Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): As Minister of Education and Training, I once again look forward to this year's Estimates process, and I trust the focus will be on challenges and opportunities facing our education and training system. Despite significant federal cutbacks, which will continue to have an impact for a number of years, the spending level on education is second only to health in this province. Education remains a key priority of this government.
It is important to note that quality of our education and training system is not determined solely by how much money we spend but also on how wisely and prudently we spend it. We must strive for excellence in education through cost-effective measures. This government's commitment to excellence, accountability and efficiency will be reflected in my 1998-99 Estimates.
* (1510)
This government has set a clear direction for Education and Training which will be demonstrated in the Estimates process; therefore, I will reiterate the department's mission, guiding principles and priorities which are the basis upon which resource allocations are made.
The mission of Education and Training is to provide access to relevant education and training that is of high quality, affordable, available and responsive. This will enable Manitobans to develop their individual potential and continue contributing to the economic, social and cultural life of Manitoba in a global context. In carrying out this mission, the department continues to be guided by the principles of excellence, equity, openness, responsiveness, relevance, integration and accountability.
For this coming year, Mr. Chairman, I am committed to (a) furthering education renewal with its emphasis on foundation skill development, standards and evaluation, school effectiveness, parental and community involvement, learning technologies and teacher education; (b) enhancing partnerships with my education and training partners; (c) providing the public with more and better information; (d) improving accessibility to our post-secondary institutions; and (e) strengthening linkages between Education and Training and the province's economic and social development initiatives.
In 1998-99 my department will continue the implementation of initiatives for comprehensive far-reaching renewal of the province's education and training systems. I have listened to parents, teachers, students, administrators, the post-secondary education community and taxpayers, and I have instructed my staff to incorporate their concerns and needs into our 1998-99 operations. I look forward to continuing along the path of education and training renewal with our educational partners, as I strongly believe that Manitobans are greatly benefiting from the enhanced opportunities being made available to them.
In terms of elementary-secondary initiatives, I am very pleased that my government is able to allocate a 2.2 percent increase or an additional $16.7 million in funding to Manitoba's public schools this coming year. This brings the total to $761.6 million for public schools for 1998-99. Through consultation with our education partners, we were able to make some important changes to the funding model which I believe will greatly assist many school divisions.
In order to better facilitate the use of technology within our schools, I look forward to the results of an important initiative by the Council on Learning Technologies which is working with my department, K to Senior 4 representatives and post-secondary institutions to articulate a strategic planning framework for information technologies throughout Education and Training. Additionally, an important part of implementing technology is a foundation skill in K to Senior 4. A newly developed document entitled Technology as a Foundation Skill: A Journey Towards Information Technology will be used as a basis for continued work on integrating technology literacy into K to Senior 4 curricula and will be shared with schools to assist in their planning.
The newly introduced information technology grant will provide school divisions with an additional $1.8 million towards meeting the technology needs in our schools. My department will continue to support the Computers for Schools and Libraries Program in Manitoba, enabling it to provide more used, refurbished computers to schools and to upgrade some of these to multimedia capable levels.
Over the past number of years, my department has been made aware of the situation concerning the province's aging schools, and I am pleased to say that in addition to the $29.6 million for the regular Capital Support Program for schools, starting in 1998-99, a new three-year Aging Buildings Program has been approved at $30 million. In addition to making schools more effective and appropriate for today's delivery of education, this program is expected to generate more than 1,000 construction jobs across Manitoba.
To ensure success for Manitoba children and youth, my department continues to develop a world-class outcomes- and standards-based curriculum. I strongly believe that our children need a high-quality education which will equip them to be competitive in our rapidly changing world, and I further believe that it is my responsibility to ensure that this occurs. Curriculum initiatives for 1998-99 will focus on continued development in Senior 3 and Senior 4 mathematics and language arts in both official languages. In the '98-99 school year, new curricula for Senior 2 mathematics and language arts will be phased in system wide. As well, with the release of the Pan-Canadian Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes, kindergarten to Grade 12, Manitoba has begun development of a framework for kindergarten to Grade 4 science. Work is also proceeding on the development of a common curriculum framework for social studies with Manitoba as the lead jurisdiction for the English component of the Western Canadian Protocol project.
In recognition of the education and training needs of Manitoba's aboriginal communities, my department has allocated additional resources to the Native Education Directorate and has increased its prominence within the education and training system. An Aboriginal Education and Training Strategy has been developed which will guide the department, our schools, and stakeholder organizations to increase aboriginal high school and post-secondary graduation rates, labour-market participation and partnership development. Additionally, my department will be developing curriculum frameworks for Cree and Ojibway language instruction.
I am aware that there are a number of Manitoba children who enter elementary school with poorly developed reading readiness skills. In recognition that dealing with reading problems in the early stages is much more effective than remedial programs in later years, I have announced a new grant program of $2.7 million for early literacy intervention programming for Grade 1 students, and I am excited for the children that will be served.
Early in the new year, I am looking forward to receiving and reviewing the report and recommendations from the review of special education. I am hopeful that the results can be used to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of special education in Manitoba, to ensure all students are able to apply their full learning potential.
Across Manitoba, elementary secondary schools are known to be vital components to community cohesion and continuity. As part of education renewal, my staff will continue to work with schools to develop school plans as a means to empower local communities to better respond to their own education needs, while at the same time serving to enhance overall division-based decision making. I look forward to working with schools and their planning endeavours, and in facilitating linkages between the planning that occurs within the schools, at the school division offices, and within the department. Through this process, I believe we will achieve a coherent, effective, and accountable education system across the province.
The availability of relevant and accurate information that our education and training systems continues to be important. As renewal initiatives take hold across the province, it is incumbent upon the department, post-secondary institutions, training centres, school divisions, and schools to work together to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs.
For 1998-99, I have established an interorganizational committee to advise me on the development of utilization of education indicators, as well as creating a unit within the department, to take the lead in this work.
In terms of post-secondary and training initiatives, universities and colleges continue to play an increasingly important role in preparing our youth for future job opportunities. Even though the impact of federal cutbacks continues to affect Manitoba's post-secondary education, I am pleased to say that our government has directed increased resources to both the universities and colleges for this coming year. Government support now stands at $227 million for universities, and $59 million for colleges.
For 1998-99, Manitoba's universities are receiving an increase of $8.9 million in operating grants, and our community colleges, $1.1 million. Over $11 million has been allocated for capital projects on our university campuses. Additional funding allocations have been targeted for a new nursing building, and replacement of the Chiller System at the University of Manitoba.
* (1520)
As announced in the throne speech, I am pleased to say that access to post-secondary education is being improved by providing significantly enhanced and better targeted overall financial assistance for post-secondary students and recent graduates. Our government will be introducing a new interest relief and debt reduction program, greatly enhancing the Scholarship and Bursaries Initiative, and working with the federal government to harmonize the national and provincial student loans programs.
I believe that the provision of these direct supports to students, which total over $6 million, will provide Manitobans with ready access to training and post-secondary education, so that they can contribute to, and succeed in making, Manitoba a vibrant province with continued economic growth and social development.
To further enhance access by students in rural and remote areas of the province, the universities' First Year by Distance Education program will continue to expand its coverage in the coming year.
Within the Training sector, government continues to maintain its commitment to youth programming. Linkages between government departments are being strengthened to ensure that youth employment programs offered by the government operate under common criteria and objectives in order to offer a more effective and comprehensive service to Manitoba's youth. Over the next several months, all senior schools and a variety of youth agencies will be able to access the Career Explorer Internet site which has been developed in partnership with HRDC. School guidance counsellors will receive training to help them integrate this resource into existing curricula. The site will include a customized Manitoba daily news service and profiles in over 700 careers.
In partnership with business, industry and the federal government, my department continues to facilitate expanded training and employment opportunities for Manitobans. For 1998-99, the province's Workforce 2000 program will expand its partnerships with industry and business to identify workplace training needs and develop appropriate responses.
In partnership with the Department of Family Services, my department will be working to create an integrated training-employment services approach for unemployed Manitobans. In response to the Labour Market Development Agreement signed this past year with the federal government, Manitoba is now responsible for Employment Insurance funded labour market programs as well as for a variety of the previous national employment services, for example, employment counselling and labour exchange. An alignment of delivery services is being developed to create a one-stop training employment continuum approach in Manitoba. This process was begun this past November with the transfer of program responsibility, funding and staff.
In recognition of the Apprenticeship Task Force Report and the need for a highly skilled and technologically competitive workforce, Manitoba's apprenticeship system has been expanded for 1998-99. This expansion includes an additional $550,000 for the purchase of training seats from colleges and $450,000 for marketing and training equipment and program development in the training institutions. I believe that this investment will position the apprenticeship system to work with business, industry and the training institutions in support of Manitoba's economic development strategy.
In support of our government's recently enacted legislation on sustainable development, I am pleased to state that my department will be holding consultations throughout the province over the coming months to solicit input to a sustainable development education strategy. I am excited about this project as it will lead to an increasing understanding of the role Education and Training have in promoting a prosperous and sustainable future for all Manitobans.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the department must be both a leader and a partner in carrying out its mission and successfully completing its initiatives. This involves balance, local autonomy balanced with provincial direction, a need for flexibility balanced with the need for consistency, change balanced with maintaining existing strengths and striving for excellence balanced with the need for practical considerations. This is a challenge that I and my department continue to accept. Through working with our education partners, Manitobans will have the education and training systems they deserve, systems which carry them to and beyond the millennium. I look forward to the Estimates review and the comments and helpful questions from the honourable members opposite. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Wolseley, have an opening statement?
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, yes. I thank the minister for her statement, and to indicate as opposition we intend to be asking a number of questions about these Estimates. We hear from citizens of Manitoba who continue to have serious concerns about the education system in this province, both at the K to 12 level as well as the post-secondary and private training areas.
The minister has indicated that the government believes that it is using wisdom, prudence and efficiency in the administration and allocation of these resources, and we certainly intend to look at those criteria in examining the minister's explanations of the Estimates of her department.
We know that there are many, increasingly in rural Manitoba, some very serious concerns about education and linked in people's minds with the role of the local school in the survival of communities, as well as the role of post-secondary education in the ability of some communities to survive and of the opening of opportunities to all Manitobans. We have heard increasingly from rural Manitoba about issues of fairness in funding and about their fears of growing inequities across the province and the ability of schools to provide equally for all of their students.
We have heard concerns about technology, and the minister has indicated she will be talking about that at greater length. We look forward to that, look forward to hearing the proposals of the Council on Learning Technologies and to seeing the strategic plan that I assume the minister will be tabling from that council, because it is in the technology area that many parents have come to rest their concerns and their anxieties about the future for their children.
They are concerned about the inequities that are growing in Manitoba, of the availability of technology through partnerships that are available to some schools but not to others, about the inequities that are there in the use of computer technology to those parents who can afford to provide computers at home compared to the majority in Manitoba who cannot provide those. They are looking at the inequities of schools which can afford to remain open and to provide computer services to parents and to enable them to learn with their children, as well as to the community, and those schools which cannot.
The inequities that are coming in provincial libraries, for example, in fact have been growing, and the opportunities that libraries across the province also would like to have to provide for the learning of the general public, the access of the general public to Internet and web services that again are not being provided equally across the province. So we have very serious concerns about equity in the areas of technology, and we look forward to hearing the government's long-term plans for this, although we do believe that this must be one of the last provinces to have a long-term plan for the uses and provision of technology in our schools.
We hear increasingly from teachers and from parents about the lack and the diminution of resources in the classroom. We hear particularly about the rapid introduction of new curriculums at many levels and the difficulties that both teachers and parents and principals are finding in providing as well as they would like to for students in areas where so many new curriculums have been introduced so quickly. Many people believe that the professional development available for these new curriculums has not been as they would have liked. They believe that the textbooks that should be there for new curriculum are not there and that teachers are constantly scrambling.
* (1530)
Parents do not have a clear understanding of what the expectations of the new curriculum are and that the government, although it says that it is listening to parents and teachers, certainly does not seem to have heard some of the very serious concerns that people have about both of those areas which seem, I think, to many teachers and parents to be remediable, if there is such a word. These are things which could be helped. These are things which could be provided. There are paces of change which could be slowed down and which would enable people to feel that they were meeting the needs of their students in a much more appropriate and professional manner.
The minister, I am sure, has heard over and over again of the concerns that people have who are dealing with children with special needs. The minister has also heard our criticism of the government's refusal to deal with the issue of special needs since 1993. Government said that it had a review committee in 1993. It seemed to have been only a departmental one, not a public one. The minister promised a public and open review of special--not this minister but an earlier minister promised a review of special needs, which was promised and repromised in '94 and '95 and '96, and here we are in 1998. The government is coming up to another election, and they have not yet received the report of the special education review, which has been so much awaited and so eagerly sought, I think, by many teachers and parents across Manitoba.
So we look forward with the minister to looking at the recommendations of that committee, which I understand the minister anticipates she will be receiving in September, and as she has promised in the House in Question Period, the recommendations of that committee will become public.
Professional development I think is another area that is causing serious concern. This is one area where I believe the minister has allowed, along with special needs and with guidance, school divisions some flexibility. Twenty percent of the monies for each of these areas can now be moved to different sections of a division's budget. Last year I asked the minister whether, in fact, she had tracked the movement of this money because it seemed to me a snapshot--it would give us a snapshot of where the needs were, where people felt that they could make adjustments, but, unfortunately, such monitoring was not taking place.
I think that is something else we would like to look at again with the minister in these Estimates, because each of those areas I think are areas where we do have concerns about the future of Manitoba education. That flexibility, while it was welcomed by many school divisions--there is no doubt about that, but where they moved things overall, perhaps not division by division, I think would be a useful snapshot to us of where the needs are in different regions of Manitoba and in different areas of education.
We have concerns and the minister has heard many of them, I think, as she has travelled across the province, about testing, about the departmental uses of the results of testing. We have heard concerns about the achievement levels that are being expressed in the national tests. We have heard concerns about the cost of testing which does not seem to be going down--in fact, it seems to be increasing--and the expansion of departmental personnel in that area. So I think people are very concerned about the future of testing in Manitoba, the future cost of it, what is being sacrificed in order for this area of government activity to grow at such a rapid rate.
We have as always--and we have raised this, I believe, every year in Estimates--issues of aboriginal education. We continue to lament, as I did today in Question Period, the cuts that were made by the federal government and by the provincial government to the Access program. If those Statistics Canada numbers are to be believed, then we have indeed lost a generation. If people from between the ages of 20 and 29 have graduated from university and colleges, from post-secondary education, at a lower rate than the rest of the aboriginal population, then I think that is a matter for serious concern, and we are seeing a possibility of a number of aboriginal communities not being able to provide for the future of their young people.
We look, too, at the decline of curriculum across Manitoba, the decline of curriculum areas. Schools which used to have home economics, industrial arts, basic French, in some areas music, in some areas drama, but those areas are being cut from the curriculum, and we do, I think, have a different perspective on the nature and purpose of curriculum from this government. The government has made a very clear direction, very clear instructions for what they call core instruction, and one of the costs of that has been the loss of what we would call a broadly based education that is available to and uses the talents, all the talents, of all our children.
The minister has talked about an indicators committee that she has advising her. This is something that we have looked for, I think, since the previous Minister of Education. I remember bringing the Saskatchewan indicators program to legislative committee. I have seen the Manitoba Teachers' Society bring similar versions of the Saskatchewan indicators booklets, all of which provide much more information.
I will not say the Saskatchewan program is necessarily perfect, but it is a lot more information presented in good graphic form, asking questions, I think, of the data that many Manitobans would want to ask, but we have no similar, no comparable material for Manitoba. The government has had many years to address this. It should have, I would have thought, fitted into the government's expressed desire to be accountable to Manitobans. This is a very good way that Saskatchewan has--oh, I believe, under a number of governments--expressed its accountability to the people of Saskatchewan. It is a very good way to do it--it is not the only way, but it is a first step. I am glad to see the minister has finally established a committee on this, and we look forward to some discussion as to what their mandate is, and what their timetable will be.
In post-secondary area, the government has increased the funding to post-secondary education in this area, although, of course, on the other hand, the government also wants to claim that we should not rely upon funding issues as criteria for evaluating an educational system. But the government has increased the money to colleges and universities this year, and we are, in fact, back to the 1992 dollar amounts that we had in post-secondary education, which, in part, had derived from an earlier government, in part had derived from the funding to post-secondary education under the minority government of this particular Premier (Mr. Filmon). So, yes, I think those institutions are glad to see an increase. They are glad to see a change of direction, but we should not fool ourselves that this is anything more than a return to the actual dollar funding of 1992-93. Given that there has been some inflation, a not enormous inflation, but certainly some--2 or 3 percent a year--in some years of that period, this is not necessarily meeting the needs of post-secondary institutions. In post-secondary institutions, I include, of course, not just colleges and universities, but apprenticeship and training programs, and some of the programs that have been developed under the Children and Youth Secretariat, under the training programs.
There are, as the minister, I know, is well aware, big issues of capital--capital repairs, capital construction for universities and colleges. There are, I think, important areas of access to be considered. We are talking here, not just of access for aboriginal students, although for the future of Manitoba that has to be one of the major concerns, but also access for those who are unable to afford the rapidly increasing fees. The minister knows that in the House I have raised and, in fact, have raised before with her in Estimates the issue of the Council on Post-Secondary Education's inability so far to produce a fee policy.
We had looked forward to that fee policy. We had supported the recommendations that came forward, that the council should see that as one of its first items of business. It was something, I think, that came out of the Roblin Commission. A fully rounded and responsible fee policy has many aspects to it, but one of those is to ensure that those people who are going to benefit from a post-secondary education do have access to it, whether it comes in the form of apprenticeship or training, or whether it comes in the form of a college or university education. And here we are, 1998, on the edge of another election, and the government has not yet been able to provide that basic fee policy. Now, the government says that it has been consulting--I am glad to see that, but, you know, it said that in 1995. It said it again in 1996, and here we are, 1998, and still no fee policy. Meanwhile fees have risen considerably, and they have risen, I believe, in an unregulated manner, and in a manner that certainly has not been part of a public discussion with Manitobans.
* (1540)
So we have concerns about fees. I have some concerns about the new programs that the government intends to develop in debt relief, something that I have asked the government for, over a number of years. It was a policy that we had when this government came into power. We were, for many years, under this government, the only province in western Canada--the only province in Canada, in fact--which did not have a debt relief program that was generally available. A small portion of debt relief was available to some Access students, but, in general, Manitoba students, unlike students in every other province, had no debt relief program. So we are glad to see that that is being introduced. We should remind Manitobans, of course, that there were such programs before as there were indeed bursary programs that the government now intends to reintroduce as it gets closer to another election.
I have some questions about the Council on Post-Secondary Education. I am also interested, and I think it comes under the post-secondary line, MERLIN. We have not had a chance in Estimates to discuss MERLIN. I think it is important that we put some matters on the public record and that MERLIN itself has the opportunity to tell us about some of the successes that it has had and about the long-range programs that it wants to offer to Manitobans.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have finished my introductory remarks. I was finally interested to hear from the minister about the Sustainable Development Education Strategy and the meetings that she plans throughout the province. I think we would want to pick up some questions on that on the appropriate line.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic for the official opposition for those remarks. I would remind the members of the committee that debate on the Minister's Salary, item 16.1.(a), is deferred until all other items in the Estimates of the department are passed. At this time we invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.
Is the minister prepared to introduce her staff present at the committee?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I have here with me today Mr. John Carlyle, Deputy Minister of Education; Mr. Jim Glen and Mr. Tom Thompson from the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Chairperson: The item before the committee is 16.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $628,200.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, under the area of general policy, I wanted to ask the minister some questions about her committee on the funding of Manitoba's public schools, the minister's Advisory Committee on Educational Finance, which over the past two years has made a number of recommendations to the minister, and I wanted to look at first of all the report of that committee. I should perhaps say, for the record, that this is a committee which is broadly representative of all the, quote, stakeholders in Manitoba education and includes civil servants. I believe it includes the deputy minister, it includes the assistant deputy minister, administration and finance and the assistant deputy minister of School Programs, one of them in an ex officio category; the other is secretary to the committee.
But, in any case, the general terms of reference are to provide advice and recommendations to the minister, and I wonder if the minister could give us some sense of how those recommendations are conveyed, and, in particular, I am interested in the 1997-98 recommendations on co-ordinator and clinician funding. The committee recommended a number of changes to the methodology used to calculate the grant. I can read them if the minister does not have them there, because I know they are from the previous year, but I wondered what the minister's response had been to that. It was basically that over three years the method be changed so that funding is calculated based on the actual remainder rather than adding one, the change be phased in over three years, the divisor be lowered from 700 to 675, and the funding be the lesser of an amount calculated, quote, unquote. That is the chunk I am looking at. It is on page 7 of the '97-98.
* (1550)
Mrs. McIntosh: The information the critic is requesting some clarification on is not in this year's Estimates. It is going back in time and we do not have the historical documents here. We are here to do this year's Estimates. We could get staff to get that information and table it for later or, under 16.4, when we get to the proper line, we could instruct staff to bring that information. But it is not information from this year's Estimates, so we did not come prepared to go through the Estimates from two years ago.
Ms. Friesen: The reason I am asking this question is that I am interested in what the general response of the department has been to this committee. Clearly there must be some of the recommendations of the committee which have been accepted. I wondered if this was one of them. I was going to work through the ones from last year, the previous year, to see which ones were accepted and which were rejected in preparation for looking at this year's recommendations in the committee to see which ones the minister accepted and which ones she has not yet acted upon.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I can give an indication to the member, and I will do that, as to how we did our responses for this year, and it is the same sort of way we do them every year. We do not necessarily say we are going to try to establish a trend here or there. We take a look at each year's recommendations which are presented as recommendations for that year and then respond for that year. So it might be that there is a particular need in one year that warrants addressing, and we will take a look at addressing it. I can indicate that we accept more recommendations than we reject.
If there is a trend, the trend would be to accept more than are not accepted. Sometimes we will have to take into consideration other things that are happening in education. For example, they may ask for something to do with special needs, just to pick one out of several. Knowing that we have a special needs review about to report, it may be that we would decide to hold off on making a decision on that until we see what is recommended by other groups, for example.
But just to give you an indication as to the process we went through this year and how we did the questions and responses, this is typical of how we do it each year. The committee will make its recommendations. They will come to me and present them, and they present them in person. We discuss them and then the committee leaves and I ponder and we come back with responses. Responses will take into consideration a whole variety of items, just as the recommendations do.
They recommended for '97-98, for example, that 5 percent of the average teacher's salary in each school division, to recognize the fringe benefit costs, be added to the average teacher's salary used to calculate recognized expenditures. Our response was that the percentage of an average teacher's salary used to calculate the recognized expenditures was maintained at 91 percent for the third year, and the salary grid used for this calculation was maintained at September 1994 because many divisions had not yet settled their new contracts and those that had new contracts were primarily being settled at zero percent. However, the personnel applied to the grid to calculate the average salary were revised from September '95 to September '96 to recognize more up-to-date salary classifications and years of experience.
They also recommended that the calculation of supplementary funding be less dependent on school division expenditures related to specific areas and take into account all expenditure areas. They recommended that the calculation of supplementary funding be based on the lesser of a percentage of provincial support or all unfunded expenditures. It further recommended, the committee further recommended, that supplementary funding be determined in steps so that the effect on funding is less impacted by the first dollar of expenditure reduction than the second dollar of expenditure reduction, and so on.
Our response to that was that the calculation of supplementary support was changed to be based on 40 percent of all previous years unsupported net operating expenditures as opposed to only four areas of expenditures like special needs, occupancy, transportation and technology, technology/vocational, for a total cost of $4 million.
Using all the unsupported net operating expenditures, this introduces new funding for unsupported regular instruction, administration and instruction of pupil support services expenditures which were previously not eligible for supplementary support.
The recommendation that funding be determined in steps was not implemented. A one-time guaranteed supplementary grant of $.5 million is provided to divisions who experience a reduction in funding from '97-98 to '98-99 due to changes made in the calculation of supplementary support. The guarantee is provided to ensure that no division receives less funding than in '97-98 due to formula changes outlined above.
So that is sort of the way we do it, Mr. Chairman. It is the recommendation, an explanation for the recommendation, a consideration of the response and a response which sometimes does what they ask and sometimes does not. They had recommended, for example, that the threshold in the socioeconomic indicator tabled for students-at-risk support be lowered from 25 to 20 percent, and the rates in the table be changed to maintain funding at present levels. We responded by saying that the students-at-risk formula support, based on the socioeconomic profile of the school catchment area, starts at the socioeconomic index of 20 percent as opposed to 25 percent. Starting the index at 20 percent means that more schools receive funding based on socioeconomic indicators. The maximum students-at-risk formula support has been increased from 10,000 to 15,000.
Similarly, I have just one more example from this '97-98 set. They had recommended that we develop a set of systems indicators in consultation with the public school community which reflects the operational goals of Manitoba public schools, and these indicators should be used to evaluate the success of Manitoba public schools in meeting those goals, as well as to identify the progress we have made over time towards obtaining them. We have, as of about two and half months ago, begun that process of developing a systems indicators. We have that underway now. We already have some proposed models from some of the educational stakeholders for us to consider, so that is well underway and should be ready soon, so you can see that some are accepted and some are rejected. It will go year by year depending upon what the perceived needs are, but we do not attempt to develop trends, nor do we see it in that way. It is an annual assessment of need that we attempt to respond to depending on our own circumstances.
Ms. Friesen: I understand that the minister undertook two years ago to publish the report of the committee, and I wondered how that was being accomplished and how the responses are communicated to the general public. The minister indicates that there is a formal presentation of the report to her, consideration of it, and then there are formal responses to each of the sections that she has read into the record now.
When public access is given to these reports of the advisory committee--I received mine by asking for it. I thank the minister for sending me that, but I wondered--my question is really twofold--how is it made public to the general public, and how are those responses of the department made public?
* (1600)
Mrs. McIntosh: Two years ago, I think it was two years ago, we began to release the finance advisory committee's report to school divisions, not to everybody in Manitoba but to all of those affected school boards, school business officials, those people who work with the formula and are familiar with it. Also, then, at that time, we provide the report to those stakeholder groups in the field. The advisory committee will approach school divisions as they begin their work and ask them to indicate, of their most recently received funding, what are the things that they have noticed and what recommendations would they make. So they seek input from the divisions that way as they begin their deliberations in any given year.
After they have done their deliberations, then the report that they come up with is released. We started this a couple of years ago, releasing it back to all the stakeholder groups in the divisions so that they can be aware of what was recommended, because many of the recommendations were based--not many but some; well, I would say quite a few, probably, were based upon input that the board received from the field. We release this report to the school divisions and the stakeholder groups where the funding formula directly affects their work, because they are the ones who plan the budgets on behalf of the general public.
There are two citizen reps as you know, Mr. Chairman, on the committee, one parent and one citizen at large. C'est tout.
Ms. Friesen: I wonder if the minister could indicate how the responses--that was the other part of my question--that she read into the record and which appear to be part of a formal response, how those government responses are communicated to the committee, first of all, and to the people to whom this report is released.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mrs. McIntosh: We communicate to the school divisions in three ways on this particular item. The first and most obvious, of course, is the January funding announcement, because that is something that not only goes to the school divisions but goes to the media, as well.
The funding announcement is usually accompanied by a fair bit of detail, but then adding to that detail staff from the Department of Education go out and, division by division, hold personal visits with every division in the province, outlining all the details that are pertinent to that particular school division. It is a very time-consuming process, but one that is extremely helpful to divisions. I can recall being on a school board, and I am sure the Chairman can also, when divisional staff came out to explain the impact of that year's funding announcement on a school division.
So there is the general announcement, the in-depth, detailed, personal discussion on that with boards, and then of course the advisory committee itself. For example, right now, it is already beginning on its 1999-2000 work, and the priorities for next year are already underway. The finance committee, the advisory committee, will be seeking input from boards. That is the third way of getting it. There is the announcement, the personal meeting, and then the request for input from boards as the committee begins its work.
The priorities for next year are ranked democratically by the members of the committee, and these then form the basis of the fall report for 1999-2000. For example, the report to me will be in by June of '98. That will be the interim report. The final report I should have received by the end of October '98, and that is all based on input given to the committee for them to deal with, and that input gives a directive, direct solicitation for input from the departmental staff of committee members.
Ms. Friesen: I am not sure I have got it clear. This is a committee which represents a wide range of interest in education. It meets a number of times a year. It has input; it makes recommendations to the minister. It is clear that the minister has a formal response to each of these items. Some of it she has read into the record, and it seems very appropriate to me that she should. Yes, we are going to do this; no, we are not going to do this; that one, maybe we can delay; here is another one that we think should be dealt with in another way.
Not all of these issues deal with education--finance--in a direct way, so that the January funding response, and the other ways of responding that the minister suggested, seem to me do not answer all of the issues. They do not answer probably a third of the issues that are dealt with by the committee. Since the minister does seem to have a response to each of these sections, I wondered why they were not made public. It seems to me appropriate--from the department's perspective, it has got this advice that it has solicited. It has got some answers that are reasonable from its own perspective. Why are these not communicated?
* (1610)
Mrs. McIntosh: I thought I had indicated that in my response, but if I did not, the response back to the stakeholders, of course, is provided by the minister's advisory committee. I thought I had said that, and if I did not make it clear, I apologize, but the advisory committee does give back to those people who provide input, the stakeholders. I am sure I did say that they go back to them, but, anyhow, to MASS, MAST, MASBO, those various groups, and tell them exactly what the responses were in the decisions made about their recommendations. So they have got that.
The report--as you know, the minister's Advisory Committee on Educational Finance, as I indicated earlier, seeks input from the divisions, from the stakeholders in the divisions, develops its recommendations based upon their own knowledge and input from the divisions, some of which is contradictory. You might have one division saying they want this and another division saying they want the exact opposite. Well, obviously, the committee has to wade through those various inputs and decide do they want to do as division A has requested or division B? Whatever they decide has to be in the best interests of all Manitoba.
That report comes to me as minister. It is a minister's advisory committee. In effect, it is an internal report. There is no need to share it with anybody because the answer would come in my funding announcement. However, of course, we do share it with people because while there would be no legal obligation to do that, given that it is internal advice to the minister and as such is private advice to the minister, nonetheless in recognition of the fact that all these groups have provided input, the committee does let those people know what their recommendations have been, and I am quite comfortable with that.
The ultimate revelation of that, of course, would come with the funding announcement wherein even if the people who provided input did not know before the funding announcement, they most certainly would as soon as the announcement was made, because it would all be then displayed in that. So it goes back to the people who provide the input: trustees, teachers, MASBO, et cetera. The committee relays that information to them. I am sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my first answer. If I did not, I apologize.
Ms. Friesen: I understand the committee provides advice to the minister. The minister then reflects on that advice and, given what she was reading to the record, my understanding was that she was responding to each section of that advice. I wondered whether that response, the minister's response to the committee, was ever written down and conveyed in written form to the committee which had advised her.
Mrs. McIntosh: Generally, the committee and the minister worked together via discussion and dialogue. There may be written communications flowing back and forth between the committee and the school divisions, I am not certain. I mean, that may all be discussed in dialogue also. Certainly, the recommendations that are written into the formula's changes need to be written down because they need to be put into changes in the formula. By and large, it is not one of those sessions that is super-ultra formal where people write down, you know, where they have formal legal language going back and forth.
My responses to the committee are usually given verbally. They will come in. We will talk. We will discuss it. I will indicate that I think I can live with that or I cannot live with that, or because of these extenuating circumstances it is a good idea, but it is not practical for whatever reasons. Or I thank them for a really good idea that I intend to implement that might not have been brought to my attention had it not been for the committee's work. So it is more discussion dialogue as opposed to me sending them back a big formal legal document. They give me advice. I thank them and try to give them a pretty good idea as to what I am going to be doing with the advice in appreciation for their efforts.
Ms. Friesen: For two years running now, the committee has made recommendations on the reliance on property taxation--and really one of the reasons I was asking how the minister responded to recommendations, because both this year and last year the committee's first recommendation, its main recommendation, was their concerns about the increase in local taxation and the importance, in their view, of providing additional funding from general revenues. It is interesting to see the same recommendation appear twice. That does not happen very often throughout these reports; obviously, it is of great concern to the minister's committee. So I wonder if the minister could give us a sense of what her response has been on both occasions to that recommendation.
* (1620)
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I understand that that issue gets raised from time to time, and whenever it does get raised, of course, and you talk to people and you say, well, what would you replace property taxation with, they say, well, we do not know. You begin to put out the alternatives. Well, would you like a 2 percent increase on the sales tax for all citizens of Manitoba, and the answer is, oh, good heavens, no. Well, would you like an increase in the gas tax or a fuel tax, a gasoline tax imposed on other objects? Oh, good heavens, no. Would you like an increase in income tax? Oh, good heavens, no. Well, where would you see us getting approximately $500 million from if we change the level of taxation?
They will generally at the end of such a conversation come back to saying, well, I may not like it on property tax, but I really cannot think of any better alternative. So in that sense, then, they will come back to saying, well, I guess we have to pay for it somehow because--and I think the member opposite would be the first to agree that the public should pay for public school education absolutely, and if the public is going to pay, as the member opposite feels the public should pay, increasingly large sums of money to public schools, it does have to come from people one way or another. There has to be a way to obtain the money from the people, and property taxation is the way it is done in Manitoba. No one has yet been able to come up with a better alternative. The opposition certainly has not been able to present an alternative that would be better than a property tax, and if they ever had one, we would be pleased to consider it, but, unfortunately, they do not.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
But, Mr. Chairman, we should note that, for the record, we did this year give from general revenue a 2.2 percent increase to public schools, and we increased the supplementary to help poorer school divisions by I think it was $4 million altogether that we provided for school divisions with lower assessments. For 1999-2000--and I cannot believe that we are now looking at those years in our actual working projections--we have asked how to ameliorate assessment swings, where if in a given year some area suddenly finds itself with a dramatic change in its assessment, that perhaps it could be looked at being phased in for that particular division if the variance over or above the status quo is a certain percentage or more, and they are looking at that through the advisory committee.
So we have done some things and we are doing others, but in terms of replacing property taxation with something else, nobody, including the official opposition, has been able to tell us a fairer or more acceptable way to do it. Certainly, people get extremely agitated if it is talked about going on a sales tax, unless the member has a way to fund public education without doing it through tax dollars which to date is the only way we have learned how to do it in this country.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think, as I understand what the committee has been trying to say over the last two years, the issue is not the replacement of property tax, but it is the increasing reliance on property tax, so it is the proportions, I think, that are their concerns. I think, for example, this year's in 1998-99, they reviewed the historical and current portion of education financing borne by general revenues and property taxation.
So I wondered if--the minister indicates that in each of these cases she has some dialogue that it is done informally, verbal discussion with the committee--she had discussed this, the proportions and the shift in, as the committee perceives it, the portioning of education financing, if we can use those terms, and since this has now come up two years running and as I am sure all Manitobans know it is an issue of continuing concern, whether the minister has directed the committee to look at some alternatives or what the next step is from the minister's perspective.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I would not want the record to leave showing an implication that the reliance on financing education via property taxation versus general revenue has changed substantially over time, because there have been very, very small microshifts occasionally, but basically the proportion has remained essentially unchanged for the last 15 years.
So why would we examine something that has not changed in substance for about 15 years? The fact is that property taxation for education purposes, including both ESL and the special levy, provides approximately, well, it was more than 50 percent of the total expenditures of school divisions; that has not changed. In fact, the levy on property that the province taxes for education has not increased since 1994. Again, since 1990, farm property has been exempted from paying provincial tax on property for education, for property tax really for the people of Manitoba, about $16 million a year.
So I think it is just important to note that for the record.
Ms. Friesen: Is the committee wrong then, in the minister's view, when it says that they, and I am quoting, the committee continues to be concerned with the increasing extent to which property taxation is being relied upon to finance education? Now, has the committee not understood the department's perspective? Is there something that should be tabled, some evidence that would substantiate what the minister is saying?
Mrs. McIntosh: I think the member is perhaps looking with the wrong emphasis at the message that is there. It might be that school divisions are placing more emphasis on special levy. The fact is in about a decade, the variance on, the reliance on the property tax has not changed more than about 2 percent in all that time.
But, in answer to her question in terms of what we are doing to help divisions where circumstances make them very aware of these things, would be, for example, when we have just come through a period of reassessment, wherein some areas of the province, they had a massive change in their assessment, and you found areas that were experiencing strong economic growth suddenly having a higher assessment than they had had four years before. Because of that, then, the formula applied to them differently, and in those areas we have asked that if there is a great variance in the assessment, if suddenly you find a house that was worth $80,000 is now worth $110,000--those kinds of things happen--or commercial properties will be assessed at a higher value. If it is a great leap, then we have asked the committee to take a look at perhaps phasing in that adjustment so as to cushion that impact on them. It does, of course, work the other way and those who have experienced lower than expected assessments, or where assessment has fallen, then the benefit in terms of extra money flowing from the province. We have done those two things. I think the member may be referring to perhaps special levy as opposed to the impact of the dependency reliance on property taxes.
* (1630)
But I take what the minister's Advisory Committee on Educational Finance says very seriously. We must, as the provincial economy continues to grow, identify increased general revenue, sources of funding for school divisions, and we did that this year when we increased funding by 2.2 percent using general revenue to do that. We hope to do that again next year. I cannot speak for what the final decision on funding for next year will be, but we have always said--and I am sure the member can appreciate the truth of what we said--is that during the recession and during the full impact of the federal transfer payments, which I know is hard for members opposite to acknowledge, but those federal transfer cuts were real and they had a very, very devastating impact on the entire Department of Education and the entire Department of Health, not just certain aspects of it.
We just took a look at the operating budget for the University of Manitoba being $227 million a year, and our federal transfer cut was $220 million a year. Essentially they wiped out the entire operating budget of the University of Manitoba in one transfer cut. Somehow we had to keep the University of Manitoba going, so during those recessionary years, in the period when we were feeling those full impacts, we were making adjustments through the rest of our departments. We are now a stronger economy. We still do not think it is right or fair to have to backfill federal cuts, the federal government absolving itself of its responsibility, but we are able now to begin strengthening the money that we provide from our own provincial general revenues. That is what we have been doing. We did it this year. We have announced at least the floor for next year's funding, and that is out of general revenue. That is not relying on property taxation to accomplish that increase.
Ms. Friesen: The purpose of my question was to determine which of the statements is correct, and for two years running the committee has used the precise wording, and I quote: the committee continues to be concerned with the increasing extent to which property taxation is being relied upon to finance education.
The minister says that she has a dialogue with them each year, and the minister also claims that there has been little shift in the reliance upon property taxation. I simply am looking for some direction on this. There do seem to be two points of view on this, and I wondered if the minister had some evidence--she was quoting some numbers, for example--there on the percentage shift that there has been in the property tax reliance over the last 15 years, I think it was.
So I wondered if we could, for the benefit of perhaps the small public which reads Estimates, indicate which is right, which is correct, and how we can we provide the evidence to people that property tax has not shifted in the last 15 years.
Mrs. McIntosh: If the member is trying to get me to say that I am incorrect or they are incorrect, you certainly will not get me to say that, because both are correct, depending on your point of view. In terms of figures, I can indicate that since 1988, when we came to office, the reliance on property tax has increased by 2.8 percent. Now, I do not consider that a heavy increase in reliance on property tax, but some might. The member opposite might, for example. The member knows that she and I will often come to disputes when I will say things like, I do not think 2.8 percent over 10 years is overreliance, and the member might say, well, I do. It is a difference of opinion, and so it is subjective.
If the member wants it on the record, I put it on the record and let that small public she refers to that reads Estimates judge for themselves. Is 2.8 percent increase in reliance on property tax over 10 years too much of an increase in reliance or not? So I would ask those who are reading this to take a look at 2.8 percent since 1988 over 10 years and ask themselves the question: Is that too much of an increasing reliance on property tax?
As I have said, I hope to keep that change in the near future as we did last year, that we look to continued growth in Manitoba and, as our fortunes continue to increase because the economy is stronger, then I hope and expect you will see that reflected in the way in which we are able to assign the monies that we have.
Ms. Friesen: Well, the words are not mine; they are those of a committee which meets regularly with the minister. So that was my concern is that they appear to be arguing one thing, increasing reliance upon the property tax, and the minister is arguing that it is a very small change. So the other part of my question was: could the minister table some numbers? Could she table the survey since 1988 which shows that the shift has only been 2 percent? Which tables are available to the public? What information is available to the public that would show them that this is, indeed, the case?
* (1640)
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that the member chooses not to believe me and my staff, but I will--
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister should be imputing motives. My request was for evidence that would enable people to understand the minister's perspective.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. A point of order should be raised if the rules of the House are being overridden. The honourable member clearly had a dispute over the facts.
Ms.
Mr. Chairperson: We will take it under advisement and review Hansard to get the exact words that the minister put on the record.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude her remarks.
Mrs. McIntosh: I am sorry I interpreted the member's remarks that way. I was under the assumption that in Estimates a minister of the Crown sitting in the Legislative Assembly with her senior staff answering questions on Estimates of Expenditures for the Committee of Supply for the Province of Manitoba would provide factual information. I interpreted the member's question as needing proof that my comments were accurate, which led me to think that perhaps she did not place credibility in the statements of me and my staff here today.
So, if I misinterpreted the implication that she appeared to somehow leave on the record, it is just the way in which she phrases her words that leaves that implication. I know she did not mean it, it just sounds that way. So I will accept the fact that she does believe that this is correct information, and she is simply looking for some other authority to verify that I am, indeed, speaking the truth accurately in this Chamber.
So, Mr. Chairman, we do not have that here because the member also indicated: could she please see the survey. There is no survey. The member has a habit of doing things such as that saying: could you please show me the survey, could you please show me the report--when she does not know for sure if there has been a survey or a report. It would be better if she phrased her questions to say: was there a survey? Well, there are reasons for those games with words; we all know them. I find them--they are just irritating, but I have to accept that is the way it is.
I do not want to play games with words in return the same way that she does. I will simply say that it is over 10 years. We have adjusted for inflation. The eight is actually three--2.3 percent. So she is probably right to ask for verification because what I thought was an eight is actually a three. Mr. Chairman, 2.3 percent over 10 years, adjusted for inflation, constant dollars is the increasing reliance on property taxation. It would be up to the viewer to ascertain whether that is overly increased reliance or appropriate reliance, but we will go back and we can develop a table expressly for the member's information because we get this information every year from school divisions. We can have the staff compile that information for her, and that would give her a comfort level that what I have spoken here today is indeed the truth.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think one thing I would like to say to the minister from the beginning is that my training is as an historian. My training is always to ask for evidence. It does not matter what the authority is, what the location is, what the source is, always ask for evidence. That is the whole range of training that I have had. It is unfortunate that the minister wants to take this personally; it is not personal at all. I believe that is one of the responsibilities of a critic, and it is, in fact, also the way that I have been trained.
The reason that I asked for evidence, apart from that, is, of course, that the sources of evidence for such an argument that it has only been a 2.8 percent or 2.3 percent shift are many and diverse. They come from the provincial levying of taxes, they come from a local levying of taxes and, as the minister has said, it comes from many school divisions, as well. So the issue for the public is how do we arrive at that number, what sources of information has the minister taken, and how have those tables been derived? That is really all I am trying to do is to get that on the public record.
I am quite prepared to believe either case, either side on this, but I would like to be able to see some evidence that I could judge, and I think it is important for the public. If the minister is making the argument that the shift has only been small, interesting argument, where is the evidence? The department must have done that survey over 10 years, it would seem to me, and the minister indicates that it would require a surveying, a reflection over 10 years, again, very difficult for any individual member of the general public to do. So what I am trying to do is to get something on the public record that backs up that statement as evidence and that will enable a public debate to take place on figures that are generally accepted.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the clarification. I have absolutely no problem with providing evidentiary confirmation of the information provided by senior staff administers in the House, no problem at all, and with the rephrasing of her question, she has made it clear that it is not an inference as to the integrity of the minister or her senior staff. I appreciate that clarification because sometimes the original wording differs from the explanation. The explanation is very much appreciated. It clarifies that there was no intending to discredit the integrity of the minister or the senior staff, and I presume then that she will be wanting tables and evidence for all the other questions that we are going to be asking here, given her training as an historian. I can say that we do have staff that can do tabling analysis.
Once again, she refers to the fact that she is sure that the staff had to do a survey to get the information. In the Department of Education, much information is provided to us on an annual basis. It is not necessarily a survey, and the department can go to the work to develop the data on an annual basis going back over 10 years for her for this year's Estimates. The department is using, in terms of the 2.3 percent, department figures to do the analysis of facts on constant dollars, a special levy in ESL. They in turn rely on data from school divisions and the school divisions' own special levies and departmental figures on ESL. They can do that extra work on the previous 10 years for the member for this year's Estimates, and I am presuming then we will be asked for tablings on each and every answer I provide here.
I would just ask for some consideration of the time that my staff has to spend confirming each answer that I give here because there will be a lot of questions, and each answer to be provided evidence that what I am saying is the truth could take us a fair bit of time in Estimates, Mr. Chairman, that I would hate to see staff taken away from their duties. What has happened in years past is the member had tied the staff up gathering information and then criticized them for not being on top of their daily work, and I do not want to see that happen again this year. So I would appreciate some consideration of the time that my staff has to spend going back to compile 10-year-old figures to prove that my current statement is correct. After that consideration is granted, I am quite happy to carry on.
* (1650)
Ms. Friesen: I appreciate the minister preparing that and presenting it to this committee. I would like to ask about the professional development sections of the same advisory committee's reports to the minister, advice to the minister. I think in two years running, the committee has made recommendations about professional development. In the first instance, the previous year, they made recommendations about the financing of it. In this current year, that is 98-99, they have made a number of recommendations about the recording of professional development time, about the introduction of new curriculum and implementation guides, as well as, repeating some of their recommendations from the previous year on funding. It is on page 7 of the '98-99 Advice to the Minister. I wonder if the minister could give us a sense of what her response has been to this.
Mrs. McIntosh: The first part of the recommendation is, I think, best dealt with under School Programs division, 16.2.(e), when we talk about it under that Section 16.2.(e) regarding Program Implementation, and I will have the appropriate staff here at that point when we get to that line. The other two points were not acted on this year. We had a higher priority in the next item where we flowed extra money into technologies. So that is the response to that particular one.
Ms. Friesen: I understand what the minister is saying, that she will discuss 16.2.(e) Section (1), that is Curriculum Implementation. Section (2) dealt with the recording of professional development time to be permitted on a part-day or an hours basis to meet the requirements of the school calendar, and I wonder if the minister had some comments on that. That is a policy issue. It does not appear at first glance to be a financial issue. I wondered what the response of the minister had been to that one.
Mrs. McIntosh: That particular one about the part-day professional development was one we did not address this year. It is not that it is not important or it is not a good idea, because many of the items brought forward, even if they were not adopted, we would still consider to be good ideas, but some of the others would take higher priority. If you were to talk to people about the priorities, they will list all the things that they think they would like to see, and they are all normally good and worthy things, but some will be more important than others in terms of a need to move upon right away.
There were others that were felt to be more important to move on right away, such, as I say, the money for technology in schools, which even then we need more. Early intervention in schools, which was another one, was deemed to be of higher priority. So, as I say, it is not that we did not feel this was a good one; it is just that they had others such as early intervention, such as technology, et cetera, that had a higher priority, and we decided to flow the extra monies to those areas rather than this one.
It may be that some year this will become a high priority or we will address it in some way but not for this year.
Ms. Friesen: At first glance, this section does not appear to have a cost attached to it. The minister keeps comparing it to things which have a cost and are of a higher priority. I wondered if she perhaps could explain for the record, are there costs attached to this one? Is this an issue that is something of educational finance or is it something that can be dealt with in an administrative manner?
Mr. Chairperson: Perhaps the minister would like to start us off at our next session with the answer to that question.
The hour now being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.