: Yes.

Mr. Sale: Pass.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $613,000--pass.

(2) Other Expenditures $73,600.

Mr. Sale: Could the minister indicate a list of the requests under The Freedom of Information Act which have been made in the current year, the numbers that have been completely filled, partially filled and refused?

Mr. Downey: We will get that information, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I have it here now. Would he say again the year?

Mr. Sale: The year immediately past.

Mr. Downey: That is for 1994?

Mr. Sale: 1994-95.

Mr. Downey: The department received 18 applications in 1994: four granted as requested; four partially granted, five access denied; two access denied on the basis of no record found; two transferred to appropriate department and one abandoned by applicant.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support (2) Other Expenditures $73,600--pass; 1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $651,700--pass; 1.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $334,100--pass.

Item 1.(d) Research and Economic Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $407,400.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I have a number of questions in this area, and I want to preface my questions just with a few statistics, which I am sure are available to the minister, but for the record.

You will remember yesterday in our discussion I tried to stay with a perspective that was longer term rather than year over year. So I want to just note that in the period from 1980 to 1995, 15-year period, the manufacturing sector in Manitoba has fallen by 10,000 jobs. The public administration sector in total, in spite of all of the new programs the government has been involved in, has risen by only 7,000 jobs. Agriculture has fallen by 6,000.

There has been no change in primary, other primary it is called, primary manufacturing, primary sectors. Business services have grown by far the most, by 60,000; finance, insurance and real estate by 3,000 over a base of 28,000; trade by only 2,000 over a base of 81,000; transportation, communication, other utilities by 3,000 over a base of 47,000; and construction has fallen by the same amount, by 3,000 over a base of 23,000.

So I want to preface my comments with the fact that I am as pleased as any other Manitoban with the employment numbers, and as I said in my opening comments, governments should neither take all the blame nor all the credit for employment numbers which are obviously cyclical and partially reflect the internal conditions in a market, but they also partially reflect conditions far beyond the market, and obviously manufacturing exports are one of those.

I want to also put on the record that the manufacturing sector of which the government is proud, and in the last year the growth in that sector has been impressive, but nevertheless the manufacturing sector in 1989--which is as far back as the table that I am using goes. This is Table 9, Exports by Industry, Manitoba Bureau of Statistics, June '94. In 1989 exports were $1.7 billion, imports $2.6 billion for a $900 million shortfall between exports and imports. In other words, we had a deficit of manufacturing trade in 1989 of about $900 million. By 1993, which is the most recent data available in this table, exports had grown by about $300 million to $2 billion, slightly over $2 billion, but imports, Mr. Chairperson, had skyrocketed to $3.8 billion. So now our trade deficit in manufacturing goods has risen from about $900 million to $1.8 billion. In other words, it has doubled in this period of time.

So, while I am not going to suggest that the government's current unemployment numbers are bad--I am happy for that, and I am happy for my constituents and the minister's constituents that can find work of a good kind--I want to point out that we have not got a good record in the area of imports and export balance. So, while I must admit to some frustration with the member for Inkster's (Mr. Lamoureux) questions, I nevertheless would say to the minister that we may have been doing better than we were in terms of exports, but we are doing much worse than we were in terms of balance, and the balance to me is a very serious question. I wonder if the minister has any comments on that.

* (1220)

Mr. Downey: Well, I do not agree with the premise which the member puts on the record. According to the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics, it is in fact doing the opposite. The ratio of exports to imports is factually improving for the province of Manitoba as it relates to the numbers which we have from the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I think it is not probably helpful to go on in a battle of numbers. I am interested in the trade deficit difficulties which we are in, and the question of rates of improvement is always a question of what base you used, but I think we can leave that. We have both put our comments on the record.

I am interested in a sector that the minister spoke about in some detail, except that I seem to have lost the sheet that I was wanting to refer to. The minister has talked about the interprovincial trade group of which he, I believe, is the co-chair, and he has spoken about the progress that he sees being made in this area.

I am concerned about a sector that was left out of the NAFTA agreement, which I believe is now on the table under the direction of the minister, and is Mr. Barber involved in these negotiations? It is the MUSH, the so-called MUSH sector, municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.

Could the minister tell the committee what the status of the negotiations about the inclusion of the MUSH sector in the Agreement on Internal Trade, the AIT? What is the status of those discussions?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate to say there is currently dialogue going on with the representatives from the municipal organizations as it relates to the internal trade agreement. It is not a matter of--I do not take the position that they should be. It is not our mandate to directly force participation.

I would hope that over the discussion period, one could encourage, because let us look at it in the same context that we look at it as a province, and I am sure the federal government looks at it as it relates to the provinces, that if we continually set up barriers to the businesses within our provinces as to whether or not they are allowed to bid on tendered activities province to province or disallowed through a restriction of provincial governments from entering that marketplace, that what you have is you have a building effect of which the cost to the consumer who is buying those really becomes an island unto itself, and how do you eventually make sure that the lowest cost service is being provided?

So that is the principle which we operate on, so I would say to him at this particular time, there are discussions still taking place. I do plan in the next short period of time to meet with the municipalities to discuss what their current concerns are and go from there.

Again, it is a matter of Canada, whether you are talking province to province, province to federal government, or municipality to municipality, has traditionally worked on a compromise way of doing things. I would hope that the municipal leaders--and some that I have talked to are very open to free trade. I think there are limits. Of course, you would not want to have a municipality, for every small, little detail that they want, to have to go and say this is offered to the rest of Canada to sell into our market. But when you get into the larger projects, then it means quite a bit. And I think that eventually, if you do not have free trade between the provinces and between the municipalities, you eventually erode the fibre that keeps this country together.

You bid as a Manitoban or you live as a Manitoban rather than as a Canadian. At the end of the day those are the questions that have to be answered by people who want to continue to have barriers between government jurisdictions. It is in the Canadian and the national interest that I believe we have to press and pursue and encourage that the municipalities fully participate--and schools and hospitals.

Mr. Sale: I thank the minister for that response. Mr. Chairperson, is the minister then saying that the policy of the government is that all major purchases--and I invite him to suggest if he has an idea of what a threshold might be for major and minor, I suspect there is some sense of threshold--that all major acquisitions should be subject to the NAFTA national treatment regulations so that there is tendering and that sort of thing on all major purchases.

Mr. Downey: I do not disagree with that.

Mr. Sale: I wonder, then, Mr. Chairperson, if the minister would convey to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) his comments, because there appears to be a bit of a discrepancy between the minister's approach on major projects and the Minister of Finance's approach on major projects. We have a $111-million arena which, because it is being fast-tracked and for all kinds of other reasons which are not particularly positive reasons, will not be subject to tender and will not benefit Manitoba's communities to the degree that I think a major project of that scale should.

Mr. Downey: I do not accept the premise of which the member refers. I believe that there was a proper and adequate process which brought forward proposals, and I will make no further comment. I do not see any inconsistency in what I have said as to what is being carried out in all areas.

Mr. Sale: For the record, I think the minister knows that the nature of the project has changed, not just in a large way, but it has changed in a continuous way, from the time that MEC called for proposals last fall. There also has been very significant elevation of the government commitment to the project, and I will not enter into debate about the propriety of the level of the input. That is a matter for the government to determine, but the question of control and tendering of public projects I think is a very major concern.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to break for a period of time and that the clock continue running? [agreed]

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, just before we do I have some information which I will provide for the member, which he had asked for yesterday actually, projects which the government participated in through loan programs. It is fairly self-explanatory.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We will resume at approximately one o'clock.

The committee recessed at 12:29 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 1 p.m.

* (1300)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1. Administration and Finance (d) Research and Economic Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $407,400.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, we were on the question of the MUSH sector when we took a short break. I want to go back to that and ask the minister to talk about the role of the Canadian Health Development Foundation which I think has a role in the MUSH sector, particularly in the hospitals portion of that.

Mr. Downey: I am not able to speak in detail in that area. As the member knows, the well-known Manitoban and Winnipegger who very credibly handled the responsibilities as the negotiator and basically the lead on the internal trade agreement, Mr. Arthur Mauro--and so as it relates to that specific detail I cannot comment. I am prepared to, however, bring back some information as it relates to their participation and how much involvement there was.

I say in the process what we did as ministers was to have our staff develop the basic principles, guidelines and do the discussions in the different sectors. I apologize, I cannot give him any more detailed information on that particular issue.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I ask the minister, would he want to defer this to a later discussion, or are there other resources he might want to consult in order to talk more about this area, or how would he like to handle this?

Mr. Downey: Again, maybe the member could give me a list of specific areas which he wants to deal with, and then I will see if I can deal with them. If I cannot deal with them here I will bring the information back, so either at my ministerial salary time or whatever, we can deal with it. I will make sure we try to get him the information, is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. Sale: My concern is this--and I may need tutoring in this area, but let me try and put it as I understand it. The agreement on internal trade is intended to insofar as possible harmonize the rules interprovincially so that provinces will treat each other's industries and resources in a nondiscriminatory manner. In effect the internal trade agreement will replicate the NAFTA agreement in terms of national treatment, so it will say that internally firms must be treated on a fair and equitable basis regardless of where they are located in terms of their access to business in any province.

My understanding of that--and this is where I may not be correct--is that means that in effect these rules then become NAFTA rules. Once you have placed your firms internally on a level playing field, to use a term that was discussed during the Free Trade Agreement, the FTA, they then are in competition with the firms of other nationals that are party to NAFTA, and that by opening up the MUSH sector, which is the one I am particularly concerned about, we would then de facto open up to the requirement to open up all procurement in the MUSH sector depending on what the exclusions and thresholds and other limitations were, but in effect, by including the MUSH sector, we would put all of these firms under the NAFTA rules. Maybe the minister could comment on that.

Mr. Downey: Again, I will get confirmation on this. I am of the understanding that basically, without the agreement of the municipalities--this is negotiable--a discussion is being carried on.

If the member is saying look, this opens up all of the different purchasing agencies for the hospitals and the schools and the municipalities to a U.S. bid as well as a Canadian bid, I would have to get--I would generally have to get a clear legal opinion or an opinion from the department and/or the secretariat as it relates to this. I do not believe--and I say this generally, just talking as an intent--that was the intent as it related to the non-Canadian trade activities. What you are saying is that could in fact imply--I cannot give you a clear answer. I am under the impression, I say that generally at this point, that it would not be more within the Canadian seat. So again, laws are laws and agreements are agreements, and I will get the interpretation and the clarification on the issue which the member raises.

Mr. Sale: I appreciate the minister's answer. I think that this is really a vital question. The minister states that he is not entirely sure of the implication. I hope that he will be, and perhaps there is not time in our Estimates, but I hope that he will undertake to provide an opinion on this question.

The sources that I have read suggest that once a firm is given national treatment, that is equivalent under the NAFTA agreement to national treatment for all firms, and by implication, that means the opening. I also understand--and I do not think this is in dispute--that once a sector has been opened it cannot then be reserved in any subsequent activity that under both the new world trade agreement and the various incarnations of NAFTA and FTA--once something is moved into the open playing field it cannot then be subsequently be taken back out of it without abrogating the charter or without the agreement of all the parties, which is highly unlikely. So, am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. Downey: I believe so.

Mr. Sale: Then I would just like to refer to a bit of history. The minister has spoken earlier in response to the member for Inkster's (Mr. Lamoureux) questions about a wide range of things. He spoke very positively about the bus sector in Manitoba, the transportation sector, but particularly the bus manufacturing sector.

This is my opinion and, therefore, I cannot prove it, but my sense is that had governments in Manitoba, particularly the City of Winnipeg, not protected the ability of Western Flyer, Flyer, Western Flyer and then, ultimately, den Oudsten to sell their buses into not a protected but at least a semisheltered market, it is highly likely that that firm would have gone bankrupt long since because, essentially, for a number of years the only buses that it sold were sold within semiprotected markets before it began to be successful in marketing outside of Canada.

* (1310)

In effect, as the minister has presented in his Estimates and Supplementary Information, we incubated that industry; whether by design or by accident, that is what we did.

In the health sector and in the education sector, there are many good Canadian firms, Manitoba firms, that provide a very good product and a very good service, but they are likely not to be able to withstand predatory pricing practices from companies who wish to take over a market share by providing what may not be illegal in the sense of predatory pricing but which may be so competitive that the local pockets are not deep enough to withstand the onslaught. And I think we have seen that in the health sector.

We have seen the beginning of contracting out, and it is not that I am opposed unalterably to contracting out for union purposes. I think there is always a union question in contracting out, but even the contracting out, quite apart from the union question, to non-Manitoba suppliers such as Howard Johnson's in the housekeeping, the hotel component of health care, we are talking about, under an initiative that the Minister of Health announced in January, to bring all of the hospitals in Winnipeg together into one major purchasing agreement, one central laundry, one central commissary.

The intention, as I understand it, from those who are going to be heading up those initiatives, is to contract out the provision of those services, put them up for tender. I think almost inevitably we will see the increasing presence of very large American firms who can loss-lead their way into a dominant position and ultimately cost Manitobans very significant dollars, because there is no evidence that it is cheaper to provide health care in the American model than it is in the Canadian. The contrary is obviously true. And the quality of the jobs may not be as good as the quality of the jobs they replace.

So I would appreciate the minister responding to that concern about not contracting out in the sense of union busting--that is another issue--but contracting out in the sense of losing Manitoba's and other provinces' ability to meet their own health, education and municipal needs and being dominated increasingly by large American companies.

Mr. Downey: Not returning the comments with a question, I guess I would ask, what evidence would the member put forward that there already is not a major dominance of American suppliers in the system doing it on an individual basis within the system? Is there any evidence that already is not taking place?

Mr. Sale: The minister, I think, is correct in that a great number of our medical resources come from the United States, equipment and, increasingly, services. That, Mr. Chairperson, is not, in my view, a good thing. The minister has taken some pride in his opening remarks, and I think justifiably, in the development of the health industry's initiative in Manitoba, that it has moved from a tiny sector to a significant sector, still not large but it is certainly much better than it was.

I think that the opening up to the AIT and thereby, I think, to NAFTA will undercut the ability of provinces, particularly smaller provinces, to incubate their own suppliers and to develop the kind of diversified economy that the minister speaks positively of and I would speak positively of.

Mr. Downey: Again, Mr. Chairman, I guess one has to--it is a matter of balance. First of all, in doing so, you are looking at cost savings that we are all forced to look at as it relates to the provision of services and the purchase of goods. To what point does one take that--and that is the issue which the member raises--to which you would become fully captive of a major company that would be dealing exclusively with one entity? How do you control or offset the risk that may be there. I guess it is a matter of a judgment call.

That is why I raised the issue as to how much today we are dealing with companies that are of the same origin doing the same thing. Would it in any way threaten or put us in a vulnerable position? I do not believe so. I think there would still be enough competition--"competition" is the right word--within the industry that would not hold us captive of any one particular company. So that would be my response as it relates to that particular subject.

Mr. Sale: I cannot comment with a great degree of knowledge in the municipal sector, but in the health sector while the equipment suppliers are largely offshore, not entirely, but largely offshore, the services in the health sector are virtually all still supplied within the province and usually by the institutions themselves or by a consortium of institutions. It is still the exception for services to be supplied by nondomestic suppliers.

The minister, I am sure, knows that the American experience is that the American health care system is ruinously inefficient, not efficient. Its costs are virtually out of control, not entirely because the public sector still has some control through Medicare and Medicaid, but the drug costs are out of control, preferred provider programs are increasingly expensive and pricing many Americans out of health insurance. It comes from, at least in part, the fact that health is a scarce good. It is not a good like lots of other goods that can be easily treated through the market. There are some things that work in the market, some that do not. Health is one of the ones that does not work in the market.

I simply want to express to the minister our concern that in the AIT discussions, the issue of the health sector should be seen as a particular case that needs very, very careful examination before there is any move to open it up to national treatment, because there--I can quote to the minister the American head of Great-West Life who was quoted in American hearings as saying that the Canadian health care system is the last great oyster to be pried open.

The American multinationals in the health care field view Canada's health care system as a profit centre. They know that if they were able to move it into the same shape as their system is, we would be spending another $20 billion to $25 billion a year in health care were we to be modelling the American system. They spend 15 percent of GDP on health care, we spend 10. Our medicare costs are $45 billion. If you up that $45 billion by 50 percent, that is another $22.5 billion. That is the inefficiency, the opportunity cost, if you like, of delivering health care through a private public model that has very little government control over it.

One of the elements of that, and I am not claiming it is the only element by any means, but one of the elements is the ability to global fund the health delivery system, rather than to fund it on the kind of line-by-line, contract-by-contract basis which is less efficient and opens you in this particular field. Because it is a natural monopoly in lots of ways, it opens you to monopoly pricing. I simply put that on the record as a concern and hope the minister will take it.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, as I initially thought, I just confirm that there is no linkage between the internal agreement as it relates to trade and NAFTA and, particularly, municipalities--

Mr. Sale: I am sorry, Mr. Chairperson, I did not hear the minister. There is no linkage, did you say?

Mr. Downey: That is right. There is no linkage between the Agreement on Internal Trade and NAFTA as it relates to the municipal procurement.

Mr. Sale: I am sorry, I genuinely do not understand the response.

Mr. Downey: The internal agreement, which has been signed between the provinces, will not open up procurement obligations for municipalities to offer their purchases to U.S. companies. It is internal to Canada.

Mr. Sale: Just so that I am sure that I understand that, I understand that the Agreement on Internal Trade is an agreement on internal trade in Canada. What I was asking was whether then by virtue of doing that, by virtue of the provinces moving out of the field, does that not then subject them in those sectors to the NAFTA rules?

Mr. Downey: The answer that I am being told is no.

Mr. Sale: I thank the minister for that, and I thank you for being patient with my puzzlement here.

Mr. Downey: I want to make a clarification. I am talking municipal procurement; that is what I said.

Mr. Sale: There are the other three sectors then. The MUSH sector is not just municipal?

Mr. Downey: The same thing.

Mr. Sale: Is it true for all four of the components?

Mr. Downey: Correct.

Mr. Sale: I appreciate that series of answers. Still on (d)(1) I have a couple more questions here. Under the issue of infrastructure is the government open to or concerned about the possibility of providing legislation to ban large volumes of water export to the United States? Is this an issue that you are concerned about at present? Are you proposing any action on it?

* (1320)

Mr. Downey: In a serious note, the answer is no. I am not aware of any discussions or negotiations of export of water to the U.S. in a form any larger than what the current regulations say. I do not know whether it is in a two-litre bottle or a five-gallon pail, but I believe that is basically what the restrictions are currently.

There are some areas of our communities right now that would like to export some water somewhere, on the lighter side. My preference is to make either food products through irrigation with the water, make electricity and manufacture product and sell the product into the international marketplace. That is how we would like to sell our water rather than the raw resource.

Mr. Sale: Again, I thank the minister for a forthright response. I agree that hip waders are necessary in several parts of Canada right now. A concern here is this, that we know that large parts of the United States, and including certainly the central Midwest, apart from their periodic floods like ours, have a need for water.

There is a great interest in water imports. I think in the long run we have to learn to live with the water we have got. If we are going to inhabit an area, we have to learn to live with that and not to artificially prop up our ability to exploit either land or any other resource by exporting large volumes of water to a country that is incredibly wasteful with its water. So I am glad to hear the minister's response on that.

I am also wondering if the minister could comment on the Red River Trade Corridor proposal. These are all issues of trade growth, and I am not sure whether that proposal comes under your department. I think it does. Perhaps you could comment on the status of that.

Mr. Downey: There has been recently support given to not only the Red River Trade Corridor but also the North America trade corridor which takes in the western region of the province, No. 10 highway, No. 83 highway. Basically as--and I say this in the position that I come to the office--is that Manitoba I look at as a central part of Canada and as a central part of a trade corridor within Canada.

The more routes that we have, whether it is through air or on the road to promote and develop trade, the better off we are, not that we should not be disputing whether it goes off the east side of the province, the central part of the province or the west side. We are all in this to try and, I believe, mutually co-operate to advance the trade activity through the United States, central United States, and into Mexico.

We have supported them. The most recent support that went to the Red River Trade Corridor and the North Central Trade Corridor was $25,000 each to promote and enhance themselves as Manitoba representatives and organizations, to further make sure that they have the proper mechanisms in place to interface with American either government-type agencies and/or the private sector. I think it is the way, it is clearly demonstrated, that it is the positive way to go.

We also have an agreement signed with the State of Kansas on trade which I think is what government should do. We should be the umbrella organizations that show the private sector or the people who are wanting to do business back and forth there is a co-operative agreement between the jurisdictions which they should feel comfortable operating within. I think it is an agency or there are two agencies or organizations that will play a lot greater role as the trade linkages north and south continue to develop.

Mr. Sale: I am referring to a letter which I am sure the minister has--if he has not, I would certainly share it with him, but I am sure he has it--from Jerry Nagal, May 15, 1995. It is in regard to input into the border accord and Mr. Nagal writes to presumably his side of the border, although he may be writing to us as well, I am not sure. He mentions that Lynn Bishop, manager of the airport, represent this region on the executive board of the Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance. Is the minister familiar with the letter?

Mr. Downey: No, I am not familiar with the letter, but I am familiar with the work that is being carried out by Mr. Bishop, particularly as it relates to activities and encouragement to use the International Airport, whether it is not only through the cargo activity, and I compliment Mr. Bishop in the work in being able to achieve the establishment of American Airlines service that now comes into Winnipeg three times a day from Chicago. I know that there is some work being done by the airport to have direct linkages to Denver which, again, you have to move people if you expect to move product.

Specifically, the letter, no, I am not familiar with it.

Mr. Sale: I will make this letter available to the minister just in a moment. I just want to ask a couple of questions about it. The letter is from the American partner, Mr. Bishop, on this board so it may not represent Canadian views, but I ask the minister whether these are his understanding of what we are attempting to do here.

Promoting international trade by first of all adopting the best practices of each country to harmonize commercial border processes and procedures, what is normally meant by best practices in regard to this?

Mr. Downey: I cannot explain what someone else's letter or interpretation means. What I would expect--and let me go back not too long ago when the President of the United States visited the Prime Minister of Canada, and they actually signed a cross-border memorandum I believe it was. It was not basically an agreement, but it was an instrument which demonstrated the willingness of both the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States to eliminate some of the, what I would say, unnecessary challenges to people wanting to move back and forth across the border.

I take that as a positive step from those two leaders because I say this particularly from the tourism industry side, we have had many people who have complained to us about unnecessary problems when they have come to the border and/or the airport. They feel that they are almost being treated as if they are guilty of something before it is actually proven that they are trying to do something. That is a difficulty for entering our country. I take it in the spirit of trying to ease the movement of people and hopefully product north and south as the trade continues to expand and grow.

Talking about tourism, we depend very heavily on the United States for our tourism industry, and without that we would be in a very difficult situation in a lot of our communities.

Mr. Sale: I have asked that copies of the letter be made so that we can share them. Perhaps the best thing to do is to put this item off a bit, and we can come back to it at a later time after there has been a chance to look at the letter.

My concern in the letter is not wanting to inhibit international trade or tourist movement. That is not the suggestion at all, but the letter indicates that the interest is in harmonizing of a wide range of things: visa requirements, product entry and exit. My sense of that is that given that we are talking about an elephant and perhaps a good strong mouse in negotiations here, we are much more likely to be harmonizing towards the States than they are to be harmonizing towards us.

I am concerned about some of their restrictions on entry. It has always seemed to me to be easier for Americans to come here to work than it has been for Canadians to go to the States to work. That has, generally speaking, been my experience anyway.

I think there may well be concerns in the agricultural sector about what the common agreements will be in terms of entry and exit of products. I think there have been concerns at the border over the last couple of years on a variety of shipments, animal as well as crop shipments, at various points. There have been American--maybe harassment is too strong a term, but maybe it is not too strong a term.

I am concerned about whether we have a strong view on what it is we want to see harmonized and what it is we want to achieve. Are we going into these negotiations with a position and an agenda, or are we going to be harmonized downward into a less competitive position than we might otherwise be in?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, the member is straying into what is pretty much federal jurisdiction. If he is asking for an opinion as it relates to the province of Manitoba, there have been areas at which we have found difficulties. Of course, we can go right to the point of the cap that we were forced to put on in the movement of wheat in the United States. That, I believe, is not in the spirit of what the Free Trade Agreement was signed on. You can go right down to movement of people, and it is a matter of a process when you get to the border what you have to show, what you have to declare. Is there equality?

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I would say at this particular time there has been something taking place that has been in our favour--that is, that Americans can purchase $200 worth of goods and can return to the United States and can turn around and come back and buy another $200 worth of goods. That is the way the regulations currently read, which I think it puts our people selling product into the United States at an advantage. Canadians cannot do that.

If I understand the question correctly, you do not want to give up any benefits Canada has that would be seen to benefit the United States and thus not either retain a benefit or lose some control of a benefit that we have. It would not be our intention to want to see that happen. Again, the jurisdiction for that falls with the federal government. I just noted as how the member feels.

Mr. Sale: Perhaps I am also misunderstanding this. Is Mr. Bishop acting purely as a federal appointee to this, or is the ministry involved in this issue in any way?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bishop is not working for us within the department. It could be that he is working within his capacity as transportation chairman within the Chamber of Commerce, but not in the capacity with the provincial government.

Mr. Sale: So the minister's department is not directly involved in the Red River corridor or the border issues at all?

Mr. Downey: Other than we provide financial services, I believe we have staff that sit in on their meetings and provide resources to them as far as people, but I do not believe we have any--the Red River Trade Corridor does not have any regulatory or any negotiating power. It is a symbol, or a body of people working to enhance and work to move product north and south. It has no authoritative powers, really is what I am trying to say.

Mr. Sale: I do not want to be argumentative on this issue at all, but the way I read the letter, which I have asked to be copied to share with you, is that this body is going to have very major input into the shape of the border that was signed. You will see from the letter that there is quite a detailed list of issues that are being studied and advised upon and ultimately, presumably, there will be some kind of agreement on them.

My concern is that the government is, at least in a tangential way, supporting this as, I suppose in a sense, a good neighbour facilitating trade with an adjacent state. I do not have any problem with that. But if the officers of the association are acting on the federal government respectively, their two federal governments' behalf advising them on issues, I would ask the minister and his department to look carefully at the issues that are on the table to develop appropriate positions that do protect the interests of Manitobans and to be very forthright about that.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, it is my responsibility and duty to carry out my office's responsibility in the interests of Manitobans to the best of our ability, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Sale: I just have a couple of other questions on this appropriation and then we will be able to pass it. I wonder, just a request, the minister's additional information talked about a World Wide Web as one of the sort of interesting promotional ways of letting people know more about Manitoba's opportunities. I wonder if the minister could share with the committee just a couple of samples, print outs of the page or the pages that are available on the World Wide Web.

* (1330)

Mr. Downey: The co-ordinating body within government that is working--the co-ordinating body is EITC. It is working on behalf of all departments of government to co-ordinate the information that goes onto Internet. We, as a department, are doing a tourism page which is not complete yet, but when it is complete, will be made available, for sure, to the member.

Mr. Sale: I had thought that that was something that was--perhaps I read the wording wrongly. I thought it was something that already existed. I am glad the government is doing that.

Just as an aside, I was fascinated during the election campaign with the number of very modest homes in which people were on the Internet on a regular basis, and I remember going to quite a number of doors where the people at those doors were far better informed than I was on some of the major issues of the day. Perhaps they were unemployed or underemployed, or perhaps, they were working shifts, I do not know. They certainly had time to cruise the Internet, and so I think it is an increasingly powerful way of letting people know.

On a much more serious question, the government is, I am sure, aware of the federal proposals to privatize CN, and I would just like to ask the minister, first in a broad sense, is his department following this proposal? Have they prepared any briefing material on the issue, and can he comment?

Mr. Downey: The Department of Highways and Transportation are basically the lead department as it relates to the activities of the federal government and CN. We are certainly part of it and, as a government, going to be conscious of any either negatives or positives that we have to be aware of on the business side, but I can reiterate, it is the Department of Highways and Transportation that are the lead department as it relates to the CN activities.

Mr. Sale: The minister referred very briefly to the concept of short lines and the possibility of the bay line being thought of in that context, and perhaps some other lines in Manitoba. Could the minister comment on that?

Mr. Downey: I guess the bottom line is that for 18 years, or almost 18 years that I have been a member of government, both in government and opposition, I have fought very hard, and any government I have been involved with has fought very hard to make sure that we had maintenance of a line to the Port of Churchill.

And it is not because we cannot maintain a line. It is not because it is not possible to haul either cement in hopper cars to hydro stations to build them, or build whatever in hopper cars to that point, but at that point we have to stop with wheat cars because they will not handle hopper wheat cars. I am not convinced that that is the only reason that they cannot be hauled up there. I think there has been tremendous, and there is a tremendous political influence from both other sides of the country to not encourage use of that port. In fairness, it is a government-owned port facility in Churchill, there are not any private interests in there, and that basically I think speaks volumes.

On the short-line business I think that there will be some areas of opportunity that open up where, unfortunately, it may be abandoned by the major rail operators. Again, it may provide a service that we would otherwise lose. So I am not certainly opposed to short line. I would hope that the Port of Churchill line is one which could be turned around. As much as the federal government has moved to remove the freight subsidy to the grains being moved off the Prairies it is certainly not supportable in the way in which they have done it, but it may in fact make the Port of Churchill look somewhat more attractive as it relates to the

movement of product out of the North.

* (1340)

What has to happen, Mr. Chairman, is that somebody has to make sure the line is adequately kept up and somebody has to make sure that the hopper cars are the right kind of cars that are made available and that people who are exporting grain out of this country, mainly the Canadian Wheat Board, are of the mind to make sure it all works. There are a lot of players, there have been a lot of players. I am just saying it may make the numbers, after the first of August of this year, more acceptable as it relates to return for the movement of product to a company that would be moving it up through that system.

I would hope as well that we could look for various other products and activity as we have been doing through Arctic Bridge, either to import products through that system and/or alternative exports. That is what we are continually trying to do.

Mr. Sale: We have observed for the record that there is I believe, I think it is a $300-million fund that the federal government has proposed for upgrading and stabilization of the rail system or the transport system prior to the privatization. This is part of the Crow benefit adjustment and the rail privatization. What presentations or discussions has the government had with--presumably it is Mr. Axworthy, although it might someone else, it could be Doug Young, who knows--the federal government to prioritize the allocation of those resources for the bayline?

Mr. Downey: Again, this does not follow directly within this jurisdiction, but I am sure that the departments who are involved have staff and have been discussing it with them. I honestly could not say what discussions have taken place in the ministerial level but I can certainly find out for the member. I, quite frankly, want to make sure that Manitoba gets our fair share of the monies available, because when we lose the pooling under the federal government's proposal, we are going to be hit the hardest as a province.

When one looks at the amount of money that will be taken out of the economy by this federal government's action, all in one fell swoop, we talked about the $240 million transfer payment lost directly to health and education. The direct amount of money that has been injected through support and transportation of our raw products out of this country is a massive, massive amount of money taken out of our economy that has been here previously. It is unfortunate that it was done in the way in which it was so abrupt. I think it will take some time for adjustments to take place.

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

Mr. Sale: I concur with the minister's statements, and I will say that we will look for the same kind of energy to be expended on the bayline and on the transportation adjustments as we have seen unfortunately expended on the Winnipeg Jets. Our party has been I think unfairly cast as being antihockey or anti-Jets. We are not, not at all.

We are anti massive public subsidies for a private hockey team, not because we do not like hockey but because subsidizing that kind of a losing industry does not make a whole lot of sense to us when we are facing the fact that you could upgrade and secure the bayline for another 30 years for less than $170 million which the public sector is prepared to put into the hockey team.

The potential for the spaceport, the potential for tourism, not to mention the number of jobs that are being maintained or lost on that line, far exceed what I think even the most optimistic view might be of what the potential for a hockey team in Winnipeg is.

I want to ask the minister if he could provide us with the total estimated--I understand there will have to be an estimate here--direct and indirect employment that depends on the continued functioning of the bayline over the next period of years.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the member's numbers and/or his accusations as it relates to the hockey and the entertainment complex. We are not putting the money into a hockey team. I want the record to clearly state that. What we are doing is, we are supporting, with two other levels of government, an entertainment complex in which hockey will be played on the ice surface for part of the year.

It can also be used as a trade centre. It can also be used for many other activities which will add positive economic benefits to the province of Manitoba. I would hope they would start to express what is happening as it is, rather than to try and leave an impression that we are in some way supporting hockey teams to the magnitude of which he has indicated. That is not correct, and I want the record to clearly state our support is for an entertainment complex of which for part of a year there will be a professional hockey team play in it which is not owned by us as a province.

It is not the place to debate this, but I want the record to state it. I adamantly reject that there will not be--you know, he says it and I say this, that they are not opposed to hockey. Well, I would hope they would clarify that position differently than they have to this point. It is certainly plain that that is very much the position they are taking. I see an entertainment complex as it relates to this department in trade as a very positive initiative.

The member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) who just made a nonpolitical statement in the House today talked about a major agriculture exposition that they had in Morris last weekend for three days. By the way, there was support from the provincial government for the Morris Stampede grounds. They have an exposition building there that, without the support of the province and the community to build that, would not have been able to have the ag exposition that they had for three days and bring an industry together that creates billions of dollars worth of wealth for this country. That is the thing I see an entertainment complex doing for this city and this province. That is the context of which I talked about.

As it relates to the efforts and energies putting forward support for either the bayline or for transportation systems that will have to be put in place, failing the federal government's continued support for the industry, we have been--I think our record is clear--pretty supportive and will continue to be supportive of those activities.

Mr. Sale: Will the minister be able to supply the information that I requested in terms of estimated direct and indirect employment that is dependent on the continued functioning of the bayline?

Mr. Downey: I will try to get as accurate information as possible.

Mr. Sale: Is Manitoba planning to privatize any further elements of Crown corporations under some of the initiatives of this department or other departments? I was thinking specifically of MTS, but Hydro is also a candidate.

Mr. Downey: Again, neither of those Crown corporations reports to this ministry. At this particular time, I do not know of any that would be within the ministry that I have that would be identified for privatization. I could give a long speech on it as to the success of the privatization that has already taken place, but I will hold that speech for another day.

* (1350)

Mr. Sale: That will save us from having to make the other speech in response. In the Health Estimates, both sides at one point agreed that they could refer to each other's remarks by number, and I think that it saved a great deal of time.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1. Administration and Finance (d) Research and Economic Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $407,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $146,700--pass; (3) Grants $214,100--pass.

1.(e) Manitoba Office in Ottawa (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $200,900.

Mr. Sale: I have just a brief question here. Maybe the minister could just briefly tell us the status of the office in Ottawa and his plans for it, if any, at this point.

Mr. Downey: The staffing numbers are the same as they were last year. At this particular point I would say there is no intention to do anything different with it. I would think, probably in the coming weeks and months, that there may be a greater role as it relates to what is happening in Quebec and the discussions relating to our Constitution--there will be not a greater role, but a different role in that respect.

Mr. Sale: There is just a footnote, and I am not clear what it means. It is probably terribly minor, but perhaps the minister could tell me what accommodation cost recovery means. Is it one of the staff members living in their own house or something?

Mr. Downey: I am told that it is the result of a rent renegotiation.

Mr. Sale: You mean rent for the office, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Downey: That is my understanding.

Mr. Sale: It is a relatively minor amount, it looks like.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(e) Manitoba Office in Ottawa (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits 200,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $118,100--pass.

1.(f) Manitoba Bureau of Statistics (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $450,000.

Mr. Sale: Just for the record, I would just like to congratulate Wilf Falk on his promotion in this department. He served Manitobans well over many years, and Manitoba Bureau of Statistics is a very valuable instrument, and I would just like to congratulate him.

I have one other question in this area. Mr. Chairperson, could the minister indicate whether MBS is going to move in the same direction that StatsCan has, and that is to be so aggressive in its cost recovery that virtually no one can afford their services if they are not in business. In fact even governments now find it onerous sometimes to be able to afford the services of the publicly collected data agency.

Mr. Downey: There are not any plans for major change at this particular time.

Mr. Sale: Are there now charges for the regular products of MBS, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Downey: The answer is yes.

Mr. Sale: I may be able to get these directly from the bureau, but I would appreciate just a tariff schedule of what it is that they are now charging and an indication of whether there have been any changes in the past year to those charges, if the minister could supply that.

Mr. Downey: I will do my best to provide that information for the member.

Mr. Sale: Does the government pay for StatsCan services that MBS uses in its work?

Mr. Downey: To some extent.

Mr. Sale: Have those costs gone up as sharply to you as they have to the rest of the sectors that use StatsCan?

Mr. Downey: I do not imagine we have an exemption on the increase in cost from the federal government, but we can get that information as to whether there have been changes in our costs from Statistics Canada.

Mr. Sale: Just before we pass this item, I would just for the record say that I think that the ability of the private sector, the public sector and the voluntary, not-for-profit sector to be able to make intelligent decisions about public policy depends on having ready access to good data.

I hope this government will not move in the direction that StatsCan has so aggressively moved, that unless one has fairly deep pockets it is simply impossible to get custom cross tabs or custom data anymore from StatsCan, because the cost can run into thousands and thousands of dollars. In fact, they have moved recently to an initial charge basis on which for your initial inquiries now you have to pay to find out what it will cost you to get the whole inquiry met. So, I hope the government is not planning on that kind of direction.

Mr. Downey: I appreciate the member's comments.

Mr. Sale: Pass.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(f)(1) $450,000--pass; 1.(f)(2) $115,700--pass.

Item 1.(f)(3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations $60,000--pass.

Item 2. Business Services (a) Industry Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,490,200.

Mr. Sale: I have a fair number of questions in this area, Mr. Chairperson. It is three minutes to two. Should we deem the hour to be two?

* (1400)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to call it two o'clock? Agreed? [agreed]

The time is now 2 p.m. Committee rise.