LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, May 9, 1994
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration
of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item
1.(c)(1) on page 36.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
If I can just get a bit of a further explanation in terms
of what it is that they actually do. Are
we talking about submission of all the school division budgets that are given
to the department through here, or what more specifically is this?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, it is as it says.
This is where our main policy and thought‑developing section is
within the department. It is done
different ways. Education is pretty
large, but within the context of greater centralization we have always sensed
that all of our renewed thinking or review should be passed through a group of
people who are learned in many respects, not the least of which is reading
literature, seeing what is happening elsewhere, reporting on what is happening
elsewhere, and to try and give greater insight into policy development or day‑to‑day
decisions. Of course, this group is
involved very closely with Administration and Finance, Program Development and
the BEF sections, if that is the question.
* (2005)
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, it does help clarify it somewhat. I would ask then in terms of the government
adopts priorities or strategy, how does it ensure that those priorities that it
has established are in fact being brought down?
Again, it is just more sort of as an explanation of trying to get a
better understanding.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is
movement both ways. There is not down or
up so much as there is‑‑and again, this depends on personalities,
this depends on the make‑up of, I guess to start at a place,
ministers. Some ministers are more
proactive as to wanting changes and/or certain thrusts, certain emphasis, as
compared to others. Others, of course,
like to stay within the existing routine and make decisions from day to day.
Then of course it depends on the deputy. Deputies have an awful lot of influence. Then, within the department, you have your
ADMs who also are given an awful lot of responsibility, beyond day to day
though, beyond to look into the future, look into the past and come forward
with recommendations.
The great clearing house of all of this and these different
forces at work, of course, is housed within the unit of policy and development,
and whoever has greater‑‑whoever is more dominant in these discussions
ultimately will come to a point where directions are given to staff to research
and/or prepare towards certain goals. So
it is a society in a sense. There is
nothing particularly novel about it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in my opening
remarks, I made reference to the government now being in for six years, a
number of Education ministers, and I look at it in terms of strategic
priorities.
I am somewhat curious in terms of why it is at this point
in time that we have been hearing about the whole need for education
reform. Is it because it is this
particular minister that is currently in place, or is this something that the
department within itself‑‑because the department as I say is the
one that develops the strategies for the ministers to prioritize, I guess. I wonder if the minister could comment on
that.
Mr. Manness: Again, my response will be somewhat similar
to the one I made. Our government has
been responsible for fostering a number of reviews in a number of areas. I think of the STAC report, and I think of
the High School Review inherited from the other government, but we have done a
number of reviews, the initiatives of which, of course, were to focus in on
areas of change.
Where the strategic direction came from those reviews, I
imagine some of them did start within the department. I imagine others have started within the
policy arm of government, the Premier's policy arm, and some are initiatives of
ministers. They can start almost
anywhere, but before they go very far, I mean they have to go through cabinet,
and ultimately, the cabinet decides whether or not the Department of Education
should maintain along a course. So to
the extent that the minister of the day starts them depends on who that
minister may or may not be, and you know the personalities play a large role
here.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not too sure if
this is maybe the most opportune or the best time to bring this particular
issue up, but it was made reference to earlier.
It is the amount of restructuring that was taking place. I was faxed a copy with respect to the
program development and support services, a number of different flow charts or
organizational structures. If this is
not the most appropriate time to discuss it, I would be interested in knowing
if in fact the minister could either provide for the actual differences. Because this is my first year as critic, all
I have is what the reform package entails.
To see first‑hand in terms of what the actual changes were, it would
be somewhat beneficial to have the last year's structures or organizational
structures. It all came to me through
the program development and support services where I understand that a vast
majority of the reorganization took place.
* (2010)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I could do it
now. I prefer very much to do it a
little further on when we get right into that division. It is a major division, a major change. The questions are certainly worthwhile
putting and hopefully responding, and the response will be worthwhile. I would ask the member maybe to defer till
then if he would not mind.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have
any problem with that. I would ask the
minister, if he does have the previous charts that it would be somewhat
beneficial for myself just to be able to crosscheck, again, so I can just get a
better understanding so that when it does come up, I am better able to ask
questions on it.
I know that the member for the New Democratic Party was
ending off while we adjourned, so I am quite content to let him have the floor
again.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that more or
less was covered in last year's supplementary, but if it is not, we will try and
provide those leaflets for the member.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the minister
working from a five‑year strategic plan, or is there such a thing right
now in the department?
Mr. Manness: Oh, there are always strategic plans in
departments. The member knows that. Am I working from one? Well, I am sure I am part of one. Do I go to it and look at it every night
before I turn in? The answer is no, but
everything we are doing is part of a strategy.
Mr. Plohman: I am sure it is part of a strategy. It might be a six‑month plan right now,
I do not know, or maybe three.
I just wondered if the minister has the plan, and maybe it
has been revised, whether he could table a strategic plan, the current one, for
the members of the committee.
Mr. Manness: Well, the deputy informs me that a strategic
plan began in '91, and it was to last till 1996, but obviously it is being
radically altered over the course of the last few months. The member was not here when I made comment
in response to a question put by the member for
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying he is altering the
plan to fit the current situation, perhaps accelerating some things or is it to
fit his own priorities as minister?
Mr. Manness: Well, certainly the latter‑‑I
mean, I have always prided myself in being a minister who likes to move on and
do things. I do not think what I am
doing is in any respect contrary to the plan, but even if it were, is a plan,
because it was developed in '91, sacred until '96? Of course, it is not. Nothing is particularly sacred, but the
general thrust and indeed much of the work that was done in 1990 and '91 and
'92 is going to come to ultimate fruition once the reform package comes down.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, you know we have a copy of the
original plan. I just wondered if the
minister had updated it as a result of the current actions and whether he would
be willing to table a revised strategic plan, because as the minister said, it
does change and nothing is sacred. So it
is a guideline, but these things change.
They are revised. So in keeping
with that, I just wanted to know if the minister had a revised plan and whether
that could be made available.
* (2015)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have a plan,
I mean, not that I can share with the member‑‑I put that qualifier
in.
When I look at in '91 what we referred to, we referred to
labour market development, we talked about rural development strategy, college
governance, adult literacy, basic education for adults, northern education
strategy, and I could go on and on and on.
Those are still key planks of the '91 plan, of the '91‑96 plan.
Mr. Plohman: Okay, so the minister can just be very clear
in his answer. He does not have a
revised plan that he could share with the committee. This is still working from the '91‑96
plan. It is not revised to become a '92‑97
plan, a '93‑98 plan, a '94‑99 and so on.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have never been
somebody who has been deeply in love with socialist five‑year plans. I understand strategic planning. If the member says we have not looked at the plan
or we have not done anything in concert with it‑‑he can try and put
words in my mouth if he so chooses, but the reality is we know what areas in
education we need to address, and we are working the best we can to address
them.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not trying to
put words in the minister's mouth. He
was not being very clear about what he actually is working from at the present
time, and I was just endeavouring to have that clear.
It is not a socialist five‑year plan. It can be many kinds of five‑year
plans, corporate five‑year plans.
I understand the Lotteries Corporation has a running five‑year
plan. The Liberals are fully aware that
they have not been able to get anything past the '91 plan.
I do not know whether in fact there is a '92‑97 plan
or whether it is just something that is imagined. On that basis, it would seem that these plans
are revised and another year is tacked on.
It is done for capital purposes many times, for many different purposes,
and that is why I am asking the minister if he has such a revision.
If he has not completed it, it is fine to say he does not
have a revised plan on a five‑year basis in front of him at the present
time. He is working from a different
timetable right now, and that is fair ball.
Mr. Manness: The member for Dauphin makes a good
point. Certainly the strategic plan at
this point in time is being rewritten.
We are attempting to update it indicating aspects that we sense have
been completed since '91 and, as importantly of course, to redefine, given new
thrusts, but which still in themselves are not terribly far removed from some
of the significant planks that were put into place in '91. Yes, there is greater definition around some
of the reform issues that we are talking about, but they still more or less fit
into what we attempted to define with some certainty in 1991 for five years
out.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, and some of them might have been
accomplished already. For example, the
minister talked about college governance.
I do not know if there is another model contemplated, but obviously
there was a change made there, so that should now be written out of this plan
and of course new issues included in the plan.
That is really what we are talking about here.
I wanted to ask the minister about the SAIP program. That is the national test. It was raised earlier. Last year it was math, and the results came
down, and there was some controversy over how
* (2020)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said casually
when the results came out, but I will say for the record with more force right
now, I was not very happy with the results.
I looked into the methodologies.
I heard the criticism around the methodologies. I heard about some indications that a certain
skill set of learning was not in our curriculum. I looked into that and I found out that
students though that learned it in another study area, in geography‑‑people
that had taken geography seemed to do better than those who supposedly‑‑no,
was it the other way around? [interjection] That is right. If they studied it in geography they did it
in math. I looked into methodologies, I
looked into all the criticism of how it was that
Now, some people said‑‑I went and talked to
principals and they said, well, the reason we did not do well on the test was
because it had no value, my students would not study. I looked across the land and nowhere, no
province gave it value, so I have to believe that our students are more or less
homogeneous with other Canadian students and, therefore, I would have to factor
out that role.
I looked at it I thought in as dispassionate, as objective
a fashion as I could. I am sorry, I have
to come to the conclusion that we did not do particularly well, given though
when we looked at our students studying français in immersion and someone says,
well, the immersion students tend to be students whose parents are a little bit
more active and a little more involved, but even separating that out and going
onto the français side and using the same Manitoba curriculum, which more or
less was translated, I am led to believe, that still within the French milieu
the results were significantly better.
I guess this is what troubled me more than anything, that
when it came to doing basic mathematical functions like, to use an example, A
plus B divided by C multiplied by D, when you lay it out as a function, our
students did relatively well, average.
But you put the problem or you take those same computations in the
context of a problem where you have to comprehend, you have to read, and we
have talked and we have given a lot of focus today to this thing called problem
solving, and you put it in the context of a worded question where you have to
be able to read and write and comprehend, well, that is where we fell off the
scale.
Is it a math problem?
I do not know. Is it a curriculum
problem? I do not think so. Is it a comprehension or is it a literature
problem or a language arts problem? I am
beginning to think so and I am troubled by that greatly.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister covered off a lot of the
areas that were criticized from various quarters with regard to that test. So far as the curriculum covering actual
concepts in mathematics that were tested‑‑the minister said, well,
some of them were studied in other subjects like geography. I am not certain, I do not have the specific
examples, but I do know that teachers and students did approach me that there
were concepts that were part of our Grade 12 curriculum and this test was being
administered to Grade 11 students right across the country, our 17‑ and
16‑year olds, and therefore they would not be in Grade 12. They would not have taken those concepts and
therefore they could not possibly have been taught those concepts, and what
sense does it make to test them on them?
The minister may say, well, that shows that we are behind
or our curriculum is wrong. The point
is, and that is what I wanted to ask the minister, why would you participate in
a national test if you do not have a national standard, a national curriculum
for that particular test other than to tell you that you do not have a national
curriculum? I mean, what does it really
tell you? It is absolutely ridiculous to
test kids on concepts that are not part of the curriculum or that they are not
being taught at a particular level. It
does not serve any particular purpose.
It just frustrates everyone, demoralizes people, students and teachers
alike.
I just asked the minister, if he recognizes that certain
concepts were not being taught in that particular grade level, then why did
* (2025)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, quite easy, because
I did not talk to a Minister of Education who did not
indicate to me, well, you know, that test, there was one part of it that we do
not think our students covered either.
That was the call across the land.
I know one thing. We will never
get to the point where we want to go, if we are talking about some uniformity
standards across this country. We will
never get there unless we start. Was it
a perfect start? No.
The member talks about the teachers and students being
frustrated. I have not had any students
report to me as to their frustration.
Yes, I have had some teachers, and I have had some trustees. I am not going to blame and I never will
blame anybody. I mean, to me it is not
an issue of blame. To me, it is an issue
of learning from the result, trying to work more closely with the other
provinces, trying to determine whether or not we can work towards some common
curriculum by subject area, and ultimately being honest to our students and
letting them know where they stand vis‑à‑vis other students across
the land, nothing more. I am not looking
for alibis. Alibis are for losers.
Our students, in my view, gave it their best shot. I have to think that they did the best they
could. I am not down on the
students. All I am saying, though, is,
let us try and find some uniformity and be honest with them; let them know
where we stand vis‑à‑vis others; and, more importantly, let us in
this nation try to work towards some common areas of standards so that our
students know where they stand.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, the minister talks about being a
team player and so on. It is easy to say
he is being a team player, but he has to think about the impact of this on the
people that are most closely involved and the purpose of it. That is what I am trying to explore with the
minister.
The minister says, he had a part in developing the math
test. My point at the time was that, if
you had a part in making it, why did you not ensure that the parts that were
being applied to students in
Otherwise, it undermines the public education system, and
then I think that it leads to lack of confidence in the public education system
to a greater degree, perhaps, than is necessary, by the public, if the minister
is indeed playing into that kind of scenario.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if the
member for Dauphin has delved into this to even know what part of the
curriculum we did not teach‑‑
Mr. Plohman: I talked to teachers.
* (2030)
Mr. Manness: Yes, and so they would have told him, what
particular area, because I can tell you, we were certainly mindful of the
criticism that the area dealing with graphs and charts was the only area that
our students did not have presentation, only that part that had not been taught
within the formal mathematics, yet its offset is being in geography.
The member may find it interesting, because he will not
find this from the teachers, but we have seen the notes, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. Our students did very well
in graphs and charts, better than they did on average in the rest of the other,
because they learned that in geography.
So the criticism is invalid. The
criticism is not valid. Unless the
member can tell me that there was another area of study that our students were
not provided for within the Manitoba‑made curriculum, then I say he is
using rhetoric, because we looked at this.
We were sensitive to it. So the
member is generalizing. He is saying
that our kids did not have access to this curriculum, and he is wrong.
Well, then he will prove me wrong if he shakes his
head. If he says I am wrong, well, then
he will prove me wrong, and he will show me what areas our students did not
have presented to them by way of Manitoba‑made curriculum.
Again, as I point out to him, our students did reasonably
well when it comes to basic math. That
was not the problem where we fell down.
It was in the problem‑solving side and where you can draw a
conclusion. It came from pure
comprehension. Of course, I pointed that
out to the trustees, I pointed it out to others, and I draw a stare. I draw a stare, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
because all of a sudden there is no convenient entity to blame.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, clearly the area of application and
knowledge in problem solving was identified as an area that was the problem,
and not one teacher said, well, we have not taught that or we are concerned
about this test because we have not been able to prepare our students for
application of knowledge in a problem‑solving situation. It was factual pieces of information that
they were concerned was not being taught in, I believe, algebra and geometry,
some concepts in those areas, and I cannot tell the minister now. This was a year and a half ago that I talked
to them about it, and I had raised this during the Estimates last year as well,
but I think it is important that the minister not generalize, as well, at this
point without having all of the information as to the subtleties of what might
have been on that test and what was precisely taught in that particular grade,
and so to refute it and say that is a generalization.
I think the issue of problem solving is one that is of deep
concern and, I think, one that I am surprised the minister has not identified
when he talks about his basics. If I am
wrong, he can perhaps tell me that is not his view of what constitutes basics,
but I think most people are talking about ability to problem solve, critical
thinking, those kinds of words to describe a basic for students in education
today. Yet the minister talks about
going back to the basics, and I just wonder whether in fact he defines basics
in a broader way than the traditional basics.
If so, what basics is he talking about.
As a result of this test, does the minister have a greater feeling for
the need to ensure that our students are able to apply knowledge in a problem‑solving
situation and to critically analyze data and apply the knowledge they have, or
is this something that he always did feel was part of the basic curriculum and
should be part of the basics in education today?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member says the
minister, meaning myself, talks about back to the basics. This minister has never once used those
terms. Never in a public format, never
in a private format, have I been quoted as saying, back to the basics. There have been a lot of headlines written, a
lot of people want to cast me as being enthralled with back to the basics. I have never ever said that, and I never
will, but I mean the member and others will want to, of course, forge me in
that mold, but that is fine.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know what terminology one
uses. I know that the traditional
partners today in my discussions with them are just scared to death, hate the
term and yet everybody is searching around for basically a term that captures
pure literacy so that individuals, regardless of the new technology coming in,
we can talk about critical thinking, we can talk about communication skills,
and we can talk about problem solving.
We can use any term we want, but unless you know the
meaning of the word, unless you can comprehend words put together in a
sentence, you are basically not literate, and you are not going to learn. You are not going to problem solve, and you
are not going to be able to do critical analysis, because you have to have a
foundation in which to do those things.
So if the member wants to move me back 50 years ago into a
back‑to‑basics person, fine, he can call me anything he wants. All I care about is literacy, nothing more,
so that an individual, when they are in grade‑‑well, whatever grade
they are in and, indeed, whether they graduate or whether they do not graduate,
whatever they do, but if they have the fire and the energy and they want to be
lifelong learners and they want to improve their lot by doing things on their
own, as more and more will be called to do in our society over the years to
come, at least they have the tools to do that.
The basis of all of that is literacy and language arts.
So if the member wants to know where my‑‑and I
am a math‑science type of person but, as I have said to others, my focus
purely is on language arts and the ability to read and write and communicate
and comprehend.
Mr. Plohman: I would agree with the minister that literacy
is a fundamental basic to all learning.
I wonder, though, if the minister is going to attempt in his reform to
qualify or to define the term or is he going to generally kind of stay away
from this kind of jargon that has been used, perhaps unfairly, to describe
either the minister or others who have talked about the basics as if it was
what was taught 30 years. And if it
unfairly describes that, then I would say, I agree that that is a simplistic
way of looking at it.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I find so
difficult, everybody agrees, but there is a mindset out there that you cannot
use the word "basic."
Now, I have heard the word foundation skills used. That is now beginning to become growingly
offensive to some. I have heard‑‑we
are trying to come up with a new term too so we do not offend anybody. But why is it that people in the education
community are the most offended? I guess
because it conjures up memory, learning by rote. I guess it just conjures something up so
negative to a lot of people, or is it something greater than that?
I have not been able to put my finger on that, quite
frankly, but there is just an incredible concern within the traditional
education community that the word basic not be used. Fine.
I do not care. I am trying to
find a better word, trying to reach out, but the reality is, it has to mean
foundation in the sense that you cannot do anything unless you have a foundation. So you better know by the time you are in
Grade 3 or 4, you better have a pretty fair understanding as to the principles
of mathematics, and you better have‑‑not that you have to be a
rocket scientist by the time you are in Grade 9. I mean, that is foolhardy.
I would love to see a system, and I am giving the member
some insight where a lot of students by the time they are in Senior 1 or Senior
2, is it really important that they take any math after that? It may not be, as long as they have good grounding
in math. But more importantly than math,
of course, in my view, is language arts because you have to be able to
comprehend.
* (2040)
Today I have questioned whether all the forces within the
public school system or even in the independent school system are being,
regardless of what your specialization is, whatever it is you are teaching
within the setting of the school, whether or not we are giving enough focus to
all the dimensions that lead to fuller comprehension, so, yes, that is my bias.
Mr. Plohman: Would the minister have any comments on his
view of what the basic‑‑I should not use the word now‑‑[interjection]
No, no, I was not going to use it in the form that the minister thinks in terms
of basics. I was going to use it in a
different way.
The kind of fundamental concern that the private sector has
with the public education system, an agenda that they might have, I would like
to get some insight into‑‑as a result of putting together this
reform plan and discussions the minister may have had, has had on an ongoing
basis with the private sector and so on‑‑what their motivation is,
what do they want in students? I really
do not like to hear people getting on to Peter Warren or other situations and
saying that the graduates coming out of school are illiterate, and they hired
this one person, the person was illiterate.
First of all, I kind of wonder why they hired the person in
the first place with the choice they have nowadays, the number of jobs versus
the number of people looking. Did they
perhaps hire a student who was not qualified academically, perhaps in a
different stream in high school completely than what was required? I just cannot fathom the idea of illiterates
looking for jobs that have a Grade 12 graduate certificate nowadays from the
university entrance program, for sure. I
would think perhaps not for the 04 program, I do not know. We have given them certificates, but surely
the employers know the difference of the kind of people and the kind of courses
that people have taken for jobs that they are hiring them. I cannot understand where we get that kind of
situation nowadays, employers saying there are illiterates coming looking for
jobs and have a Grade 12 diploma.
I do not know what they are really looking for in the criticism
of the public school system. It seems to
me that it is to their advantage to have critical thinkers, to have analytical
minds, to have people who will question and want to look behind something to
find the greater knowledge of why things are done a certain way and to question
and to propose alternatives that are better‑‑critical thinkers that
can analyze like that. I would not think
people who can do robotic tasks and produce widgets for employers. What is it that they are complaining about?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member hears the
complaints as well as I do. I am not
going to sit here for one moment and protect the business community or defend
the business community, because at times I do not really understand what it is
they are seeking either. But let me say
very clearly that I too am troubled in many respects with what the Grade 12
graduation certificate does not say. It
says basically today, in the minds of many, at least that are reporting to me,
that this student has been in the public school system for 12 years or 13
years. Some would say not a lot more.
So consequently the good‑faith public school model
that we have in place lends itself to a growing degree of criticism and is
almost hapless and helpless to defend itself, and that is unfortunate. Because many, virtually all, are graduating
without differentiation and, in fairness to them, are presenting their wares,
in other words their certificate of graduation and their place in our society,
having achieved, to the marketplace. The
marketplace is growingly upset because they sense some individuals are lacking
some shortage of achievement in the area of math, science, language, social
studies skills, the ability to read, write and communicate and to creatively
solve problems.
The great discomforting aspect to me is one I believe that
tends to be truer more often than I would like to see. Secondly, it is so unfair to that student who
has made this achievement in their own mind, presented their academic wares,
and are turned down or criticized because of the shortage, perceived and real.
Now, the business community comes along and they say, well,
we want a change. Well, good for
them. I mean, what has gone wrong in the
first place if something has gone wrong?
Well, the business community 25‑30 years ago began to
delegate. I mean, they were once pretty
vital partners in the community within the education area. But, of course, individuals like the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and myself and many others, we graduated and we had
some higher learning and we convinced people that now if we went into education
it was in good hands. So the business
community said, well, we do not have to watch as carefully as we used to. Public education is in good hands.
Not indicating for a moment as to whether or not it was,
the fact is the world was changing, everybody was pulling away from everybody
except of course the teachers and the practitioners who were pulling away from
the public school system, and pushing more and more upon it, expecting it to be
all things to all people and be successful in doing it. All of a sudden, now it seems to be short in
some dimensions. Now the business
community says, well, they want change.
They want back in. They want it
righted. They do not know how to get
there though, and they never will, but you better believe they are going to
have influence on the say. So let us
understand then that they are going to have influence.
Are they going to rewrite the script as to what the public
school system is going to look like?
Absolutely not. Why should
they? I mean, the business community is
one player in the community of influence, but will they have influence? Yes, and maybe that is exactly what the
public school system needs again. It
needs the business community. It needs
the home. It needs the church. It needs the service groups. It needs everybody to take an interest in it
again, and when that happens your public school system again will grow, because
then no longer can the Minister of Education and/or the locally elected
trustees and powerful associations, whether they are trustees or teachers, have
the monopoly of influence. So I am not
troubled by it, but believe me I am not also carrying a business agenda with
respect to reform.
Mr. Plohman: First of all, I thank the minister for his
frankness on that. I think taken to
extreme we see some of the things that are happening in the United States with
corporate takeover of schools in some areas, actually managing the schools, and
directing to a large extent, as I understand it, even what is being taught in
the schools, charging tuition fees and so on.
* (2050)
Is this the kind of competition that the minister would
like to see developed? He did say on
several occasions in different forums and here at the table that competition,
he believes, is good, keeps everybody on their toes. It is going to be a positive thing, in his
view, for the public education system too, but he talks about doing that in the
public domain primarily, as I understand it.
I just want to ask the minister whether he sees this moving
towards a kind of corporate involvement in the public school system in any way,
or does he feel that there is absolutely no way that should be an avenue that
should be pursued?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not see that
type of model coming in here into
I think if we do that and we reach out to everybody to once
again claim the public school system as part of its own, just not in words but
indeed by actions, and we break some of the monopolies that exist around it, we
will end up with a better system. If we
do not do that, then the model that the member is talking about in the
I have said this many times, and I do not ask the members
to accept it‑‑because I say it is the main reason I do not ask them
to accept it‑‑but education is power and the great opportunity for
so many of our people from lesser advantaged classes or locations is always
through the public school system, but to the extent that the level it provides
is in any way average or lower, then I say that the great opportunity we talk
about just is not there.
The greatest opportunity for those disadvantaged in our
society is when the public school system, the standards around it, free access
to it, are at the very highest levels.
That is then when you can make meaningfully the statement of equal
opportunity for all and for anybody in the space of a generation to pull
themselves from below average economic status to something average or
above. Indeed, that is the foundation of
our system. That is why we believe in
it, but to give that common effect we had better make it as high quality as
possible.
Mr. Plohman: It is an interesting discussion about the
system resting on its laurels. I do not
know whether that is because governments have not led sufficiently.
If you look at this government in the past few years, the
Curriculum branch, for example, which should be developing and working with
teachers, with parents, with school boards, with students, with all the partners
in education to develop and update curriculum, has been decimated by the
government over the last few years. So
when the minister talks about, the system cannot rest on its laurels, I mean,
who is really resting on their laurels here?
What has really been happening?
Would the minister say, would he fault his own government for perhaps
not taking enough initiative in this area over the last number of years and in
fact failing in that particular role?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, most definitely
not. I do not fault the government, and
I do not fault anybody particularly. I
do know that my statements, per
The member may like to try and corner me to suggest that
our government has not taken a lead. I
do not accept that. A lot of the work
that my predecessors have done with respect to review are going to be
meaningfully used with respect to the reform, and it is all in place.
I really do not think we are following anybody in the
nation. I have read all of or at least
most of what has happened in other places.
I have seen the gyrations
Mr. Plohman: It was, you mean, or is?
Mr. Manness: No, is.
We of course are going to want to work closer with Alberta
and Saskatchewan to the extent they want to work, and I think they do,
together, because there is no use reinventing all of this, particularly in your‑‑what
is the word? You cannot use the word
"basics" any more‑‑foundation and skill area,
fundamental. So we are trying to do it.
No, I will not cast any blame on the government. I think we are where we should be, but we have
to move the pace forward a little more quickly, and we plan to do that.
I just may say, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that in discussion
with the stakeholders I find it so interesting that when they are talking about
back to the basics they are not using the word basics. The most interesting part of the discussion
that you would have with an educator today, or anybody for that matter, when
you talk about the past is, they cannot talk about the past without using the
word basic. They will use another word. As sure as I am sitting here, what they will
say parenthetically is, well, I mean, like the old basic, or they will use the
word "basic." It will come up
almost in every third sentence. You
cannot get away from talking education today without using the term, even if
you do not want to. Even if you want to
wash your own mouth out in using it, you end up using it.
Mr. Plohman: That is right. People will talk about the most important
things as being basic. They may not be
the same things as what we would call the traditional basics, but they are
fundamental to today. So they will say,
these are basic things that we must concentrate on. I do not have a problem using that word as
long as what we are defining is the modern‑day basics and not just what was
viewed as the three Rs or whatever it was in previous years.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will have to recess this section of Supply
to go to the Chamber for a vote, and we will reconvene after the vote.
The committee recessed
at 8:59 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
9:15 p.m.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Order, please. We will now resume consideration of the Estimates
of the Department of Education and Training.
We are on line 1.(c)(1).
Mr. Plohman: Well, we are not going to, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, get into too much more, I think, here. There is lots of time in the departmental
areas to discuss some of these issues that we are discussing now as we get into
the changes in the department and some of the branches of the department, but I
just wanted to ask one or two more questions following on what we were
discussing before, and that is whether the minister could give some idea about,
shed some light as to, what he feels the role or impact of so‑called
competition in the public school system is supposed to have on the quality of
the service that is being provided?
It seems to me that a combination of things are taking
place, unless you are talking about resting on their laurels at the present,
and they can no longer rest on their laurels.
I asked him whether in fact maybe that could not be blamed somewhat on
the department not showing leadership and, as a matter of fact, reducing staff
in key areas, in curriculum, for example.
So the minister is saying we have to get on with changes in a more rapid
way than has been customary in the past, but then he says that there has to be
some competition built in. With cuts and
funding that have taken place and so on, I just wanted to know whether he
thinks that the system is not trying hard enough, or the people in the system,
to do the best job they can with what they have, with the resources that they
have, which are limited and dwindling in many cases.
What is it that the competition is going to do to enhance
educational opportunities in the public education system?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not one
who is here lobbying for competition per se.
What I am saying is that such incredible structures are built into place
right now within public education in Manitoba that if these structures cannot
be freed a little bit to give and take some of the turf protection, for want of
a better word, ultimately competitive models will come into place that will
provide a service that in the minds of some parents will provide an
alternative, and maybe one that is more in keeping with their educational
philosophy.
I am not advocating for competitive systems; I am saying
that they are inevitable if indeed we cannot begin to have more flexibility
with respect to the traditional partners.
Now, I must say that from a Manitoba perspective, what we are engaged
upon as far as discussion and collaboration, I am led to believe‑‑and
these are not my words, but I am told by certain members of some significant
associations involved in the process that what we have in Manitoba is a
dialogue between groups that does not exist elsewhere. That is all meaningful, and that is all very
important.
Let us hope that we can continue to see that dialogue bear
fruit, but ultimately, at the end of the day, the government, as the lead in
education, after they collate all the views, are going to have to come forward
with a plan. I am hoping, and today
there is no reason why I should not hope, but today I am hoping that the
traditional partners and the parents and the business community are all wanting
to be supportive of in‑broad terms.
Naturally, nothing can come forward that everybody will accept in
totality, but that the community at large, just not the education community,
but the community at large including the education community can accept. So I am not here to drive the competitive
model, never have been. I am just saying
that common sense dictates that if you cannot move quickly enough, some other
force will grow.
* (2120)
The member can say, well, if we were in government‑‑and
I will put words in his mouth now‑‑we would make sure that no level
of funding went to these other systems.
We would find a way. We would
close it. We would make sure. The reality is he cannot do that. The reality is legislatively he may be able
to do that, but in a free society he cannot do it because we are free
people. People can demonstrate their
freedoms in various ways, not the least of which is making sure that in some
fashion there is an alternative or a competitive education system in place.
So let us take the one that we all I think sense as, in
many respects, the most relevant to
Mr. Plohman: Those are, by and large, positive statements
from the minister regarding the public education system and perhaps shed some light
on his reference to competition, perhaps as a motivation for change is more
than any real specific models for it, at least in the first instance included
in the so‑called blueprint.
I am pleased to see the minister characterize the
environment for change in
I just wanted to explore that with the minister a bit as to
whether in fact he thinks there is a desire by these entrenched powers, as he
talks about them, as being desirous of kind of pushing this whole thrust for
change to the side and not wanting to really see meaningful change and
improvements, that they want to just keep things as they are type of thing and
to protect their turf as the minister said.
Has he sensed that is a real problem? I do not really get that feeling in talking
to those organizations, to the trustees, to the Teachers' Society. Although they have their own very strong
views, I sense a willingness and a desire to involve particularly parents from
all sides. It is almost universal that
there has to be more involvement and I think not token involvement, but
meaningful involvement by parents in decision making. It is something that is embraced with open
arms almost‑‑welcomed.
So I do not know where the minister is getting this idea or
his statement, his basis for his statement, that in fact there is some kind of
monolith here that does not want to move.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is a study
of human nature more than it is reform.
We do not have to look very far.
We just have to look into the entrenched positions in the area of health
reform to have a real insight into human nature. You are right at this point. We are all saying all the same things and we
all want to go to the same goals, but I was asked a question here earlier with
respect to empowering parents.
Good will and people involvement and you can basically have
a scenario which was infinite in size, but when it comes to power, governance
power, there is only so much power. So
if you give the parents more, if you give the parents some power, by
definition, you have to take away power from somebody else. It is a given; it is an axiom. Well, share power, but if one person has all
the power, to use an example, and you want to share it, that means somebody has
to give up power. [interjection] Oh, no.
I think it should happen and that will be part of the program, but that,
then, will be the test of our uniqueness of working together and to what extent
some will be able to give up some turf protection.
As the Minister of Education, I am prepared to give up some
power for changes in other areas, but then let us put out all of the players
who now have power and let us see how the ones who are going to lose some power
react. Then we will know whether we have
meaningful buy into the will to work together for the good of education. Then we will know, because we all, of course,
in principle can accept the reform. That
is when the rubber hits the road. That
is when we will know whether everybody's best interest is the student or to
some degree maybe is also their own self‑interest. Without appropriating any of that comment to
any group in specific, that is a general statement I make.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know
that democratic decision making necessarily means loss of power or whether it
just means more people involved in making decisions. It is an interesting view and actually
ultimately, if a proposal comes forward that means that parents are going to
have, for example, more say in budget decisions for their school or in the
hiring of the principal or local curriculum component or whatever the case may
be, obviously that means others who were previously making those decisions are
going to not be able to make them as easily on their own, or they are going to
have to share them with someone else.
That will be when, as the minister says, the rubber hits the road or the
test of what is happening. That is true.
On the other hand, I think if they are involved in the
process, they buy into the process, they say we are prepared to go where this
process takes us and to accept the consequences of the end result of this
process, then I do not think there is going to be the kinds of major upheavals
or resistance to it in the final analysis if they are committed to change in
that regard in that way.
Does the minister still feel that the issue of‑‑after
what he is saying today, it almost seems premature to say that the issue of
choice has to be at the top of the list here, because even in the workshop at
the Parents' Forum it was contained in the same statement about parent
involvement as if choice and parent involvement go hand in hand. They were contained in the same statement. I do not see them necessarily having to go
hand in hand. To the minister, is this
issue fundamental to any change?
Mr. Manness: Choice can find its way into the dialogue in
so many different areas. Originally when
I used the word "choice" in Brandon before Christmas, I did so in the
context of saying, look, I am concerned that there is not going to be movement
in this system, and that ultimately the only way you can give parents what many
are clamouring for today is some option within a larger make‑up of school
division or school entity or school unit to not necessarily be forced to go to
a school. So that is an element of
choice, and although it is a secondary priority, it certainly is not one of the
burning issues that is keeping me awake at nights. I still believe that parents have to have, at
some additional cost to them, not to the other taxpayers, but some additional
cost to them, freedom. That is an
element of choice.
There are other types of choice too. There is choice, within schools, of programs,
and I would have to think that we are going to have to be able to present that
with greater clarity, with greater certainty to some stated goals in education
but with a greater understanding by parents at the beginning of the term, not
after the end of the school period of time, Grade 12, when it is too late in
many respects, or later on when it is too late.
But there are some greater elements of choice certainly as we move into
the senior years.
* (2130)
Of course then we can give effect to choice in the area of
home schooling. I mean, I am not
troubled by it under certain conditions, and yet those elements of choice I
tell you will not be exercised to the extent that the public school system
becomes again the central point and the focus point and the most important
institution of the community, just not paying lip service by those of us who
are educators, but indeed meaningfully met by everybody, whether they have
children in that school or not. Today
that is, I daresay, missing.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman: Certainly there is a great deal of choice
within the existing system, a choice within school programming and so on. I would suggest that if parents have a greater
say in shaping their local community school that there will be less desire for
change, and that will take care of itself or could to a certain extent or to a
great extent than the desire to choose a different school because they are
dissatisfied with what is happening in their local school.
I think that is something that the minister will obviously
have to consider if in fact he is committed to a model that would see more
parent power and involvement in decision making. It seems to be a logical outcome, if they do
have a greater input that there is going to be less desire to want change or
choice in terms of school options.
I wanted to ask, and maybe the minister could comment on
that, but also I am very concerned about something he said on a number of
occasions too, and that is, linking funding to education outcomes. Perhaps he could shed some light on that if
in fact it is still something that he as minister thinks is a kind of a
relevant way and a fair way of funding the public school system in the
province?
I think there are many drawbacks to that kind of system and
many inequities that can result. We
could discuss those at greater length at some point. That is why I am interested in hearing what
the minister has to say about it.
Mr. Manness: There is no doubt that today, because public
dollars are so scarce in all of the areas of responsibility that governments
have today, that there is without exception in the western world greater focus
being placed upon how programs are delivering.
Evaluations are being done, very difficult within the context of
subjective evaluations, but still they have to be done.
Somebody has to make decisions, and education, of course,
is not any different from that. In due
course I would think results with respect to how schools are doing vis‑à‑vis
are ultimately going to report. And
ultimately the question is, would you want to fund something or a location
where it is not working? Would you want
to do that?
Yes, you will go through whatever changes you can, but
ultimately you are going to see‑‑I mean if you are putting into
some location an awful lot of money and the results are not there, I do not
think it will be the government that will ultimately decide that. I think the parents and the community will
want to know that. So it will have some
effect.
If the member is trying to trap me by saying, what will be
the funding consequences, I say to him that dollars for outcomes is basically
accountability. It is telling the public
the truth as to what is happening at that school or at that school
setting. If indeed you tell the people
and they have some greater choice to attain education for their students
elsewhere, they will make the move. Why
should they not in a free society?
Obviously, as they go, the dollars and the pupil grants will go with
them.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I guess the point is, if parents are
more involved in the setting of the goals and objectives of the school and if
the measurement instrument to determine how well the school is performing is
measured against those objectives and goals, then it is a fair kind of a way to
do it, as to how is the school performing, how is it meeting the goals that the
parents and the administration, the principal and the teachers and the
students, that they have determined are the important goals, how are we meeting
those?
I think if that is the yardstick that is measured, is used,
I do not see any great difficulty with that.
However, if there is some artificial measurement that is used, that is
imposed on that particular school, without consideration of what objectives and
goals have been set by that school and the kind of student clientele, or the
make‑up, socioeconomic condition and so on of the student body is not
considered, then it may not be fair to measure them against a common yardstick
in all cases. There may be another kind
of measuring tool that has to be developed.
Does the minister see an external evaluation then to
determine how well a school is doing, in other words, determining how to
determine if the school is meeting the objectives and, therefore, how much
funding they should get? If we take this
to its logical conclusion, I imagine it would be based then on how well it
stacks up in the evaluation as to how much it is going to get in terms of
provincial funding.
Mr. Manness: Well, the short answer, no. I cannot see it taking into its logical
conclusion that the member may want to drive me, no, but I do see, yes, some
outside measurement. The yardstick will be
measured in some of these fundamental or these foundation skills for sure. Now how the community reflects itself in all
of the other activity it wants to, hands off, the funding will be there
nevertheless, but again, in those very, very important areas of education, yes,
a community, I would think, would want to‑‑those parents that are
interested.
You know, parents are not interested in all settings. To the extent they are though, and they set a
goal for the school, in those fundamental courses, the department will want to
know what objectives are in place.
Ultimately, if the school is not attaining those goals or those
objectives, then I would have to think the Minister of Education of the day
will want to know why and may have to take steps accordingly, but to withhold
funding, no.
As long as you are open and accountable, and the parents
say, my goodness, I do not like what is happening in this school, I do not want
my child to go here, well, the dollars will go with that person to whatever the
school of choice becomes. That is
opening up the system. That is the
issue.
I am not talking vouchering. I mean, I do not have time for that. That is something that I do not think works
particularly well in very many settings, but you have to have some additional
freedom today. I mean there is nothing
more important than an education of a young person.
Mr. Plohman: Is the minister talking about taking those
funds within a division or from one division to another?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I cannot
answer that because our thinking has not gone beyond the principle that I have
expounded. I would have to think that
for some type of normalcy, you have to recognize that there are school boundaries. I mean in the area of nonresident fees, we
have not even discussed yet.
Mr. Plohman: The minister did make a public statement
about eliminating‑‑it seems, at least it was interpreted that way‑‑boundaries
insofar as choice, that students would be able to, or parents would be able to
choose the school that they wanted to attend, irrespective of boundaries,
without having to pay additional fees.
That was the way it came across.
* (2140)
Is that something that was just amusing at the time but
nothing that the minister is committed to, or is that unfairly attributed to
him?
Mr. Manness: Again, I made the comment in the context of
within division and the expectation that divisions are going to be larger in
the urban context. In the rural context,
to me, the freedom of choice is more easily provided through technology,
through the adoption of technology by way of distance education.
Mr. Plohman: When the minister talks about these
fundamental standards or fundamental skills or basic skills that should be
measured, is he talking only about academic standards or is he talking about
manipulative standards? There are many
different kinds of courses.
Of course the minister prefers to recognize I guess, after
some of the statements he has made, that the whole area of apprenticeship has
to be explored and opened up, vocational education, technical education. Depending on the nature of the student body,
there could be a valid outcome from testing that is quite different from one to
another in terms of how well a school is doing.
In fact, a school could be doing very well with a much lower number of
academic students, for example, than another might have. We cannot measure them all with the same yardstick
then, in terms of how well they are doing.
Does the minister agree with that?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in theory I agree
with him. I am sure I would not surprise
him or anybody to indicate that this is a tough area, but still we believe that
in some areas those referred to in the Throne Speech Debate or in the throne
speech have to lend themselves to some greater measurement. Whether that is grading, it has to have some
greater description to it in the form of references and performance levels so
that the parents understand, because parents are asking. They want to know. I know there is another point of view out
there‑‑well, let us define the student totally in all of their
capabilities and all their weaknesses through subjective means.
I am sorry. If I
have to decide between one or the other‑‑let the subjective
comments come. That is good
information. That is great
information. As a parent I would like to
see it‑‑but I am sorry, unless I know what the benchmark is, I do
not know how my child rates relative to the rest. Today people want to know that, so there is
going to have to be some measure. We are
trying to find a way that is meaningful, certainly meaningful and yet carries
with it some greater degree of measure and is subjective to.
Mr. Plohman: I just want to say, I do not know that there
are a lot of people that disagree with the idea for greater definition and
benchmarks being necessary and defined and communicated so that everyone is
aware of what they are and how their child is doing in relation to those
benchmarks. I think that is something
that all of us as parents would like to know.
Of course if our child is not meeting those standards or up
to those particular benchmarks at the ages for which they are established, then
we would like to know what is being done to get them to their capacity, moving
as quickly as they can or developing to their own capacity. If they cannot meet those benchmarks, then
what are they meeting and what kind of‑‑I do not know if I should
call it remedial action‑‑but special individual kind of programming
is being put in place to move them along as quickly as possible?
Individual programming is necessary, and it seems to me is
fundamental to this. That does not mean
we throw out standards, but it means that every student advances at a different
rate and learns in a different way. What
concerns me, of course, is that this is where it ties into funding. If we do not have the resources made
available, it makes it very difficult for us to meet the needs of all of those
students.
I think that might be one of the reasons why the minister
never endorsed the parents' guide on gifted education, for example. That was developed after a lot of work in the
department and then is left languishing, as I understand, from talking to
Joanne Bevis and not endorsed by the government. It was not talking about an elitist type of
education just for the brightest kids or anything. It is talking about enabling every student to
develop to their potential, enrichment for every student. Really what that involves is individual
programming. Yet that was just tossed
right out, and I do not know why the minister did that, but I wanted to know if
there is any linkage with what I have just said.
Mr. Manness: Well, the member has said it correctly in his
last breath he drew when he talked about individual programming. Who in our society has the right to
individual programming? In the last 25‑year
model when government has been borrowing money hand over fist, we led a lot of
people to believe they had the right to individual programming. Where did this word "needs" come
from? It came from the last 25 years
when governments have borrowed money hand over fist to provide.
So now I inherited a model which was always add‑on,
add‑on. What I am saying is, hey,
I understand the argument from those parents of exceptional children
(gifted). I understand the arguments
well. You have got a base which was
starting to diminish in size, and yet you had this program hanging from here,
this program hanging here, one over here, one here and you have all the ad
hockery around that and the base could not sustain it, because individual
programming means exactly that, individual programming. It means specialization; it means additional
resources. It means whatever it takes.
Today we no longer have the resources. So let us again rebuild the foundation. Some would say let us reinvent education, but
let us rebuild the foundation so that indeed we can move everybody along at a
higher level as long as we can and then let us do the streaming at a later
period in time which will really challenge, significantly challenge, those who
are exceptional and however defined.
Mr. Plohman: This gets right back to the structure that
the minister talked about earlier, that he talked to students, and he found
some who wanted more structure, tending to support his view of the world, I
guess, he said, something like that, then others who wanted to have complete
freedom like a university setting, where they could come and go when they felt
like it. As long as they were meeting
their requirements, I guess, who should worry about it? I guess it is a question of, at what age do
they get that kind of freedom? Do you
have complete structure right to Grade 12, as we know it, or do you allow
greater freedom and therefore individual responsibility, particularly for some
students who have proven that they can function under that kind of situation at
a much earlier age? Therefore, you do
not have to have all of those additional resources.
The minister says individual programming, just by its very
nature is going to cost a lot more, and we just cannot afford it. A lot of this comes about as a result of
allowing students to undertake individual initiative to explore enriched
activities and undertake research and so on, and they are quite capable of
doing it. It just means that they have
to be given the means to do it and the flexibility in their timetable to do it,
as long as the standards that they are meeting for the basics are there. They have met those, and they are ready to
move on to apply them, to problem solve, to develop models and applied
situations for that knowledge. It seems
to me that we do not have enough of that freedom in the system at the present
time to allow those students who can function independently to in fact do
that. They have to sit in that structure
and go over and over the same stuff that they know with their eyes closed long
before the teacher opened their mouth.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member sets
himself up as an advocate for a group with whom I also have great empathy, but
a policy statement by itself by the ministry is not going to do very much. I am as troubled by the lack of challenge for
some of the students as he is, but I can tell the member, I am even more
troubled by the lack of challenge what I sense is the vast student body.
I am sorry, I have to in my view‑‑my mandate is
to deal with the greater number and to challenge them at a higher level so that
they will be meaningfully productive in a world that I am afraid and I am very
fearful is going to become very tough.
Government will be helpless, even if it is an NDP government, to do very
much. We have no alternative but to take
the vast majority of our students and equip them with the best possible skills
we have, because the world I see coming will dictate that half of them are
going to have to find their own employment.
So they are going to have to be up to the task.
* (2150)
I know we talk about the world of employment, but we never
talk about self‑employment, do we?
But it is coming. So I know, with
respect to the gifted, and I say, where you got that special teacher in the
classroom today, that special teacher who has that ability still will draw out
of those gifted kids, even in spite of the programming restraints, still will
challenge those kids at a higher level.
But parents are going to be called upon to do their bit, and many are,
many are, but they are going to have to do quite a bit also.
I can change the policy.
I could have put the policy out.
I do not think it would have made anybody happier though, if I did not
have a bunch of money to follow it or if I started shifting money from here to
there in support of that policy, and that was my dilemma.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister hit on what I thought was
the major reason for this not coming out, and that was money. It is hard to come in with this program, with
this policy even though it involves parents getting more involved in the
education of their children, understanding how they can get involved, that was
a parent's guide, but I think the minister thought he would generate a great
deal more demand for additional programming, and it was clear that he was cutting
back in funding to the school system.
How could he be putting out something like this that create greater
demands? So he felt that he should not
go forward with it. I do not know that
it would have led to that. I think it
might have led to a more educated parent body generally who therefore would get
more involved in the education of their children, which is something we all
want to see.
It is not just aimed at exceptional children, although some
people would say all children are exceptional or gifted, as we call them. It was not just aimed at that, that
group. It was aimed, if you look through
it and if you talk to the people who developed it, it is aimed at all children. The minister talked earlier about his concern
about problem solving, and I am simply saying to the minister that this leads
to activities that allow children of all abilities to apply some of those basic
skills in a way, in a problem‑solving situation, an applied way.
That is what this does and so, therefore, I do not see it being
at odds with the concern that the minister expressed there as a result of that
test that took place. He says we have to
challenge them all. I could not agree
more with that statement, and I do not believe that this should be equated with
challenging only a small number of exceptional children.
However, I will leave that.
The minister may want to make some closing comments. I have said enough on this for tonight. I think we can move on to some other areas
where others can get involved insofar as the discussion is concerned.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did want to make,
just very briefly before we pass this line, quick reference to a couple
points. The first was, when the minister
was talking in terms of that public perception of education where there was
quite a bit of discussion about public perception of education, you made
specific reference to a Grade 12 graduation certificate. I have had at least one individual who had
come up to me and had talked about his son and the graduation certificate that
his son had and was unable to read or write or was illiterate. I am wondering if the minister could give
some sort of indication whether or not that is in fact the case and to what
degree.
Mr. Manness: Well, I cannot quantify it, but it is
happening too often and too frequently.
It is happening more than it should be.
I will not stamp or label anybody illiterate, I have no way of doing
that, but I do know that a lot of students are moving‑‑there is no
policy of no‑fail provincially‑‑but I know a number of
students are moved continually through the system, and I question really what
they do know in some respects, and many are otherwise. I cannot quantify it, but it is happening too
frequently to satisfy me.
Mr. Lamoureux: In the discussions that I have had with
respect to back to basics, if you like, or fundamental skills‑‑
An Honourable Member: It is that bad word.
Mr. Lamoureux: That bad word as the member for Dauphin and
the minister has talked about, the fundamental skills then, I reflect in terms
of why it is that there seems to be that push, and as much as we might not
necessarily like to acknowledge that there is a problem, I am of the opinion
that there is, in terms of there is a public perception that is out there and I
think it is widely shared that we are not receiving the type of education that
we could be receiving, and one of the primary reasons why the whole discussion
of educational reform is coming up.
Make reference to standards, standard exams, particularly the
maths exam, if you like. Parents
indicate, or I should say a parent‑‑I had one teacher who indicated
to me that you have a curriculum of maths and a certain number of hours set out
that they are supposed to be teaching maths, yet he is not aware of any other
colleague math teacher of his that actually is able to teach the number of
curriculum hours that he or she is told to teach. The minister somewhat frowned on that
statement. Maybe I can ask the minister
that there is a set number of hours to teach math, particularly say Grade 9,
and I am wondering if he could comment if in fact the curriculum does allow for
a teacher to teach that many hours.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the deputy tells me
that in high school we prescribe that a 110‑120 hours are to be in place
for one credit. That is a
guideline. Most schools follow the
guidelines. Some do not, some exceed
that. I see a former principal here who
I know would ensure that those guidelines were followed. It has been brought to our attention that
there are some schools that are below the guideline, and that are significantly
below, and right today are questioning what authority we have, questioning the
authority for the Department of Education to have a guideline. In other words, in their view there is
nothing in place. They can teach as many
as they want for one credit. You can bet
that issue will be addressed when the legislation comes forward to deal with or
to reflect the blueprint.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to bring it
back in terms of that public perception, if you will. Public perception that is there, I believe at
least in part, is held because of that lack of confidence on some of those
fundamental skills. We can talk in terms
of being able to communicate, reading, writing, to speak, to listen, in terms
of communication. We can talk in terms
of some of the numeracy or basic elementary math problems and so on. I have had numerous presentations saying,
look, the curriculum, there seems to be a lot of additional pressure being put
onto the curriculum from outside groups.
* (2200)
I think in terms of, there was the Pedlar report, where
there was a recommendation, for example, that domestic violence be incorporated
the curriculum. I recall the Manitoba Intercultural
Council recommendation that combatting racism be incorporated into part of the
curriculum. I have had discussions with
a number of teachers, and that is why I am somewhat surprised by the minister's
remark that, generally speaking, schools are, in fact, hitting that 110 hours,
by and large. I plan to further look
into that because it does surprise me, but I am wondering whether or not the
whole issue of number of hours is being discussed or a part of the curriculum,
discussions that the minister is currently going on with.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Before the minister answers that, may I seek
what the will of the committee is, seeing that the hour is after ten
o'clock. Let us carry on? Okay.
We will carry on for now.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have not focused
in that area per se, but we will be. Our
dialogue will come forward and we will ask the partners to reflect on the
school day, school year firstly, the school day, and to suggest‑‑and
again the government is going to be most concerned about those core subjects,
and to help us decide the proper amount of time in a year to devote to them.
If a community‑‑but I dare say, in the same
breath, the time that governments now are going to force mandatorily subjects
on the public school system and/or areas, I think those days are just about
over. If we are going to give the
community again the say back with respect to the school, in wanting to see
itself reflected in its school‑‑not the school system, its school‑‑then
you have to give them some choice, choice of programming, outside of what I
consider to be the very important core areas.
So government itself is going to have do a rethink about imposing yet
more compulsory courses of study and focused areas on the public school system.
Mr. Lamoureux: The blueprint that the government is going to
be bringing forward in June, are you anticipating bringing forward the basic
fundamentals, the basic skills?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the throne speech
said as much. That was the essence of
the comment of the throne speech.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Mr. Plohman: Just one question. I understand from talking to some groups
that, and the minister can tell me if this is correct, that their statement was
that the independent living skills or Skills for Independent Living course that
was just made compulsory in the public education system over the last couple of
years, has not been made compulsory for some of the independent schools. Is that correct?
Mr. Manness: Well, at this point in time, it is a
compulsory course. I mean, what it will
look like at the end of reform, I do not know, but I am led to believe it is a
compulsory course through all systems.
I know there was some leeway at the beginning as to
semester and full‑year systems or some schools and/or areas were granted
a year reprieve because of a‑‑some took it. That is right. If to some it is not a full stand‑alone
credit, they had to show where they had integrated it into some other courses,
so maybe they had integrated the subject material into other courses.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that minister is
getting at the issue here, and that is, some schools, I believe independent
schools, were allowed to do this. I do
not know, can the minister give us some examples where it did not have to be
taught as a stand‑alone course and that it could be shown at‑‑and
I would like to ask the minister how much of it, 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 or
100 percent was being taught in other courses?
Therefore, was it necessary to have it as a separate course?
Mr. Manness: I would have to think it would all have to be
taught. One example for sure in the
public school system and it had to‑‑the Glenlawn Collegiate did it,
but they did it without permission.
Permission has to be granted for it to occur anywhere, independent or
public school system.
Mr. Plohman: And in the private school system?
[interjection] Well, the minister is assuming my question. He gave me one example of a school that did not
offer it on the basis that they had incorporated it into another course or into
other courses, Glenlawn Collegiate in the public school system. What examples can he give where he has given
permission for independent schools to in fact not have to offer it as a
separate course because it is allegedly being incorporated into all other
subjects?
Mr. Manness: I cannot answer that question, but I will be
glad to attempt an answer when we move into the school program area. I do not have that information right now.
Mr. Plohman: Well, that is fair enough, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed; (2) Other
Expenditures $319,500‑‑pass.
1.(d) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$351,700‑‑pass.
Mr. Lamoureux: We are still on (d)?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: I just want to ask the minister, a while back
there was the decentralization effort that the government took upon
itself. Can he give some sort of indication
in terms of any additional decentralized positions that have gone out?
The Textbook Bureau has already moved, relocated, but if
there is anything else.
Mr. Manness: When the member talks about the incredible
successful decentralization area, I guess he is talking about all of government
but specifically in education. Well, the
example that he uses certainly is the last one that I am aware of within
education. Are we looking around for
other candidates to decentralize in an active fashion? No.
Yet, if there is a smaller unit that today, with the technology being
what it is, we can consider as a candidate to be decentralized, we will.
This department has made a very honourable commitment over
the years to decentralization. Some 74
staff years have been decentralized to rural Manitoba. The Independent Studies Program in Winkler is
just an incredible success. We are doing
things more efficiently at lower cost and servicing better then we ever
were. There are some great success
stories with respect to decentralization but right now, per the first phase of
decentralization, education has honoured its commitments to the whole global
process.
Mr. Lamoureux: Again, I am drawing from memory. I understood the correspondence branch was
also decentralized?
Mr. Manness: Yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes.
And there was, at the time, some concern with respect to the costs of
that not necessarily being as efficient if it was located in the city of
Winnipeg, primarily because the number of individuals involved in that
particular program were overwhelmingly urban in the city of Winnipeg.
Mr. Manness: The correspondence program, now called the
Independent Studies Program, moved to Winkler and the evaluation that we are receiving
is very strongly supportive of the location and the service provided from that
location.
* (2210)
Those that have been seeking services from the old
correspondence branch, that number had been trending down for a decade long
before this move was made, so I do not know what parallel the member is trying
to draw, but I say to him that we believe we are servicing every client in
correspondence as well as we were and better.
The member must remember that correspondence in the first
case, I dare say, was probably put into place as a rural outreach. There were greater opportunities for
specialized courses in many of your larger urban schools than ever existed in
rural Manitoba, so the correspondence branch, although it reaches out to all
Manitobans, certainly for decades had a greater call on it on a pro rata basis
by rural people.
Mr. Lamoureux: There are more rural individuals involved
with the correspondence branch than urban currently?
Mr. Manness: No, the total number that use the services basically
represent the rural‑urban split, but the subject material that the 40
percent rural area used were your fundamental areas‑‑again, talk
about the core areas in many respects‑‑which were the most
important areas of service. So to take
that out into a rural context I do not think made any difference to urban users‑‑or
has the member heard complaints? Indeed,
they are to service all Manitobans the best way possible.
Mr. Lamoureux: No, not offhand. I have not necessarily heard the
complaints. I can just recall that when
there was the decentralization, there were a couple of areas within education
that were being questioned. The teacher
certification branch, I believe, which went out to Minnedosa was one, and this
particular branch, the correspondence branch, because of the number of people
that were using it within the city and the material that was necessary. At least at that time, it was a concern. I am just mostly trying to find out if in
fact that concern was validated through complaints or anything of this nature,
but I understand that the response to that is no.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did want to move on in terms of
affirmative action and ask the government what their objectives have been with
affirmative action and this whole area.
Mr. Manness: I do not know how specific the member wishes
to be, but as of the middle of March this year, we have 24 employees who
declare themselves to be aboriginal.
We have basically four designated affirmative action
classifications within the first category, the most populous being the women
classification at 463‑‑this is April now, this is coming in‑‑disabled
20, and visible minority, 14.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Lamoureux: There are supposed to be objectives that the
government has, and not knowing necessarily the time frame of what it is he
just finished indicating to me, I am wondering if the minister could state to
the committee what the objectives of the department are for this area.
Mr. Manness: I am not sure we have quotas per se. I can tell you what the objectives are. We are responsible for our managers who are
responsible for implementing affirmative action strategies and maintaining
commitment to the affirmative action program.
The government does not have specific targets. We never have had. This government does not deal in that
fashion.
Mr. Lamoureux: The minister indicated, the numbers that he
gave me were 24 aboriginal, four designated affirmative, 20 disabled, 14 visible
minorities and 463 women. Where is he
drawing this from? Is this just an
overall report from the Department of Education, or are some of these more
recent in terms of hiring replacements in vacant positions?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in keeping
with the general objective, we keep track of these numbers and ask people to
declare where they might fall. So these
are our running tabs of where we believe and how it is we believe we are meeting
the objectives.
Mr. Lamoureux: Maybe the minister can indicate how many
staff years would have been filled over the last year.
Mr. Manness: I cannot provide that at this moment, in
spite of the urgings of my bench mate from the House. I just cannot do that.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, maybe the
minister could take it upon himself to get me those actual numbers. You know, if you are talking about
implementing an affirmative action program, we should get some sort of
indication other than, here is what we currently have. That does not give us an indication whether
or not you are committed to affirmative action.
If you indicate to me that there are so many positions that have been
filled, and out of those positions‑‑then there might be something
there. I would just indicate to the
Minister of Education if he could provide that information, it would be most
beneficial.
Mr. Manness: We will do our best to give a little bit more
definition, in response to the member's question.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): 1.(d)(2) Other
Expenditures $55,900‑‑pass.
1.(e) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in this area
here, I was wanting to get some sort of a better idea from the government about
actual costs, if you like. Under
Activity Identification, it says that it represents the government by acting as
a liaison between the department and a variety of other departments, government
agencies, organizations and individuals.
There have been, in the past, responsibilities delegated
down to the Department of Education, possibly from other departments. One of the constant criticisms that I have
received is the fact that the schools are performing some responsibilities for
which other departments should be responsible for. I am wondering if the Minister of Education
could comment on that.
* (2220)
Mr. Manness: I think, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
member is kind of misunderstanding what this unit does. I mean, the issue he brings up is important
and should be part of discussion that is coming forward, but this is purely
financial and administrative service.
This is the controllership function that every department has to have in
place, or otherwise you have chaos.
Somebody has to be in control, and we have no choice but to‑‑this
is Mr. Glen before us negotiating with the Department of Northern Affairs,
National Defence with respect to the Brandon school situation. This is preparing Treasury Board submissions. This is the real routine, but a very
important area of departments.
Mr. Lamoureux: So, again, just for clarification, this is
not the area in which the minister would be able to indicate what sorts of
costs are going towards a program‑‑
Mr. Manness: That is the next section.
Mr. Lamoureux: The next section? The last time I took the minister at his
word, he told me, not now, Kevin, to stand up.
Well, I will save that question then for that point in time.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I wanted to ask about one of the Expected
Results of this department or this section of the department, and that is the
"centralized, comprehensive, integrated information system." I wonder if the minister would like to
perhaps, first of all, introduce us to that topic. What is expected in this year?
The minister may be aware that I have asked questions on
this in earlier years, particularly dealing with the million‑dollar pilot
project which supposedly was on the book two years ago, which was conducted in
conjunction with a number of school divisions and which did not seem to go
anywhere. It did not seem to have any
final conclusion.
So I am interested to see it here again on the books, and I
am interested in knowing what is to be recorded, what the ultimate purpose of
this. Whom is it being designed
for? Who will have access to it, and
whether in the case of this particular expected result, whether it is still in
the pilot planning stage or are we now moving to completion of a program which
was perhaps begun two years ago?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member
asks a very good question. This is an
area worthy of question, but I would think it probably follows more
appropriately under the next section, 1.(f) Management Information Services.
Ms. Friesen: Just speaking for the record, I was replying
to the minister in saying that on page 28 under the item that we are on now,
section 1.(e), that this is listed. I am
happy to discuss it in a later section, if that is more appropriate, but it
does say that it is here.
Mr. Manness: Leadership of it is here. The cost associated with the programming is
in the next section. So we can discuss
it here or on page 31. It makes no
difference.
So let us move into it now, then, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. Certainly this is one of
the large initiatives of the department.
It is going to try and be ready for the ed reform document, but it is
also going to try and give education per se a greater insight at any point in
time into a student's performance, indeed, a student's activity within
education. Probably outside of education
there will be a close‑‑and the reason I remember this, when we were
in Treasury Board, the reason we accepted the concept was that we had to have a
better understanding of our students as they came forward from the community.
Not only was this dealing with educational expectations,
but, importantly, some of the social requirements and/or realities of that
student. We just sensed we had to have a
better profile of our students at any point in time. Unless we moved into the modern age,
programming‑wise, we just did not know.
I mean, we have a lot of our students today who are moving around from
school to school in the period of time.
There is an element of financial control here that can be used too, but
that was not the main reason that we brought forward this program.
There will be accountability questions. It will set into place an allowance for
providing a database for provincial tests once they come into being. But the purpose of EIS is to provide again
centralized, comprehensive and integrated information regarding school
divisions, schools, school personnel, school facilities, courses and students. We sense that, unless we have this in place,
we will not really ever get to the crux of more effective programming. It has been a desire within the department;
my predecessors have been pushing it hard.
I look at one of my predecessors, the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach). In his capacity as minister
he saw the benefit, and we have been building this slowly in the place over the
course of the last three years. When
completed, we expect the system will provide the department with information in
the following areas: student tracking
information, and I alluded to that, teacher workload information, educational
staff counts, student performance, as I mentioned before. It will provide some key indicator
information important to the department, as we do a diagnosis of what changes
should be brought forward in programming and evaluating educational
accountability and, as I have said before, results.
So these indicators will change, but again, as I have used
already some of the examples, it will allow us to track student mobility,
outcome analysis of, again, specially funded programs, student achievement
versus socioeconomic factors‑‑and I know the member is more than
interested in that dynamic. So it just
has a myriad of opportunities, in our view, to evaluate and react to the
results more meaningfully. Today we are
reacting to a system that some would say should have been reacted to 15 years
ago. I dare say, if we had had a
database like this, we would have reacted more quickly.
Of course, this is what is happening in the modern
world. It is happening in the corporate
world; it is happening in public sector service; it is happening across the
country‑‑across the world, I should say. There is no reason why it should not happen
in education, because information is knowledge, and knowledge, hopefully, will
allow you then to make a reaction, an informed reaction, if you are to make one
more quickly. Of course, that is what
the parents are calling for ultimately today:
a system that is evolutionary, not in the context of a generation, but
in the context of their own children being in school. I do not blame them.
Ms. Friesen: It raises a number of issues. Perhaps I will start with one of the issues I
raised earlier, and that was what happened to the pilot project. Where are the results from that pilot
project? Are they available to the
schools that participated? Are they
available to the public? What lessons
were learned by the department in that pilot project?
Mr. Manness: Well, yes, the first phase was completed,
and, of course, we did not learn an awful lot out of that because we would have
had to follow it with another couple of phases, but the first phase basically
gave us a database of information on divisions, schools, courses and subjects,
and what we went after, of course, were courses and subjects, and that is what
we learned basically in the first phase of the pilot.
If the member wants a copy of the pilot and the results
from that, we will provide that.
* (2230)
Ms. Friesen: Yes, I would be interested in seeing that.
Would the minister also have the information available at
the moment on the cost of that pilot project?
Is it indeed the $1 million that has been suggested?
Mr. Manness: It was done several years ago. We will endeavour to‑‑we did it
in‑house. It was not even an add‑on. We did not even go to Treasury Board for a
separate allocation for it. We just did
it some years ago, but ultimately when we get this whole system into place, it
is not going to come cheaply, but it will be in place for generations.
Ms. Friesen: I assume that many of the costs of that
particular program were in fact borne by school divisions, so that when the
minister says that it was not an add‑on here, I assume that in some cases
in school divisions in the preparation of the material, in the preparation of
the answers to questions that the department posed, that was where the costs
were incurred, because this particular pilot project, as I understand the
minister, dealt with the schools rather than the individuals and that what we
are looking at in the second phase now is a transition to looking at individual
students and individual programs.
Mr. Manness: Well, this is a partnership at work. I mean, the school divisions want this
information also, and we have partnered quite well with other
institutions. I can think of the
assessment model we brought in. That was
a partnership between municipalities and the government, and we took a larger
share of the cost for a while and now the municipalities, once we are done, are
taking back their traditional share.
Yes, it might have been some incumbency upon a division to
delegate a responsibility of providing information to the department, but
ultimately this information will be used to the betterment of all, and so as a
leader this department took the challenge, but schools were very, very willing
participants because they saw the long‑run benefit to themselves.
Ms. Friesen: My issue was not with partnership or
nonpartnership, but it was trying to estimate the cost of a pilot project. There is a number which is floating around in
gossip terms. I do not expect the
minister to have it now. He did seem to
me in his response to be suggesting that this had been done at minimal costs,
and I was simply suggesting that there was a broader sharing of those costs
than the minister was indicating.
I want to look at the second phase of that project where,
as I understand the minister to say, we are now moving to look beyond the
school and the division to develop a planning tool, a database for the records
of individual students and teachers and workloads and program outcomes. Could the minister perhaps elaborate on that
a little more? Are we, for example,
looking at developing a student number which will accompany a student
throughout the Manitoba system?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, staff inform
me that, to give meaning to a system such as this, one has to seriously
contemplate the concept of a student number, no differently, I guess, than a
driver's licence in many dimensions, and a health number, social insurance
number, Wheat Board number. Today, if
you want to be identified, you are almost always identified by number. My university student number was 55‑‑;
I forget mine.
We are just beginning the process of building. We have an awful lot more work to do
here. This, again, is not our No. 1
priority, and yet we just see how its time has come and how it should be part
of, ultimately, the whole reform system.
Ms. Friesen: At the end of this project, whom does the
minister anticipate will be using it? It
is a planning tool for the department.
Will the material be accessible to people outside the department, for
example, school divisions, perhaps other public planning bodies in the
province?
Mr. Manness: We have not crossed those boundaries yet, but
I cannot anticipate how this could be anything but public information. I am talking about the base. I am not talking about specific students in
the sense that there are student numbers to deal with as compared to
individuals.
I would think to have full value this should be fairly
accessible to all wanting to help out the process of education.
Ms. Friesen: One of the issues that we looked at last year
and that I never found a very satisfactory answer to was the issue of
aboriginal students and the counting of aboriginal students in the
province. We dealt with it in the
context of the Native Education branch, but, as I remember, the pilot project
did look at the question of aboriginal.
I asked that question. Now I am
wondering if the department is going to continue with that question or whether
it is going to come at that issue of deciding upon the numbers and needs of
aboriginal students within the Manitoba system in a different way.
Mr. Manness: I am told that the member asked the question
more or less the same last year. The
member was troubled with the lack of definition around the response, using her
words. I do not know if I have much more
to offer. Certainly, at this point, we
are not contemplating trying to set up a subset within the global population,
if that is what she is alluding to. We
just have not set into place any methodologies around that identifying group.
Thus, today, is the member saying, well, could you
contemplate doing it in the future?
Well, I will have to listen to the arguments. But those certainly have not in any way been
presented to me at all. I say honestly,
if they had, I would say so. They have
not.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: The issue was again an issue of planning for
which this project obviously has a significant function. A department which has a Native Education
branch, whose purpose is to serve native students, one would anticipate, might
have a need for knowing where the native students are, what levels they are at,
what the graduation rates are, what the social and economic needs and academic
needs of the students are in different parts of the province.
So it is related to the provision of native education
through this department. How are those
two elements going to be connected? Is
there any prospect in this planning tool here of being of some use to the
development or furthering of aboriginal education in the province?
Mr. Manness: We are just into the development of this
system in very rudimentary terms. I
mean, '93‑94 was the first year we really began to do some
measuring. Perhaps eventually in due
course we will attempt to do in‑depth analysis by breakout of some
dimension. I am sure if this system is
properly built, as we are trying to do, it will lend itself to some specialized
measurement. But right today we are just
trying to build the system.
Ms. Friesen: Do you anticipate including the federal
schools in Manitoba in this?
Mr. Manness: Unless we can get into some data base‑sharing
protocol with the federal government, which they have been pretty reluctant to
do‑‑I mean, in some other social areas, we have tried to see
whether the federal government would share information and have been flatly
refused. Not in education areas, but in
some of the social programming areas, we have been trying to determine
commonality of client with no support whatsoever from the federal government. I would have to think that is not going to
change.
Ms. Friesen: What is the planning horizon for this
project? When do you anticipate that it
will be available for use by the department and by the other areas of public
policy that you anticipated before?
* (2240)
Mr. Manness: We are having an add‑on come on every
few months, but I would have to think we are still two, three years away from
legitimately being able to say this system is up and running in a fashion that
we want to see it.
Ms. Friesen: This is going a little beyond this line, but
I wonder if we could look at page 31 and identify the cost of this particular
program.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is the lion's
share of appropriation 1.(e), and I believe that for '94‑95 I think I saw
the number $993,000. So it is virtually
all of that.
Ms. Friesen: Fine.
Thank you.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, has the assistant
deputy minister's office changed in terms of its role of the reorganization?
Mr. Manness: No, it has not.
Mr. Plohman: So the objectives and functions listed in the
reorganization book on this are just more detail of the same thing that we see
in the Supplementary Estimates. I was
looking through this and seeing that objectives are much more delineated here
in detail and specifics than we have here.
Is this just an attempt to provide more specific information to the
department or to those who are being communicated this information as opposed
to any change in role? I understand that
the minister is saying, yes, that is the fact.
I just wanted to ask if the information that is contained in here
reflective of this year's management thrust, or is this based on the last
year's and has been updated for this particular year since the reorganization
took place?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we would always try
to improve reporting. You always try to
improve to provide more information rather than less. Yes, we are trying to enhance the financial
controllership function. The member
reads the Provincial Auditor's report, and he knows that every few years the
Provincial Auditor comes around to another department and finds a couple of
areas where enhancement of reporting and/or methods of accounting can be
improved or changed, and that is reflected in the additional information.
Mr. Plohman: Is this office involved at all in the work of
interdepartmental committees, for example, the ones dealing with the co‑ordination
of services?
Mr. Manness: The short answer is no.
Mr. Plohman: That is it right now.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted just to go
back to that one question I had asked earlier.
I am not entirely convinced‑‑when I read through the
objectives it talks in terms of: to
provide leadership in all areas of departmental financial administrative requirements. Then I go under Activity Identification: and represents the government by acting as a
liaison between department and a variety of other departments, government agencies,
organizations and individuals.
What I was trying to ask the minister, I think, is quite
relevant to this particular area, and that is the impact of other departments
on the Department of Education and potential in some of the offloading that has
occurred in the past. One, for example,
that has come to me in the past was the medical services for special needs
children, whereas the responsibility is given to the Department of Education,
yet the funds do not necessarily follow.
Just looking at it, again, it just seems that because this is the area
where there is supposed to be liaison between the different departments, this
might be the most appropriate time, not the actual dollars, but we are talking
about the concept.
Mr. Manness: Again, I ask the member specifically to his issue
of interrelationship with other departments, for sure it is not in this area,
it is in the program area, but I will try and be more specific as to what he
sees here.
The member has heard me talk about assessment, reform, the
very basis of education and finance.
Whom do we interact with? The
Department of Rural Development. This is
a financial area, right? We interact
with the Department of Finance on a number of education‑‑well, for
instance, Department of Finance even on the Public Schools Finance Board. I mean, all that money that is brought in by
way of education support levy. So we are
interacting with the Department of Finance.
We are interacting with the Department of Government
Services on leases. All money matters;
that is the essence of the reference of interaction. The one area that he is dwelling on is a
program area and it has nothing to do with the financial sector which is dealt
with here.
Ms. Friesen: I am taking my cue here from the objective of
the department which talks about financial control accountability
reporting. I wanted to ask about
Workforce 2000 and the financial accountability under Workforce 2000,
particularly the recent newspaper article which suggested that the minister's
concern about abuses in the program were certainly warranted, at least in the
case of one individual.
I wonder if the minister could perhaps take us through the
reporting of that particular abuse. How
did it come to the minister's attention and how was it dealt with under this
department's responsibility for accountability?
Mr. Manness: The central controllership function of
government is housed here, but Workforce 2000 has its own controls in
place. The member wants to talk about
how we found out. We found out because
one of our consultants in the field was suspicious and reported it internally
to within, I gather, the Workforce 2000 internal audit.
We in this particular branch look at the global funding,
and I gather Workforce 2000 has to report to us as to how their cash flows are in
maintaining the global funding, so this division here has kind of a distant
view on the global macrosense on Workforce 2000. Yet, this group here, to the extent that they
are concerned about there being enough money in place, can certainly call
forward Workforce 2000 people to report.
I say to the member, this particular branch is a fair
distance away, cash flow, revenue, expenditure, but not case‑by‑case
review and audit.
Ms. Friesen: This section of the department, however, does
evaluate departmental accounting and financial management activities, including
financial reporting, so perhaps we could pursue that under that line.
How has this section of the department evaluated the
accounting and the reporting and the evaluation of Workforce 2000?
* (2250)
Mr. Manness: We are, I guess, the mentor of the department
and we tell all the program areas how it is they should set up financial
controls and foster that development in a new program area.
And government, in its more centralized internal audit
function, of course, anybody can call upon internal audit to review these
programs. All they have to do anywhere
in a department is report to the deputy and the deputy, of course, will call
internal audit and this is what happened, of course, with respect to the case
cited in Workforce 2000.
Ms. Friesen: I understand from the minister's responses of
the particular case in question, could I go then to the broader policy
questions of the‑‑presumably once an individual case like that has been
brought to the minister's attention, there is then a question of how this could
have happened in the broader policy sense, could the minister explain to us
what changes have been introduced into the Workforce 2000 accountability
procedures, as a result of that case?
Mr. Manness: From memory, I have to indicate that the
systems obviously were in place because it was brought to our attention by one
of our staffers, one of our training consultants, who reported it very quickly
and internally. The government internal
audit team went up very quickly to question certain of the employers to see
whether there were any trends or consistencies.
I asked for that information and was troubled with what was found as far
as some of the looseness and demanded that we take it to the law enforcement
people and see whether or not they had a case, and they sensed that they did
not.
Internally, we have it in place and the Provincial Auditor
has said so. All one has to do is look
on page 49 of the last report. Our internal
structures are in place. This proves
they were in place. Indeed, no money is
paid until we see claims and billings or at least proof that money has been
paid out already, so the question is, is there proper accountability?
As the Auditor says, and I quote on page 49: "The program provides appropriate
accountability reporting to program management and to the Legislature on the
financial activities undertaken and the results achieved."
I guess what we found out in this latest example is that we
have a pretty good system of accountability in place.
Now at the intake level, that is a fairer question on
criteria, and that is fair game. But as
far as the accountability system that we have in place and when you take into
account that there are literally hundreds approaching thousands of files, to
this point we have not been, by my estimation at least and many others, bilked
at all. The one case where it was
building, it was one of our alert staffers who caught it before there was any
damage done, thank goodness.
Ms. Friesen: So the minister then is quite confident that
there are no other abuses.
Mr. Manness: Well, as confident that my children are going
to be home at two in the morning when they said they would be at home at two in
the morning. I mean, how do I know with
certainty? I know that the independent
third party, in this case, the Provincial Auditor, who has passed judgment on
our procedures and our methodology for trying to maintain the integrity, as I
have said, of a good faith model, that it has passed the test.
If the member is going to say, well, I will embarrass you,
I will make sure that I catch you, so do not ever swear that this is the last
time. Well, I am sure she will have
another day in court or in the court of the Legislature when she will be able
to try to embarrass me again because something else has surfaced.
We are talking literally of several millions of dollars
very thinly spread over literally hundreds if not thousands of training
opportunities and files. I think to
question whether or not all the funds have gone in the right direction, that is
a fair question, but the extent to which, once that decision has been made and
whether or not they have been wasted or whether somebody is taking advantage of
them, I honestly believe that it has been one of the very good programs of
government to deliver 99.9 cents on the dollar to where it was supposed to go.
Of course, the proof is in the pudding, and the proof is in
the positive responses that are coming from many, many employers, and of
course, many of the 55,000 people who have been trained under the program.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my intention, of
course, is not to embarrass the minister.
That is neither here nor there, and the minister should not take it
personally. My intention was to push in
fact how far he was prepared to back his assertions that everything had always
been in place, is now in place and presumably will always be in place, and he
is as confident of that I gather as‑‑[interjection] Well, you used
another example which perhaps is not a fair one to repeat.
The Auditor to whom the minister keeps turning for
reassurance about this program also recommended that the minister publish
annually an accounting of this program.
So far, in my questions in the Legislature, the minister has not given
an indication that he is prepared to do that.
Can we pursue that a little now?
The Auditor's recommendations for the publication of an annual
accountability, is the minister preparing to do that next year with his annual
report?
Mr. Manness: Well, I guess I would have to ask what the
term "public accountability" means to the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen). I mean, there are different
ways of doing it. I think when I provide
to the caucuses of the NDP and the Liberals kind of a listing of where we are
at any point in time, that is a form of accountability. Is the member talking about frameworks? I do not know. We think that we can do something with
respect to frameworks. The division, of
course, then has agreed to review its plan for the evaluation of Workforce 2000
within the context of the available human services that we have within the
division.
Ms. Friesen: Well, my question was specifically, is the minister
preparing or is he prepared to follow the recommendation that I think he has
got in front of him from the Auditor's report, to publish an annual account of
Workforce 2000?
Mr. Manness: I guess I will have to ask department whether
they have sat down with the Provincial Auditor to determine exactly what she
means by that. If I made public the
information I made available to the opposition caucuses, is that disclosure
significant enough, or is there something more that is contemplated? I thought that, in giving it to the other
parties, in essence that is what I was doing.
I really thought that I was living up to the spirit of the Provincial
Auditor's request.
Ms. Friesen: The Provincial Auditor's request refers to an
attachment to the annual report of the department. The provision of the information to our
caucus was most welcome, but I should remind the minister that it did take two
letters this year, two letters last year‑‑the provision of not a
very helpful document in the first instance last year. It is not as though this is public
information freely delivered. It came on
the day that the session opened, almost to the day a month after I had
requested it.
I think that what the Provincial Auditor is suggesting also
goes beyond what the minister has provided.
I believe that her recommendation there was in response to suggestions
that I made at the Public Accounts committee about particular kinds of audit
for effectiveness.
Mr. Manness: I dare say, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have
gone far beyond what the Provincial Auditor has said. In my read, the Provincial Auditor asked that
we disclose the results of the evaluation in the department annual report. The Provincial Auditor did not ask us to
disclose the actual files, not the files, but a summary of all of the activity
under the program. So we have gone far
beyond what the Provincial Auditor even referenced.
Ms. Friesen: To repeat my question again, is the minister
intending to comply with the recommendation of the Provincial Auditor?
* (2300)
Mr. Manness: Well, do we agree that that recommendation
was the disclosure of the results of the evaluation in the department annual
report? Are we talking about the same
thing?
Ms. Friesen: Yes, I am talking about that specific
recommendation of the Auditor, which I have asked the minister about in
Question Period, and I am looking for an answer as to whether that will be
included in next year's annual report.
Mr. Manness: Well, we certainly are giving serious
consideration to including that with next year's annual report.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the elements
that is very disturbing about Workforce 2000 is the evaluation‑‑not
in this case only the financial evaluation‑‑but the actual
evaluation of what I expect in audit terms is called "effectiveness,"
and I have brought this to the attention of both the Auditor and to previous
ministers in that the evaluation is most commonly done by the same person who
does the training. In some cases, but
not all, the person who does the training is also the owner of the
establishment. There are some very clear
difficulties, I think, here for anybody in looking at accountability of any
program of whatever nature.
The minister has said now on a number of occasions that he
is convinced that the right controls are in place, and I think he was thinking
only in the context of financial controls.
Could I address his attention now to those kinds of evaluations of
effectiveness, or, as the minister has said in newspaper reports, of whether in
fact training even occurred, when you do have this situation of the trainer
doing on an extremely informal basis, sometimes only a phone call, to the
actual company where he has been training?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I suppose if we had
the department evaluation in front of us, it would clear up some of the
commentary around that question, certainly, but then it may‑‑[interjection]
Yes, it might do the opposite because the member might say, well, who have you
asked, and how do you put in the hands of a third party more objective‑‑I
guess the member can always ask that. I
mean, I do not know how to ultimately answer a question on effectiveness other
than to say that, when employers tell us in a large measure, if we did not have
this program, their total staff complement, their number of employees, would be
down significantly in many cases. There
is no way that they could do this training on their own because what training
they would have to access would be, by necessity, longer term, more difficult
to access. Government has to make a
decision whether or not that is honesty at work, I mean, those types of
statements.
You know, I do not know ultimately, in time maybe we will
do a research project and ask an independent group, but certainly at this point
in time we tried to survey in some honest fashion and believe that basically we
are dealing with an honest public who is going to tell us the truth. To believe opposite is to say that there is
not an honest business community out there, and they are out just for
government handouts. So it depends on
the base of the beginning of your statement.
If you believe that the business community is dishonest, then whether
you random sample them and you try to determine whether or not your program was
effective, nothing will convince you by approaching them directly that it is.
I come from a different perspective. I believe that generally the majority of
business people are honest, and we ask them the very legitimate question, is
this program of value? Do you have
additional employees or a program in place that you would not otherwise have if
this program had not been here? Then I say
that then the results are ones we have to live with. We have to take those results and, of course,
we impose them‑‑we still do an awful lot of monitoring. Our staff are on site. The separation of staff functions from
training functions from monitoring, this is what we try to do to, again, get a
greater understanding of the effectiveness.
That is legitimate. That is the
member's role, too, to ask questions about how effective the programs are, and
I understand, but I do not know what more we could do, other than setting up a
third‑party tribunal or some outside agency to pass judgment. Yet the Provincial Auditor‑‑when
you turn to the Provincial Auditor to report as to framework, as to objectives
and accountability and the monitoring procedures you have in place‑‑has
looked at all of that and is giving us a passing grade.
So I guess we have to disagree then as to the starting
point, and the starting point is whether or not the business community is
basically honest.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I do not believe I raised
any question of the business community's honesty or dishonesty. That was the minister's starting point. My concern was for the value of a system
whereby the only evaluation is by the person who has done the training, and
this is in a context where the curriculum is not available, where there is not
necessarily‑‑in fact, in the majority of cases, there is no
certification at the end. So the very
issues which the minister is concerned about in the public education system‑‑standardization,
curriculum, certification, standardized tests‑‑are not there in
this system. So under that situation we
do have to be concerned about the process and the evaluation of public monies
being transferred into private hands.
Mr. Manness: Again, that last phrase indicates that that
is bad. That is bad: the transfer of public money into private
hands and‑‑
Ms. Friesen: And the accountability.
Mr. Manness: The accountability question is fair, but the
transfer into private hands does not end there.
It ends by training individuals.
So then let us focus not on the transfer of money, but let us focus
then, and rightfully so, on the effectiveness and what training is there.
I would say that, in due course, as this program continues
to grow in popularity and acceptance, and, indeed, be mirrored in other
jurisdictions, ultimately, we will try to measure more concretely the areas of
study and even yet reach out to determine with greater comfort that there is‑‑well,
I hate to use the words standardize and testing because that is why we brought
this program in. You could not apply standardized
testing here. This was to be specific,
very specific to the training need for that business.
So I had somebody the other day come and tell me, he says,
you know what happened under Workforce 2000?
I had the ability to go down into Tennessee and learn how to clean rugs
at the highest level. I said, well, how
does that help the value of the economy in the province of Manitoba? He says, well, this way‑‑I mean
he thought about it‑‑I, for some of the better customers, am now
displacing and providing a service that otherwise individuals were being called
for and paid for outside of our province, and how it is you clean these very
expensive rugs. He says, I am the only
person in Manitoba that does it; I never would have had that expertise.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can tell you, we never would have
offered that as a course at one of our trade schools, and we never would have
offered it anywhere in our post‑secondary area. But he said with the little bit of support
that he got to do that, he is now setting up a business in Manitoba.
I say, you cannot set standards for that. The member says that I am wrong, that I can
set standards for that. Well, maybe she
can tell me how it is that all the great thinkers today can set standards for
everything, and that does not work at cross purposes with what I said dealing
with the public school system, in my mind.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in a number of areas,
dry cleaning, rug cleaning, specialized use of chemicals and those kinds of
areas, there are, indeed, certifications by the trade itself, by business
associations, and they do provide certification of a level of skill or a level
of training which has been taken. That
certainly does occur in some areas of the private training; in the printing
trades, for example, there are certifications which are publicly available,
which have been met by people in some of these programs.
The issue is that that is not the case in all of the
programs. In some of the programs of
Workforce 2000, training takes place in a public, accountable manner. Those people having access to courses at
universities and at the community colleges through Workforce 2000, there is a
publicly accountable curriculum. There
is a classroom with a publicly accountable teacher, and there is a collective
process which goes on which is in itself a measure of some kind of
accountability. That is not the case in
all elements of Workforce 2000, and those are the issues, I think, where we do have
some concern about the level of accountability.
* (2310)
What I am understanding from the minister is that he will
look at the recommendations of the Auditor and that he himself is quite
confident that the kinds of controls which are there now are adequate.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess in a perfect
world, not to my world, because I would not consider it perfect, but to some,
you would have certification in every, every area of skill, and I cannot accept
that.
I am saying that, as we are moving into the new world, the
new world of innovation, there are going to be trades and practices that are
going to be in place and they had better come here, and there will not be
standards in place and there will not be certification methods in place. They will come in due course, but the
innovation and the practice and the wealth creation and the reaching out in the
market will find itself long before the standards and certification. That is the way it has always been and that is
the way it will always be, and that is the essence of innovation and wealth
creation.
Now, the member wants to get into some of the existing
trades that have been with us longstanding, traditional‑‑fine; I
understand her point, but Workforce 2000 was not only for the public or the
traditional trade area. It was also for
the new wave of innovation that we want to catch in this province.
Ms. Friesen: Well, the minister can resort to futurism to
defend this, but it seems to me that we have in existence in the program, in
Workforce 2000, monies which are being paid out not in futuristic or new
technologies, but in areas which perhaps are quite traditional or areas which‑‑
An Honourable Member: Like used‑car sales.
Ms. Friesen: Yes.
Mr. Manness: That is a misnomer and you know it.
Ms. Friesen: And where is the accountability for those
particular programs?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have not put a
dollar into selling of used cars in a training sense, and if we did‑‑[interjection]
No, we have not.
An Honourable Member: They are new cars.
Mr. Manness: No, there was a dimension of a new wave of
leasing arrangements that has hit our province, but I say to the members
opposite, these are legitimate areas for question, and I am reviewing that at
this time.
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister saying there have been no
courses under Workforce 2000 in salesmanship, in car dealerships?
Mr. Manness: No, I am not saying that. I am saying, let us focus specifically on
what the car dealerships are doing, and if they are in areas of computerization,
which we are reaching out to in this technical age to many people in various
areas, and if we are talking about new leasing arrangements, and if we are
talking about, of course, technical areas in the maintenance side, that is a
long stretch from selling used cars, to use the words. That is quite a stretch.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I would suggest that the minister go
back over his records, and certainly in the first two years of this program
there were indeed programs in the selling of cars which were not involving new
leases, which were not the technical programs that may have been involved in
the last year, and I would be prepared to suggest some names to him if he is
interested in looking at the accountability of this program.
The same principles come in when we are looking at the
hairdressers who brought in the motivational speaker. Certainly that is an area, I think, where
accountability of the program was sadly lacking. Is the minister convinced that those kinds of
loopholes have been closed?
Mr. Manness: I am on the record as saying that these areas
concern me, and I think many of these loopholes have been closed. Have they all been closed? I hope so.
Ms. Friesen: There is more than one leap of faith in this
program.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know why it
is that the member for Wolseley hates this program with such passion. It must be because she sensed that training
dollars or education dollars have been taken from the safe, protected havens of
community colleges and universities and have been directed to a freer existence
of the marketplace. That must be
it. It must be basically a philosophical
issue. I can think of nothing else,
because it would be great if we could maintain the status quo and find
additional money to put to this, but the reality is we cannot.
Any reading you do today tells you that the traditional
models‑‑even though we are trying to find additional money as a
government to put into community colleges, and yes, we did dismantle some of
their programming and now we are building it back up, and that was done by
design. That was done by design for a
good purpose, because you had to get in tune with what was happening in the
world, and I say to the member, part of that is to do anything you can to
promote and foster innovation, short‑term work.
Yes, the entry point and the program, the entry point‑‑and
the member that shepherded in Workforce 2000 is sitting with us and I
congratulate him because he saw how important it was that we bring this program
in quickly. Originally the intake was
very wide and it was done deliberately.
It was done deliberately to get our business community the realization
that they had a responsibility in training, they had a responsibility to put
some of their own dollars forward, and to do that in some cases maybe we
overincented, but we did it, we overincented.
We took a wide intake, and we did that deliberately to try
and make our corporate community realize that they had a responsibility. It was to move them into this generation of
training and it has been very successful, and now, as pointed out by the member
for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)‑‑listen, did you know that some money
went there and did you know that a fraction went there, and are you not worried? Do you not think you should change?
Now it is time to provide the finer tuning, and that is
what we are doing‑‑the finer tuning. So I am not offended with the questions from
the member, but the program is here to stay because it has been very, very
successful.
Ms. Friesen: The minister wants to look at some
principles. He has just suggested that
one principle is to encourage the business community of Manitoba to increase
their payment for training, and certainly that would be a very valuable goal in
any province of Canada. We all know what
the statistics are in the investment in training by the business community in
Canada overall. It is abysmally low, has
been for generations.
So given that and given that the minister is now fine
tuning, would he, for example, next year give a grant or a payroll tax rebate
to companies which already have a strong commitment to investment in training,
and the one that I have used in this example is, of course, IBM, which runs
over 400 courses a year. It has a very
high reputation for a commitment to a corporate culture of training, and yet
this is one of the ones that the minister chose to invest in. I am not quite sure where the minister's
priorities are in that case, and while I laud his goals, why did that one fit
in?
* (2320)
Mr. Manness: I would just wish that public policy setting
was so easy, that you could nicely weave the fence of being in or outside of a
program through all of various sectors and make it black and white. I remember when we brought the program in,
certainly my portion of it on the payroll tax offset, I mean, I would not
provide any offset to the financial industry.
Well, we did that, but then we began to realize the
financial circle, that means banks, it means insurance companies. All of a sudden we realized well, hey, we
want to reach out and put into place in Manitoba a calling centre, develop a
centre of calling. Then we have to
change the criteria a little bit because we deem that to be an important
strategic area of economic growth. These
are policy decisions made, yet hopefully within the context of a principle that
still can stand up over a period of these changes, and so far we have done
that.
Now I, without fear of criticism, when we first brought the
program in again‑‑and I am threshing straw here‑‑we
took in a wide entry. Now it is time to
fine tune it, and we will continue to do that under this program. We will continue to do it. Did IBM receive‑‑it is eligible
because of costs related to training and transferable generic workplace
skills. So when IBM does this training,
is that training proprietary to IBM?
Does the skill stop at the door when the employee leaves and decides to
go to another business? Well, of course
not. Generic, the term said in the
statement‑‑generic.
An Honourable Member: How do we know?
Mr. Manness: How do we know? We search these things out. We look at them. Our trainers there, they go look at them. So who is the benefactor of that? Well, obviously, in the first instance, IBM,
but if there is downsizing or if indeed something‑‑the ultimate
person who has this knowledge base and can use it hopefully in other workplace
opportunities is the employee. Is that
not what it is all about, to empower the employee? That is what Workforce 2000 is all about.
Ms. Friesen: The minister says‑‑again, we are
in the context here of the accountability of this particular program‑‑that
he is now aiming at fine tuning the program.
I asked the question about IBM as an example of a company which has a
high reputation as being a devotion to training in its own corporate culture,
and I asked the minister, are these the kind of companies, those with already
sound investments in training, which will continue to be eligible under
Workforce 2000?
The minister answered by going off onto a tangent and
saying it was generic skills. We can
come to the issue of generic skills in a minute. We are talking about corporate training at
the moment. If the goal is to encourage
and to initiate corporate training cultures, is that where the fine tuning of
this program is going?
Mr. Manness: There are obviously several goals but that is
one of them. Are we taking‑‑the
fine tuning, is it drawing us down one path that we will follow forever? The answer to that is probably no. We will continue to shift the emphasis of
criteria as need be to achieve the desired end.
The desired end, in this case, in my point of view at this time, is to
try and do two things: provide the
generic workplace skills and secondly, to try and also provide value‑added
to the Manitoba economy.
Two very, very broad areas.
Yet within that, given that we have a shortage of dollars to allocate to
this program, we may very well‑‑I mean, we set aside the financial
circle business. Even though they do an
awful lot of training internally, we set them aside, and yet we encouraged
within that subset, telecommunications, which is a first cousin in many
respects to the financial side. So it is
very hard to do pure categorization of sectors and businesses. That is where the first problem is, and that
will always be a difficulty when you are trying to set in place public policy.
Ms. Friesen: So the answer to my question essentially is
that the criteria are going to vary?
Mr. Manness: This program, if it is with us for a
generation, the fine‑tuning criteria will always vary but the general
goals as long as we are in government are the two that I enunciated just in my
earlier statement.
But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, what are we talking
about‑‑eligibility criteria for '94‑95 include businesses
competing in national‑international markets, businesses introducing new
technology, equipment to improve productivity and profitability, new and
existing businesses expanding in emerging sectors of the provincial economy,
and small business entrepreneurial development.
Those are the guidelines, but the general umbrella goals are the two
that I enunciated previously.
Ms. Friesen: Somewhere in that list of criteria and the
two that the minister mentioned I seem to have lost track of where the
empowerment of the individual comes.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the empowerment of
the individual comes through additional learning, which is the generic training
for the most part in the examples cited by the member, and the specific skill
set that an individual can carry from one job to the next. That is empowerment in my view. That is learning transferable from one
company to another.
Ms. Friesen: Can the minister give me an idea of what he
considers to be generic skills, transferable skills? We have been using the example of IBM, for
example. What are the generic skills
that were provided in that particular training program?
Mr. Manness: I will gladly try and answer this when I have
my staff here in Workforce 2000. I would
have to say that an example of generic training is computer application, and it
can be used from one place to the other.
If the member wants greater insight into the specific program offered by
IBM, I will look into that. I am not
saying I am going to provide it, but I will see whether it has anything
proprietary to it or not.
Ms. Friesen: May I just put that on the record that I
think what the minister has pointed to is, in fact, the very issue of
accountability in these programs? It is
that some of the training is, in fact, proprietary, that it does relate very
much to particular companies, not so much the empowering of the individual that
the minister is talking about, but particularly in areas of salesmanship, human
relations, "total quality management," all of which is being taught
under this program, that the issues are not ones that are amenable to the kind
of accountability which should be there under public programs.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess this is where
we have to all agree to disagree. In my
view, virtually all of these skills are transferable. I cannot cite one case having come to my
attention where that was not the case, but maybe the member has had somebody
express that to her, that the training they are learning on site is of no value
to them once they leave a particular location of employ. We will have to agree to disagree, I suppose.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, I think there are fundamental differences
of principle here, but I think there is also the issue that one of the ultimate
leaps of faith in this program is that we have to take the minister's word for
it because there is no publication of the curriculum, or of the trainer, or of
the selection of people to be trained, or of the final result, the outcome, all
of the elements which in a public system the minister is trying to focus our
attention upon and to insist upon a new kind or even old kinds of
accountability. Yet for the private system
it is something that we have to take on faith of the minister.
* (2330)
Mr. Manness: My statement stands. Obviously, I sense that virtually all of the
business community is doing the honourable thing in providing training that is
of a net contribution to the employee and to society. In due course, were it an absolutely perfect
world and we knew beyond what our staff tell us‑‑and our staff go
there. They go and look to see what
exactly is taught. They have access to
the training manuals. They have access
to these programs. I have delegated my
responsibility to them to bring back the word.
To that end, there is something that is being taught, and it is in
keeping with the general criteria of this program.
The member may choose to disbelieve that because of a
couple of examples that she cites that call into question whether any training
has been done. I am mindful of
those. I am taking action to deal with
those as they arise, but I say to her that overall this program is working
well.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I do want to repeat that
the issue is not the honesty of the business community, which the minister
keeps raising, nor is it the question of my disbelief that is an issue. The issue is having a system in place which
is accountable to the public for the expenditure of public monies, and those
are my concerns.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, maybe the member can
tell me then how the $200‑and‑some million that I directed to the
University of Manitoba is all held as being accountable. You see, I have to answer for that no
differently than I do for Workforce 2000.
The Provincial Auditor has no more or less access to the
University of Manitoba than she does to this program. Yet I am held accountable for every one of
these dollars that is spent, and yet nobody is held accountable for the results
and indeed the training that takes place at our universities. You never see the president of the University
of Winnipeg here made accountable to the Legislature or to the public.
If the member wants to talk about accountability in my role
as minister, I can draw some pretty strong parallels, too, because I dare say a
lot of people today are questioning the accountability associated with hundreds
of millions of dollars spent in a number of areas of education, just not in
Workforce 2000.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, if the minister wants to
draw some parallels or some comparisons to the accountability of public
universities, I think that is an interesting issue, something we could raise
under that particular area.
I would suggest to him that the monies which he applies to
universities are distributed by the Universities Grants Commission, of which he
appoints the vast majority of the members.
He has an equal appointee on every board of every university in this
province. The board minutes of every
university are published. The annual
reports of the universities are published.
Every graduate of the university at a graduate level is evaluated by
essentially a national process of external examination. Departments are annually‑‑or it
is not, I should say, I think it is every four years‑‑evaluated,
and they are evaluated on a rotation basis by national visiting committees
whose reports are made publicly available.
They would be available to the minister through the boards and through
his appointees on those boards.
The curriculum of every course taught in our public
universities is available to anybody who phones up the department and says, I
would like to see what the program is, I would like to see how the marks are
distributed, I would like to see who is teaching that course. The qualifications of the people teaching
those courses are listed in the front of every university calendar.
So I think the issue of public accountability of
universities is there for the minister if he chooses to use the avenues which
are available to him, and indeed there have been. He mentions bringing the university
presidents to the Legislature. There
have been proposals from time to time that indeed there be an education
committee of this Legislature which does examine such public issues of the
universities. I wonder perhaps if the
minister has looked at those.
Those are a variety of issues that we could discuss under
the public responsibility and accountability of universities and colleges
perhaps at a later date.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member makes my
point. Almost all of the examples the
member used were issues of reporting and the issues of how it is that government
tries to reflect public policies by way of appointment of certain individuals
to boards.
The big issue is effectiveness. That is what the member talked about. Reporting in itself is not
effectiveness. We started this whole conversation
around effectiveness, and so the question is, to use the parallel, are the
universities effective? I am saying they
are, but how do I know with great certainty?
I mean, having a standing committee of the Legislature deal with
education, is that going to answer the question? So these are the choices‑‑[interjection]
Yes, it was my suggestion. I agree.
An Honourable Member: Now you say it would not be effective.
Mr. Manness: No, I did not say that. I said is it going to deal with the question
of effectiveness? So if I call the
business people here in a standing committee, will it deal with the question of
effectiveness to satisfy the member? It
might. "Would it?" is the
question. I dare say, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, it probably would not. So I
only drew the parallels to deal with the question of effectiveness, and how is
it that reporting in itself is the guarantor of effectiveness? Well, it is not.
Ms. Friesen: I believe that the minister responded with
his university question, not on the issue of effectiveness but on the issue of
the one that I had raised about the leap of faith, where we had to take the
minister's word for the effectiveness and accountability of Workforce
2000. That was when he suggested that he
was in a similar position with the universities, and I suggested there were a
number of ways in which he was not.
If he would like to look at the issue of effectiveness in
his universities, we could look, for example, at the system which evaluates
departments on a national basis. We
could look at the accreditation, international accreditation, in fact, of
certain types of programs, for example, dentistry and engineering. We could look at the evaluation of every
graduate, from a Master's to the Ph.D. level, by external examinations, which
do in fact by external examiners who visit on site and who examine the
candidate so that there are national standards continuously being established
and being developed across the country.
It is a kind of guarantee of effectiveness. Obviously, not totally there, but it is a
process of determining effectiveness which we do not have in this program.
To come back to Workforce 2000, my issues are, and we can
perhaps look at these more closely when we get to the Workforce 2000 line in
terms of the individual grants which have been made. What I was focusing upon here was the role of
this particular department in evaluating departmental accounting activities.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to sum up what
I said a half an hour ago, some distance away with respect to the Workforce
2000 program.
Mr. Plohman: There could be a lot more that could be said
on that, and there will be, I guess, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
There is another objective for Expected Results in this
area dealing with the public schools funding program which states: a schools funding program that effectively
meets its objectives, including program results, real and perceived equities
and satisfaction of school divisions and other educational organizations.
Then others allude to some of the same thing, and the
minister talked about the assessment program or the assessment liaison with
other departments.
I know we are going to talk about public school's financing
in another area, but in terms of developing the model that was used for this
year, I would assume that this branch, this office, would have a role to play
in terms of equity of financing for the school divisions throughout the
province.
I have raised this with the minister, and he says that
funding is not an issue, but in terms of the impact of reassessment and how
that has impacted on the funding formula, and how it has resulted in tremendous
differences in what some school divisions are getting in terms of increases or
decreases, as the case may be, I think that we have to take a look at that
issue. This might be the appropriate
place to look at what kind of study and analysis was done to determine where
the cutoff might be as to what divisions would be given increases on the basis
of assessment decreases or increases and how that would apply. The minister must have done modelling with
the computer information that was available to determine the impact of
reassessment to how that would impact on funding.
* (2340)
I see cases where, for example, in the Lord Selkirk School
Division, supplementary funding was reduced from $512,303 in 1993 to $14,000,
almost wiped right out. In the Interlake
School Division, it was dropped from $403,000 down to $12,000, almost wiped
right out.
As a result of the change in assessment, I have also been
advised that in some cases school divisions that had an increase in assessment
over 10 percent, about there, received decreases in provincial funding, whereas
those who had assessment increases below 10 percent basically received the same
or more funding. There must have been
some trial runs of this to determine the impact of reassessment in terms of the
impact on school divisions.
I am saying this because I know some school divisions would
have been able to capture additional dollars with the same mill rate. Obviously, when they have a higher
assessment, each mill is going to raise more money for them, the local
levy. But they could not do it because
of the cap. So they were not able to
recoup the funding that was lost because the province reduced their funding as
a result of higher assessments, so they lost on both sides. They got higher assessment; the province
says, okay, you got higher assessment, you are reduced in terms of the number
of dollars that we are going to give you.
But they could not make it up because of the impact of the cap that was
in place.
That is what they are telling me, and that is why I see
some school divisions, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, like Lord Selkirk, which cut 5.4
percent; Transcona, 3.5; Evergreen, 6.87; Interlake, 4.06; and others with an
increase. So, when the minister talks
about a 2.6 percent decrease for the public schools, in fact, some have had
much greater cuts, and others have had increases. I do not know how that can be perceived as
equitable or fair in terms of its impact on students, on programming.
The Interlake School Division, for example, advises me, and
I think it is borne out in the frame in reports that they are the fourth lowest
expenditure per pupil division in the province, and yet they see, this year,
this major reduction. How can that be
justified? It cannot be based on the
amount of spending that school divisions are doing.
What would seem to be efficient school divisions are being
penalized, and so I do not know what the minister is using for criteria,
whether he developed a standard level of service anywhere as to what was
expected and what it would cost to provide that service and then try to fund
school divisions in an equitable way.
Was any of this done? Was there
an analysis done? So, if I look at the
overall situation, even for the last two years and we are just trying to get
information on both years together, some school divisions received decreases
both years; others received increases.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me make the
record clear right from the start. We
practice no ad hockery on this. The
formula is the formula, but there was a higher‑order restraint placed
against the formula. It was not even
placed against the formula; it was against the results of the formula. The member rightfully points out that what
has caused some greater pressure on some of these school divisions is the
effect of Bill 16. Had it not been in
place, obviously, school divisions would have been able to inflict some greater
tax impact upon their ratepayers, but Bill 16 is in place. So when the reassessment came along, the
government of the day had to decide to do one of two things. It had to decide whether or not it wanted to
put in a buffer, an ad hoc measure, a transition. The government decided not to do that and to
maintain the results of the formula, not to change the formula.
Now the member says, well, what did assessment do. Well, assessment had half the divisions
gaining the net impact of assessment, had half the divisions gaining more or
less, and half the divisions losing, because that is what it is, assessment
increase. I believe it increased across
the province 10 percent roughly, the value of the plant, as we say, of all of
our assets, all the real estate, increased 10 percent.
If you were in a school division where it increased 6
percent‑‑because between the balances of farmland going down and
homes going up and you did all the measurements across the school division,
some divisions went up 6 percent. They
became greater benefactors of the formula, because that is the way the formula
is supposed to work.
Other areas, and the member has used Interlake as an
example several times, it has had a growing base of wealth because of a large
movement, particularly into the community of Stonewall. That drove funding to that division up by 8.4
percent in '92‑93. Of course,
Interlake has not given him that information, but that is the level of
additional support it had under this very same formula in '92‑93. There was no complaint. There was no complaint from Interlake in that
year. Then in '93‑94, another
increase of 1.7 percent, Interlake. I
was not in the office then, but I do not think Interlake came in to
complain. But in '94‑95 when it
fell, the total level of support fell by 3.9 percent or by per pupil, 5.5
percent, then the complaints have come in.
But the formula has not changed, dealing with that particular school
division.
Now there are some school divisions that took days off, do
not have surpluses‑‑there were just a couple‑‑and that
we have tried to reach out, in spite of the fact I hate ad hockery because very
quickly you have no formula. Then no
minister can sit here and look anybody in the face and say, well, we have a
system that is fair; it has taken into account the past; it is going to take
into account the future; it is going to try and be based on some constant base
of principles. The minister cannot do
that if you start providing ad hoc measures all the way along.
That is what happened to the NDP, of course. That is exactly what happened to them. By the time we came to government, nobody was
on the formula. Everybody was guaranteed
their level of expenditure. Regardless
of whether student numbers were falling, everybody was guaranteed. I think there was‑‑one division,
two divisions left. I am sorry, maybe
that is the way the NDP want to govern.
I will not. I cannot govern that
way.
So we tried to maintain the program, and I think that
basically in most respects, it is a fair sharing of the resources taking into
account the wealth of the divisions.
Now, certainly it has had greater impact on some divisions than others. That is a given. Once the cap comes off, divisions will be
able to react accordingly.
* (2350)
Mr. Plohman: The minister is allowing some school
divisions to borrow from next year. How
can he justify that? In fact, they are
borrowing against next year's grants and there is no commitment that they are
going to get more money. What kind of
false hope is he trying to give them? Is
this something they are supposed to collect from their local levy on the basis
that the cap will be off the following year, or how is he justifying that as
opposed to providing‑‑I mean this seems contrary to the minister's
philosophy that you pay as you go, or to whatever extent you can, to have these
school divisions being given special allowances to borrow from next year rather
than providing them with an exception this year. What kind of parity is there in that kind of
a system?
Mr. Manness: What the member is advocating is that anybody
who had a negative fall, give them money.
That is what he is advocating. He
did not tell me where to draw the lines between those who needed it at a
greater level than maybe at a lesser level because they were a negative down
below the 2.6. So it is easy for him to
say when he sits in his chair, if anybody is severely hit‑‑he does
not define severely‑‑I gather what he means is if they have any
negative funding at all, give them more money.
Sorry, I do not have the tens of millions of dollars more to give.
What we were trying to do is say, look, you did take some
extreme measures last year, to a couple of these divisions. You did live within the intent and the spirit
of Bill 22. You have no surplus and we
do not want to see you, given that you have done these things, decimate your
programming, so why do we not advance‑fund you some next year. Obviously if you have greater flexibility to
go to your ratepayers, you will have another year in which to make a budget and
over a period of time come up with your own solution. I thought it was a fair offer in the couple
of instances where it was provided.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, Agassiz and, I think, Transcona are two
of those. I do not know which others
that the minister is referring to, but I cannot understand‑‑again,
he did not answer the question as to how this was keeping the formula pure as
opposed to supporting those divisions with severe hardship.
The minister gathers wrong if he gathers that I am saying
anyone who had a negative impact should have been given additional
dollars. I think there is clear need in
some school divisions where they have provided information to the minister to
show that they do not have surpluses to draw on. They have reduced teachers' salaries by way
of Bill 22 and asked the teachers to contribute to the operation of the school
division through that bill and others have had really no options left, some of
those divisions, without having to cut programs.
The minister knows that some divisions are having much
greater hardship than others. I mean,
look at Lord Selkirk School Division is laying off or severing some 47
staff. Twenty‑five of those were
teachers, instructional staff. Some 22,
I think, were support staff. Transcona
is reducing some 30 staff.
I think, when we see the impact on the quality of education
impacting on the children in the schools, and the minister could define a level
of service that is expected and through no fault of their own they are having
to do this because of the impact of the minister's formula and reassessment
this year, that some exceptions could have been made on that basis.
I do not know whether he is going to have the opportunity
to be in government a year from now and if Bills 16 and 22 come off, if in fact
they are not renewed by this government, how he is going to provide the
supplementary funding that is required to offset the deficit financing that has
been going on, in effect, for the last couple of years, the deficit financing
by drawing from reserves or using Bill 22.
There are a whole lot of things that have to be corrected
when we come off these artificially imposed restrictions that have taken place
over the last couple of years through Bills 22 and 16. I do not know if the minister has any
proposal as to how that‑‑does he propose giving traditional
provincial dollars then to those divisions that have to make up the shortfall
then just to balance their budget, to get back to zero? Or is he going to say, well, you get that
from your local taxpayers?
Mr. Manness: Well, that is the essence of Bill 16. Bill 16 was to protect the local taxpayers, because
we have been around in government too long to see that when we do assessment‑‑[interjection]
Well, we said to school divisions, yes, you are going to have to come to grips
with your expenditures. I mean,
everything about Bill 22 and Bill 16 was purely expenditure. You are going to have to come to grips, and,
yes, it did not fall out as nicely and neatly and fairly across all divisions
as we might like to have seen.
I can certainly indicate to the member, had we begun to
understand purely by just providing transitional grants to the two divisions he
mentioned, there would have been a lineup at my door from divisions that the
year previous had taken eight days. Lord
Selkirk did not take eight days the year before; it took three.
We tried to get the message out‑‑my
predecessor, the former minister, tried to get the message out how important it
was that divisions take seriously that this was just not a one‑year
problem. This was going to be a two‑year
problem. So we have tried to be open and
share exactly where we see education funding going. With respect to Lord Selkirk School Division,
they had a large surplus; they have used a lot of it. They have also reduced some staff. They have, I understand, a very low mill
rate, and next year they will have to make their own decisions, given that Bill
16 is no longer in place.
I say to the member that at least we have got an
educational funding formula that we will again go to next year. I do not know what changes are being
contemplated; we are just starting that process now. It will not be significant because right now
all the divisions are on that formula.
Mr. Plohman: Just why did you cut the supplementary
funding by an amount as the result of‑‑well, it had an effect
because of reassessment. It had the
effect of causing some of these school divisions who were, I guess we could
say, have‑not became have divisions or something to that effect. So, in effect, those school divisions lost
this money but could not recoup it. It
does not reflect their ability to obtain funding for their division because
they could not recoup it through local taxation. They were being penalized for having higher
assessment by the province but were not able to recoup it. I mean, it was a classic case of being
between a rock and a hard place. They
have no justification in terms of their programming and the level of
expenditures. It was not done on a fair
basis. If you are caught in it, you are
caught in it.
The minister seems to take pride in saying, well, I am not going
to play around with this formula. I
mean, there were some divisions like Lord Selkirk this year and Interlake that
lost all of their supplementary funding.
Why was the supplementary funding not maintained at the same level as
the previous years, regardless of the reassessment, because they could not take
advantage of it? They could not take
advantage of the reassessment.
Mr. Manness: Then we throw out the whole model. This model was supposed to shift. What do you say to the divisions who have been
waiting for years, knowing that they do not have the wealth that was recorded
and saying no for another year? Even
though you are poor and the numbers prove that you are much poorer than you
thought, yet for another year you will see your tax dollars transferred over to
the other divisions. That is why.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being twelve o'clock, committee
rise.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Health.
We are on 1.(f)(1), page 81 of the Estimates manual. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
1.(f) Health Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $4,099,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $3,684,800‑‑pass.
We will defer dealing with 1.(a) until completion of all
other resolutions.
2. Healthy Public Policy Programs (a) Administration.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, I move
THAT this committee
censure the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) for failing to support real health
care reform for the development of preventative community‑based health
programs, and instead, wasting much needed Health dollars on high‑priced
consultants like Connie Curran who are seeking to Americanize Manitoba's health
care system.
We have copies of the motion.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, we have been in this committee
now for over a week‑‑
Madam Chairperson: The motion is in order.
Mr. Chomiak: ‑‑attempting to determine if the
course of action adopted by this government this fiscal year or by this
particular minister is different than the past, and it is fairly clear that the
government initiatives and the government measures adopted are continuing. We have not heard any different in terms of
responses from this minister to our queries or to our responses.
This afternoon we heard that the Connie Curran contract
would still be paid out despite the fact that the province has three‑quarters
of a million dollars waiting in trust that could go to much needed health care
reform, Madam Chairperson.
The minister has confirmed that still the government's
plan, albeit quieted down now that we are heading more into an election year,
is for 1,500 more people to be laid off at the Health Sciences Centre and St.
Boniface.
The minister has met with many, many groups and attempted
to talk to them, but it is talk. As I
indicated in my first comments, it is a monologue disguised as a dialogue. I have had groups come back to me after
meeting with the minister and said to me, why does the minister say one thing
to us and another thing outside and another thing in front of the press? It happens over and over again. It happened as recently as this week.
We have waited for some new initiatives in terms of
community‑based care, and they have not taken place. In fact, community‑based care has been cut
back through the imposition of Bill 22 to community‑based care. So nothing has fundamentally changed in this
health care system.
We have tried to ask the minister questions about the new
MMA agreement. It appears the minister
is intent on deinsuring services in years three, four and five of the
agreement, and the minister has not said anything to the contrary. We have asked in Question Period, we have
asked in Estimates, and still we have gotten nowhere from this minister and
this government.
It is clear the government's so‑called health reform
continues along its path. Now they
attempt to disguise it by doing a bit of a better PR campaign than previously,
but all the fundamentals are still there:
the Americanization of the system, Connie Curran, more layoffs, more bed
closures, no expansion of home care, no expansion of community‑based
care. The course continues; the die is
cast.
It is clear that if Manitobans want to reform the health
care system, if they want a better health care system, if they want to improve
the quality of care, they cannot rely on this government and the delivery of
health care as outlined by this government.
They have no confidence, and they should have no confidence in this government. We have put in an act for health care reform
accountability and have heard nary a peep from members opposite about an act of
that kind.
They have the opportunity, Madam Chairperson; they had an
eight‑month hiatus between the by‑elections and now, and they did
nothing to try to improve accountability in health care reform. We at least introduced an act, and we are
asking for support from members opposite.
All the minister could do is say, come to my to office and sit down and
talk with me. Well, it is more than
that; it is more than sitting down in the minister's office and talking with
him. It is real action.
We introduced an act that called for statutory and
regulatory dealings on health care reform, and we have got not a word from
members opposite. It is fairly clear
that the government's plan has not changed.
The agenda has gone underground.
It is a hidden agenda; it is an underground agenda, and it is still
taking place‑‑the same cost‑cutting measures, the same slash‑and‑burn,
the same attempt to try to pare back the system through the removal or the
downsizing of our universal system and the move towards profit‑making
privatization, all under the guise of health care reform. It is clear what the government's direction
is in this area, and it is clear that their alternative is no alternative. It is, in fact, the same policy, only it has
gone a little bit underground; it has a little bit of PR.
They do not even call it reform anymore‑‑and
that is true, because I do not know if their focus testing has indicated they
should do other things‑‑but the long and the short of it is that
the health reform under this minister is no different from health reform under
the previous minister, which is no different than health slash and burn, which
is the same policy, the same techniques, Madam Chairperson, and it is no better
illustrated than the responses this minister gives to questions. Does this minister provide information? No, this minister reads from press
releases. He attacks. He fails to defend. He uses the opportunity in the Estimates to
try to find straw dogs, straw persons, in order to look at.
So we have no choice but to condemn this government's
actions in health care reform and ask that members of this House look at this
so‑called reform, look at this slash and burn, look at this underground
agenda which is seeking to do nothing more than what was done by the previous
minister.
Having said that, Madam Chairperson, I will allow perhaps
if the Liberal Party wants to comment and members opposite on this important
motion. Thank you.
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): I just arrived in
the House, and I just perused the proposed motion of the honourable
member. I suggest to you, Madam
Chairperson, that perhaps it is out of order.
I would indicate that the purpose of this committee, of
course, is to discuss the spending Estimates of the Department of Health. This is filled with inaccuracies and somewhat
fictive enlargements of the member's imagination.
I suspect that if the member wanted to censure the Minister
of Health (Mr. McCrae) for one action or another that had some basis in fact,
he ought to bring that motion in the House as a regular order of business and
not attempt to subvert the process here by bringing it in the back door.
I suggest that this motion is actually out of order and not
to be so ruled.
* (2010)
Madam Chairperson: I assume the honourable government House
leader was standing on a point of order.
Mr. Ernst: Yes.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
The Chair had previously reviewed the motion at the time of the
introduction and had indeed declared that the motion was in order.
* * *
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Chairperson, I do not have the motion
in front of me, but given the comments of the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak), I can appreciate some of his frustration, and I share some of those
frustrations. However, we have just come
to the section of the department Estimates where we are going to get into
detail and talk about Healthy Public Policy, Continuing Care Programs, all of
the Wellness programs, all of the health promotion programs, and although I can
share some of the frustration of the MLA for Kildonan, I think he is a bit
premature. I want to hear some of the
direct answers.
For instance, in the Home Care program, we have asked some
general questions in the beginning of these Estimates, but certainly we have
deliberately left some of the technical questions until this section. I am prepared to give the minister an
opportunity as we go through these Estimates to very clearly outline if, in
fact, he has moved to community‑based services, and I think this is a
section where we have an opportunity to do that.
I might suggest to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)
that he keep that motion and perhaps hold it in abeyance until we have an
opportunity within the next few hours to get some specific answers to the
questions.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Madam Chairperson, if anybody should be
censured around here, I suggest it should be the honourable member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak) and his colleagues for the hypocrisy in which they engage on a
daily basis, not only in this House but elsewhere in this province. All I see is hypocrisy in the health care
debate coming from honourable members opposite.
It is somewhat disturbing but nonetheless part of the
political landscape in which we work that from time to time hypocrisy creeps
into the debate, but it is done on a consistent basis on the part of members of
the New Democratic Party. I find it
disturbing, but it is not going to deter me or all of the health care providers
and health care consumers in this province who are embarked on an appropriate
course for change that will provide for a sustainable health care system for
many years to come.
You see, Madam Chairperson, if we were to take the advice
of honourable members opposite, advice which sometimes I do not even think they
mean, but they give it anyway‑‑and that is to go back in time some
20 years and try to preserve a health system which was developed at a time when
we were not so concerned about revenues, when we were not so concerned about
outcomes, because governments in those days spent first and asked questions
later. All they did was respond day in
and day out to the latest demand that their friends or others made on them, and
this was their way of governing.
Madam Chairperson, those days are over. The rest of the world knows it, and all we
need to try to achieve now is to get members of the New Democratic Party and some
of their friends to realize that this is the '90s, and beyond lies the next
century, and unless change happens now, there will not be a health care
system. Honourable members opposite
choose not to believe that, but their colleagues in other jurisdictions who
have responsibility for making decisions see it quite differently.
So it is simply an exercise in hypocrisy. They talk about‑‑the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) began the day today talking about bed
closures in hospitals. He forgot to
mention that in the past couple of years we have opened 367 additional or
replacement personal care or long‑term beds. They conveniently neglect to mention that the
Home Care budget has increased by 93 percent in the last six years, far, far greater
than the paltry sums made available to the program by the New Democrats of
earlier years.
At a time when it would have been good to have been
building more completely on a Home Care program, what were they doing? They were simply closing beds permanently in
Madam Chairperson, the changes we have been undertaking in
I have, chapter and verse, many, many examples of the kind
of double standard that the honourable members opposite practise day in and day
out, and there is no point, for the purpose of debate on this particular
motion, to go through each and every example.
But I cannot think of very many things New Democrats have been positive
about in regard to positive changes in the health care system. Certainly in the last year or so they have
been particularly negative.
I did not hear any positive comments when it was announced
that we would extend provincewide and to that group of women between the ages
of 50 and 70 a breast‑screening program for that particular group of
Manitobans. I did not hear any comment
from New Democrats when independent medical people said that that program could
save many lives in Manitoba in the future because of the preventive nature or
the early detection nature of breast screening.
I did not hear anything from honourable members opposite
when we spoke of announced plans and changes to enhance mental health delivery
services in virtually every region of
I did not hear anything by way of comment from honourable
members opposite when the government of
I have not heard from the honourable members when it came
to issues directly regarding the budget, which is supposed to be the subject
matter of the discussion we are embarked upon now, the fact that there is an
increase there again for home care services, a very significant increase for
mental health services, the increases in the budget for dialysis services in
Manitoba, continued support for important programs in health care, not only
institutional but also in terms of long‑term care and preventive
initiatives.
I did expect this type of tactic to be used in the
House. I just wondered when would be the
first time they would use it, and, of course, being the parliamentary
adventurers they sometimes can be, it did not take them very long to test the,
what has it been called, razor‑thin situation we have in the Legislature.
I think it has been commented on and called parliamentary
gamesmanship. There is nothing really in
the budget for the members opposite to be against, so they want to fight former
wars from other times and eras to raise an issue at this relatively early stage
of the Estimates deliberations of the Department of Health, just simply to, I
do not know, try something different or just simply to get some attention or
whatever it is honourable members in the New Democratic Party are attempting to
do these days.
* (2020)
You only have to look at the views of Manitobans as they
are currently reflected in some surveys to know how very, very troubled members
of the New Democratic Party must be in terms of their place at this particular
time in the history of Manitoba. Of
course, comments like that are bound to evince some response from the seats
opposite. It was Tommy Douglas who once
said that, members opposite, we wonder where their brains are when they get so
exercised when they are sitting in their seats.
That was something Tommy Douglas said, and I do not like to engage in
that kind of talk, but that was something Tommy Douglas said years ago.
The honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says
Tommy Douglas had a sense of humour, and what a wonderful sense of humour it
was. I had the honour and the privilege
many times to record speeches made by Tommy Douglas when I was an employee at
the House of Commons for some eight years.
Ever since then, people have asked, well, who are the great orators in
Parliament and who have been? Of course,
Tommy Douglas was very near the top of the list, and as a Hansard reporter, he
made my job so easy. He practically
punctuated every line for me so I did not have to use whatever skills I had as
an editor or even as a Hansard reporter.
It was always a pleasure to report what the man said.
The thing though, the reason that I refer to Tommy Douglas
is that I look to the seats opposite, and I see no resemblance whatsoever in
this House or in our provincial party.
The member for Burrows says that Tommy Douglas was a preacher. Tommy Douglas, when he left Parliament, he
said, Mr. Speaker, I have done many things.
I have been a preacher, a printer and a politician, otherwise known as
the descent of man. That was the kind of
humour that Tommy Douglas would sometimes bring forward. Of course, when he said it, people
laughed. When I say it, members, sad‑sack
looking members opposite tend not to catch on to those kinds of things.
That does describe the way I feel when I am faced with a
motion of the kind raised tonight by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak). This lot is no descendant lot
of the likes of Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles and those people who gave
social democracy some kind of true meaning in this country.
Today what we have are some wild‑eyed, rag‑tag
group of disparate interest groups represented in this particular political
party, and they are groping and grasping, as John Crosby would say, by their
fingernails and by their hangnails to try to get a piece of power, and they
will resort to anything.
I have, as referred to by the member for Kildonan, on
repeated occasions asked him if he would not care to sit down and talk
rationally together about health care issues.
Never once has he taken me up on that offer because he knows he is going
to hear the truth, and he knows it is not something he can use in a debate like
this. He knows the truth is not
something he can use in his dialogue with the public. He knows that working some version of the
real facts is the only way for him to succeed because he knows the great
majority of people involved in the health care system are on the side of the
kinds of changes we are seeing here in
He knows from his discussions, if he has discussions with
people who live outside the
You know, our health care system is a national system, and
I feel a great deal of empathy for people who live in other parts of
I have learned things about other provinces which, for
whatever reasons‑‑and I always make the point that I am not
critical of other provinces because they have no choice about making changes. We had choice and we started early enough to
exercise choice so that we could choose a less intrusive or a less dramatic way
of changing our health care system, so that we could somewhat less painfully
make the changes that are required to guarantee a health system for many
generations to come.
There are those who cannot see beyond the ends of their
noses when it comes to meaningful reform, and there are those who, worse, do
not wish to see and choose deliberately to misunderstand what is going on in order
to make a case and in order to move a motion like the kind we see tonight
without having to blush. I think that is
the most remarkable thing about it; the honourable member for Kildonan did not
even blush as he moved this motion tonight.
That is why, among a lot of things I am not, I am not a New
Democrat, nor could I ever be one or contemplate being one. You see, having had the honour of being a
Minister of Health in this province, there is going to be a day, where if we do
not do a good job now, those who come after me, my own children‑‑and
Darlene and I have five‑‑may well ask, what did you do when you had
a chance, Dad, back in the '90s and you were Minister of Health and you had a
chance to do something to preserve something for us? Why did you keep it all for yourself? Why did you keep it all for your generation
and then listen to the New Democrats and kill the health care system?
Well, I do not want to face those questions. I do not want to face those kinds of
questions, and that is why, in working with all of the people in the health
care system, we are making the right kinds of choices today, and we are doing
it in a way that respects the views of our fellow Manitobans. But I must confess, I never cease to be
amazed by the depths to which New Democrats will sink, again, without even
blushing in terms of putting across information and perceptions that bear no
resemblance to the truth or no resemblance to what is going on in contemporary
I think that is why the New Democratic Party in
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): How is the Conservative Party doing actually?
* (2030)
Mr. McCrae: In Manitoba‑‑the honourable
member for Thompson knows he can always bait me with questions about the
federal Conservatives. I am not here‑‑and
I guess the members opposite are not here, to defend the federal New Democrats,
because they are not looking much better than the Conservatives these
days. But at least the Conservatives
have a chance to come back and to be relevant again, whereas the New Democrats,
unless they change their ways, are going to have a real problem with that.
Honourable members opposite want to talk about two seats
held by the Conservatives in
The one area where I detected in my meeting the other
morning with some leadership of several union organizations, the one area that
I wonder how solid the ground is upon which the NDP stands is the position they
brought forward the other day on self‑managed care.
Now, I am a proponent of self‑managed care and
working with those who want to see that happen.
I want to see that happen and expanded.
The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has come in to committee
and made the point that he is a big supporter now of self‑managed
care. It is not something he talks about
a lot, but he did come forward and make that comment. Well, I did not detect that same kind of
support when I met with the union leadership the other morning, but time will
tell. I think that union leadership as
well as fellow Manitobans, too, may search their souls and find that self‑managed
care is a worthy goal to try to reach for all people who need care in Manitoba,
but certainly we cannot get from here to there overnight and so far we have
announced our support for a moderate growth in that particular program.
I acknowledge I have been criticized on that point for not
seeing the self‑managed care expand fast enough or to include a large
enough portion of the home care client population, and I have undertaken to
look seriously at trying to see how much further we can go with that. I will bend every effort I can.
It is nice to know that I have the support of the New
Democrats, and I know that support probably gives their union friends some
concern and that is maybe to be expected.
But in this area I am really glad that the New Democrats have seen fit
to support something that basically does a better job of empowering the clients
of home care services so that they can make decisions.
You see, just because you are ill or just because you are
disabled does not mean you do not know how to make decisions for yourself. That is what empowerment is all about. That is why I give credit to my predecessor
for getting started with that program.
If he could only have seen the faces of the people I met with, maybe he
did previous to my taking office‑‑he must have‑‑but I
was certainly impressed by the support and the satisfaction felt by those
people who are taking control over their own lives and making decisions about
their care. They do not have to see
somebody's union card before they want to be given service. That is not the way self‑managed home
care works, and I am glad that the New Democrats have basically shunned
whatever the union line might be on this particular point and seen fit to
support self‑managed care.
On the other hand, the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) is quick to be critical of anybody who would support any pilot project
that provides better care to patients that is not run by the public sector, in
other words, reference there to We Care home services. In their own minds, we have made up our minds
about that program before it is even done, and that is not the case. I have said I would be very interested to
look at the evaluation of that program at
Seven Oaks took the initiative because they care about
their clients and patients as well.
Seven Oaks took the initiative to enter upon a pilot project to last
about 12 weeks to see if indeed early release could be brought about.
Early indications have been positive. It is interesting that even before the pilot
is completed, the NDP has made up its mind about this. If it is private, it is bad. That is as simple as it is. Never mind what the patient thinks. If it is private, it is bad. It was interesting on CKY TV to see a report
that covered the story of this pilot project, and they did profiles of patients
involved, and the patients were very pleased with the service they were getting
and said so, and the journalist at the tail end of the report said, the
patients like the program; the NDP hate it.
I thought, well, is that not typical and does that not
underline what I said a few moments ago about the relevancy of the New
Democratic Party and its members in contemporary
In fact, they are destructive to our society and our values
as we know them, but that is a constant struggle, I guess, for us in the
Progressive Conservative Party here in Manitoba to keep that New Democratic
Party and some of its hidebound ideas from regaining any popularity or support
in Manitoba, but, surely, all indications are that the support for that
particular old‑fashioned point of view which has been basically rejected
in Eastern Europe‑‑that it should still be alive and still kicking
here in Manitoba should be somewhat strange to me, but there you have it. There is still some semblance of a New
Democratic Party here.
Some of their ideas may remain relevant, and to the extent
that they make those ideas known to me, constructive suggestions and ideas, I
am very willing to listen to them, but when most of the eastern world has
rejected much of the philosophy of people like the New Democrats, I think maybe
they are paddling up the stream instead of down the stream.
The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) keeps his
attack up on the Connie Curran contract, and I suppose if the only reason you
are here is to score political points, you could do that and maybe should keep
trying to do that, if that is all you are here to do. If that is all you are here to do, that is
one thing. If you are here to try to
help and make constructive criticism, well, then something else applies, and I
have talked about that already.
I say with respect to this motion we have before us, the
unmitigated hypocrisy which lies behind a motion like this is something that
needs to be commented on. How is it that
a party that embraces the likes of Michael Decter can say the things that this
party says about Connie Curran, when Michael Decter has been appointed chief
executive officer of all the Canadian operations for the Connie Curran firm
here in Canada?
* (2040)
I do not know how many people know who Michael Decter
is. Well, behind every government or
beside every government, there are some very, very key people. Some people say those people have more power than
the elected people themselves. One of
those people in the New Democratic days in
He was the chief civil servant in
Michael Decter, on the rebound from
An Honourable Member: What?
Mr. McCrae: $140,000 a year.
An Honourable Member: More than Frank Maynard gets?
Mr. McCrae: Far more than Frank Maynard gets.
Well, at the time he took the job, he lived in
During that time, Mr. Decter undertook efforts to arrive at
the so‑called social contract and, in the process, basically lost the
support of the union movement in
When honourable members look at my budget, and we are
talking $1.85 billion, that is, $1,850 million, honourable members opposite
ought to remember about commitment, ought to remember about health care and
prioritization and all of those kinds of words.
The fact is that that $1.85 billion amounts to about 34 percent of all
the government spending in this province.
That is 2 or 3 percent more than it was six years ago when we took
office. Before that, you can then
conclude, without a shadow of a doubt, that the New Democrats' commitment to
health care was less than the Progressive Conservative commitment to health
care because those numbers do not lie.
As a percentage of total spending, this government spends more on the
people of
When you remember‑‑and Tim Sale is another fellow who often gets into the debate. I had