Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 6. Support to Post-Secondary Institutions (a) Universities (1) Universities Grants Commission (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 45 of the main Estimates book.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): At the end of last time, I had been asking for an evaluation of the number of years of special funding that have been given to the faculty of management at the University of Manitoba.

The minister had indicated that such funding was for the development of doctoral programs and for an increased number of staff and I assume some of the resources that would go with that. The minister was about to respond I think with some response to my request for an evaluation.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The university makes an annual report each year to the department, and the department will be doing an evaluation of that when it comes.

* (1440)

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister mean that the university does an annual report of the effectiveness of that million-dollar grant approximately? Is it specifically upon the faculty of management grant that the university reports?

Mrs. McIntosh: They report on the extent to which they have met the development plan.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister mean the development plan for the faculty of management?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, that is correct.

Ms. Friesen: Has the minister looked at a cumulative report of the cumulative impact of these special grants that have been given to this faculty? The reason I am pressing this is that it is not unique, but it is unusual for a large amount of money to be directly given to one faculty for a long period of time.

I am concerned at, for example, the extent to which this is becoming part of the annual operating costs of that particular faculty and the prospects of a government which gives out and which also takes away.

So I am looking for a longer term evaluation of the impact of this particular type of policy, first of all, and secondly, of the implications for this faculty.

Mrs. McIntosh: We will be taking a look at the cumulative effect this year.

Ms. Friesen: Will that report become public?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is anticipated that that would in all likelihood be part of the Estimates for next year, so in that sense, yes.

Ms. Friesen: Has part of the development plan, which the government's special grant has been supporting, been the establishment of the executive MBA, the one that is to be a shorter term but a far more expensive program? Has that been part of the development plan the government has been supporting?

Mrs. McIntosh: I understand that the executive MBA was not a specific portion of the development plan per se.

Ms. Friesen: One of the reasons I ask that question is because the executive MBA takes the first step in Manitoba towards the establishment of funding programs within a university on a differential basis; that is, fees will be quite different and established on a very different basis of cost recovery.

This is something, of course, that the Roblin report wanted the government to look at and believed had a future in Manitoba, and I am interested to know whether the minister has looked at the faculty of management which the government has a special relationship with, looked at the executive MBA and looked at the financing principles on which it is being established.

Mrs. McIntosh: The short answer would be that we are looking at having a tuition fee policy sometime this fall in response to some of the things that were said in Roblin's report.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us who will be involved in setting that fee policy?

Mrs. McIntosh: The department will consult and dialogue with institutions and student bodies. Ultimately, the decision will be one that government will assume the responsibility for.

Ms. Friesen: And such a tuition fee policy would take effect for September '95 or September '96?

Mrs. McIntosh: My expectation would be September 1996.

Ms. Friesen: Why would the minister be doing this in advance of the creation of a post-secondary education council?

Mrs. McIntosh: Basically, Roblin had identified this particular decision as one that he wanted to see action on and did not indicate that it needed to wait for the formation of a council.

Having said that, I do not know when the council will be up and fully functional. My anticipation, though, is it would take a bit longer for the council to be up and running.

Ms. Friesen: When the minister said she would be consulting widely on this, could she give me some examples of who will be consulted?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, student bodies, of course, would be high on our list of people with whom we would like to discuss these types of items, and they have proven to be very receptive and willing to meet so far on any number of topics, and the institution itself, of course, would be another body that the department would wish to have dialogue with.

Ms. Friesen: Are we speaking entirely of universities here, or does this include colleges? Is this a university fee policy?

The second part of the question was, is this something the minister will be setting on the basis of each university, so that there could be different policies for different universities, or is it something that she is looking at the whole sector for?

* (1450)

Mrs. McIntosh: Ideally, of course, we would love to have system-wide policies in this area. We may find, though, that certain institutions would have different components and different facets, which might mean that they could have a less expensive fee established.

So it is early in the game and perhaps a bit premature to be able to make a definitive statement and a definitive response to that question.

Ms. Friesen: Will this fee policy take into account the proposed changes of the federal government in the transfer of post-secondary education dollars?

Mrs. McIntosh: We hope to have some indication by then of what the federal government is planning to do by way of post-secondary education cuts.

There are two dilemmas in terms of decision making, once we know that figure or even in anticipation of that figure. One is that we wish to, insofar as we can in the light of federal cuts, not see any dilution or any diffusion of anything that we are currently doing.

The other side of that coin is that we do not wish to be thrown off our agenda by having initiatives set in place for the good of the students of Manitoba thwarted, because we then have to use our existing dollars to pick up what should be a federal responsibility.

So as we make decisions in that regard, those two points of consideration will have to be weighed and balanced. It will be difficult. I do not have an answer at this time, but I do identify, for the member's benefit, the two points that will have to be looked at as we go to make those decisions.

Ms. Friesen: I assume that the minister is aware that this is a reversal of government policy in the past. When the universities charge fees for visa students, and when the government indicated, for example, that a different kind of fee could be established, I spent some time discussing with the previous Minister of Education whether in fact the government was requiring the universities to introduce the new recommended fee. The assumption that was always brought back was that the universities had the choice of what to do about visa student fees, that fees, including the student service fees that were added last year after the government put on a 5 percent cap, were that which the government said that it could do nothing about because fees were a university responsibility.

Do I understand the minister correctly then that what she is proposing is a reversal of past government policies on fee policies for universities?

Mrs. McIntosh: No, this is not a reversal of previous positions. I was simply identifying for the member the kinds of dilemmas that governments are faced with when they have decisions made at other levels. I indicate that we have done a number of things in regard to fees to try to ameliorate any effects for students: the 5 percent cap, the tax credit, those types of things the member knows and I will not go through them.

What we have attempted to do as we make all of these decisions is to ensure, bottom line, that the student does not bear the full brunt of extra costs, and we do not want to see those costs pass through to the people who are students in the institutions.

But, no, we are not reversing any decisions. I am merely identifying points of concern that are there in reality when the federal government makes decisions that affect provinces, and those points of concern are real concerns for every province facing this particular situation.

Ms. Friesen: Have there been any joint meetings between any of the provinces or through the Council of Ministers of Education indicating a joint provincial response on this proposed change in the federal government policy?

Mrs. McIntosh: There was a meeting of deputies earlier this year and meetings of deputies at the Family Services, social service, community services disciplines as well--each province will call it something different; in our province, it is Family Services. But part of the problem they have had in their meetings was the lack of detail provided by the federal jurisdiction as to exactly how these cuts were going to take place. The Council of Ministers of Education will be meeting again in September. I would be very, very surprised if this was not a topic on that agenda. Although the agenda has not been finally set and approved, I would imagine this would be one that would definitely be discussed, that ministers would have a high desire to discuss this particular problem.

Ms. Friesen: The predictions are that the increase in fees if the loss of federal funds is passed through directly to universities and then passed through to students is considerable. I am sure the minister is aware that, whatever prediction you look at, it is in the region of a 20 percent increase for each of the next three or four years or at least of the first three years of the new program. How does the minister plan to address that issue?

Mrs. McIntosh: I think the member is aware of some of the things that Roblin said when he talked about doing things differently. Indeed, he made reference specifically to anticipated federal cuts in funding to post-secondary education. In setting up the council--which is not yet set up but which, as I indicated earlier in Estimates, would be one of my immediate goals upon the conclusion of the session to get that underway--one of the things the council will be asked to do or will be looking at doing would be to fulfill that portion of the Roblin report where he talks about doing things differently and talks about cost-effectiveness, overlap, duplication, any number of items that he has identified as being ones that universities could use to do things differently and bring down the expenditure side of their column as their revenue side begins to show some ill effects because of the federal government's actions.

I know that in terms of timing--I should not say I know. It could be that because of timing we have a gap, but we will be moving as swiftly as we can to attempt to have the council in place so that it can deal with the wider picture of post-secondary education, particularly as the university spends money, to delve into how it spends money, and is it spending money in ways that make the best utilization of offerings for students.

* (1500)

In short, the member asks an extremely good question, but it is a question that has us dealing with a policy that has not yet been set. In that sense, it would be a question that could probably be given a full answer in next year's Estimates or at some point during the period between now and next year's Estimates once we have had an ability to: (a) know the full impact, (b) have suitable responses to that impact put in place.

Ms. Friesen: One of the apparent consequences of the proposed changes in the federal policy as well as a variety of provincial reasons, I would say, a question of pricing and a question of employment have led to a decrease in anticipated university enrollments for this year right across the province. All three universities are experiencing it, Brandon I believe more severely than others. It is at the moment an anticipated loss, but it is comparable figures. We are looking at comparable anticipated enrollments compared to anticipated enrollments of the previous year.

I am wondering if the minister is beginning to look at the prospects of a smaller university sector for Manitoba, whether that is in fact acceptable to the government. Is that the way they see the post-secondary sector developing in Manitoba, a smaller university sector and a larger community college sector, as Roblin had hoped?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the first things I would say to that would be, in terms of looking at enrollment at universities and colleges, we know colleges are up, universities are down, so in that sense Roblin's desires are being played out, so to speak, in the student bodies. However, I think it important to note that we are not talking about downsizing universities.

What we see happening across the nation in terms of university enrollment could be reflective of a number of things. One, and I think we talked very briefly about this on an earlier occasion, whenever employment and job opportunities are up, enrollments in post-secondary education goes down.

We know that from this time last year till this time this year, we have seen another 14,000 jobs created and filled in this province in the private sector. So you no longer will have the situation that has been identified of having people say I cannot find a job so I will go to university and either (a) fill in my time in a productive way, or (b) seek some particular level of education that would enhance my opportunities to obtain a job. That reality and that particular phenomena is at play right now.

We have done a number of things to ensure that those students who do wish to attend university have maximum opportunity to attend. I think I just mentioned a couple of minutes ago capping the university fees to no more of an increase than 5 percent for two years now, the tax credit coming into place that will see students, or those who pay their bills for them, being able to get a tax credit, and so on, measures such as those to encourage or to make it easier for students to obtain a university education.

We have no plans, as the member asked, to consciously say we are now going to have smaller universities. We also know that over time university enrollments fluctuate, and they are up and down, up and down for a variety of reasons. Faculties will grow and shrink, and that will be for a number of reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with government initiatives, but rather student desires, marketplace demand, new opportunities in learning coming into existence and old ones becoming less relevant. So you will see these little fluctuations and anomalies occurring over time, just as a matter of evolution.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, what are the government plans for the faculty of education and for the production of education graduates in the province?

There are three faculties of education at the moment. There was, some years ago, a long-term plan for enrollment and for the production of teachers taking into account labour-market issues. Has the government revisited that lately? Is it revisiting it in its discussions with the faculty of education in its new proposals for certification?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the Board of Teacher Education and Certification is currently looking at content, has not looked at numbers in the sense that I think the member is referencing.

Oftentimes these questions of supply and demand become self-determined, would be the right word, in that you will find as there is a short demand for teachers, fewer students will enroll in the faculty of education just as a matter of course. Then when there is a high need for teachers coming out of the faculty, more students will then register in the faculty of education because they sense that there is going to be some demand for that kind of supply in the marketplace. Oftentimes they straighten themselves out just by people's experience in the workplace. When they straighten themselves out that way, though, they usually lag a year or two behind what is happening out there.

The short answer to your question is staff advises me they have not looked at the numbers in the way that you have just referenced them, and that the Board of Teacher Education and Certification apparently at this time is dealing with content as opposed to numbers.

Ms. Friesen: The recent study--I believe it was done about five, six years ago now perhaps, which included labour-market strategies for teachers--I do not think anticipated the decline in funding for school boards and would not have anticipated, for example, the loss of 270 teacher positions this year.

So there are some sudden changes that seem to be cumulative across the province, and it seems to me that there are concerns there for the future of a profession and for the regeneration of a profession. It is partly generational issues which were anticipated; it is partly new needs such as special needs education which were anticipated, but the continuing loss of teacher positions is something which was not anticipated, and the numbers are becoming quite large.

* (1510)

So I am wondering if the minister has a normal mechanism for reviewing those kinds of issues with the Board of Teacher Certification.

Mrs. McIntosh: Planning and research will provide ministers with that type of information, the planning and research in the Department of Education. I should indicate, first of all, just because I have a different perspective on what is happening in terms of supply and demand for teachers in the marketplace because the member I think realizes that some divisions are experiencing overall student decline in terms of numbers. The member also realizes that overall in terms of funding over the last seven years, there has been a fairly good percentage increase on average. I am just trying to recall the average out of memory but suffice it to say that over the past seven years the percentage increase has been extremely good indeed.

School boards have been for decades, or for over a decade anyhow, indicating to teachers in collective bargaining situations that if they are trying to contain costs that they will ultimately be faced with a decision of having to go over what they have allotted for wages with layoff as an alternative. That has been stated for many, many, many years, school divisions have made that statement at the bargaining table. So I do not think there would be any lack of anticipation that a board, as many have said since the mid-'80s, I am really sorry but we cannot afford this particular increase, and if we are forced to provide it, we will have to downsize the staff.

Associations and societies have responded by their position at the table with the indication that they would prefer to have the percentage increase as opposed to concern about layoff. I mean, I am sure they are concerned about layoff, but they have indicated very clearly since the mid-'80s that they would prefer to see layoff as opposed to not taking the annual percentage increase over and above the incremental increase.

That is just a reality that I think has been fairly widely known between the society, local associations and the board. The fact that boards are now saying, we really have reached our limit now, we are going to begin laying off as opposed to once again putting in yet another annual increase, should not be surprising to anyone. It is not an unforeseen or unexpected event.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, the planning issue I was addressing was not from the perspective of the individual teacher, but from the perspective of the department, which does have a board of certification for teacher education. It seems to me the conditions, for whatever reason--and the minister and I would clearly disagree on what the reasons are. For whatever reason, those conditions have changed, and I am looking for what the mechanism would be for revisiting the issue of the provision of teachers in a labour-market sense.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, staff advises, the whole question of supply and demand and the number of people who might enroll in the faculty versus the number that are required in the marketplace is something they will be looking at, along with a number of other things, in the '95-96 year.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I have a few brief questions to ask the minister in regard to post-secondary education. One area that is of concern to people in the inner city and many of the residents of my constituency is the number of teachers from target group members, visible minorities and aboriginal ancestry.

Can you tell me, does the university fall under the provincial guidelines or program for affirmative action?

Mrs. McIntosh: In terms of the make-up of the faculty members?

Ms. Mihychuk: No, I am talking about the students that are selected in their program.

Mrs. McIntosh: Do you mean like so many whites, so many blacks, so many aboriginals, so many women, that type of thing, allowed into the faculty as students?

Ms. Mihychuk: What I am talking about is, when they are selecting out of a pool of applicants that wish to enter the teaching profession as students, are there some criteria that include either initiatives for target group members, including the physically disabled, visible minorities and aboriginal ancestry in particular?

Mrs. McIntosh: I am advised that I think in the sense you are referencing that the universities do not sort of screen students on an affirmative action basis, although they do have many programs available for people who wish to go into Hutterite education, for example. They have the Winnipeg Education Centre teacher program, which will work with the aboriginal student needs and the Provincial Northern Teacher Education Program and a few others of that nature where they identify a student population that needs or could benefit from teachers who have a certain background. Training is available for them. I am advised that for the faculty of education itself students wishing to go through and take a degree in education do not go through an affirmative action process.

Ms. Mihychuk: Given the under-representation of target group members as teachers, particularly in the North and in the inner city and probably in communities like The Maples and Inkster, is there any intention on behalf of the ministry to review this program and take steps to ensure that the future graduates in education do reflect our population and are available to take those spots that do become open in the school system?

Mrs. McIntosh: I am advised that there are no plans in that regard beyond the current programs that are available to prepare teachers upon graduation to work with specialized groups of students.

* (1520)

Ms. Mihychuk: One of the programs that I am familiar with that does provide training for a number of new immigrants and aboriginal people is the program that is going on at the Winnipeg Education Centre. That program has faced funding cuts and less graduates, I understand, over the past few years than they have in the past. Can the minister give us an outlook for the Winnipeg Ed Centre? What is the plan for that program?

I would just like to add that it does produce teachers that school divisions are searching out for. It provides an opportunity for teacher assistants who have the practical experience and would never perhaps be able to get the degree that they need to become teachers. It provides a program for teacher assistants to get that teacher training. That is also a very exciting program.

Can the minister give us some insight as to the future of the Winnipeg Ed Centre and hopefully the weekend college program?

Mrs. McIntosh: The Winnipeg Education Centre, I am pleased to note, has a fairly stable, slightly increasing enrollment pattern, and the graduates are being replaced by new students. So as one leaves, another comes in. The weekend college, the program for educational assistance to become teachers over a period of five years, is also stable.

Just to give you some indication of figures, I have the table. It tells me in 1992-93 for the Winnipeg Education Centre with the education students that the intake was 19, the enrollment was 66, and the graduates were 14, and that has increased up until this year. In '95-96, we now see the intake being 25, the enrollment being 83, and the graduates being 16. So it is stable, increasing and appears to be meeting the needs and appears to be one that people who wish to become teachers and serve in this way are willing and eager participants.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask the minister about the postponement, shelving, whatever term is appropriate, of the geological engineering program at the university, and I am wondering how this has been effected through the UGC, if at all.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am advised that that particular announcement was made by the dean of engineering without consultation with the various authorities at the university, and that announcement will now be going to the senate and the UGC and the other authorities at the university, essentially I suppose to see if it will be confirmed.

Normally the process would be that it would go through those others first before a dean would make an announcement of this nature. In this case the process, shall we say, has been reversed, so we do not know what the senate or the UGC will say at this point, of course, because they have not yet made a pronouncement, and we do not want to pre-empt or interfere with what they might say.

Ms. Friesen: What I am looking for are two things. First of all, the announcement means that no students will be applying into that program or being accepted. So we are looking at a short space of two or three months now, during which students are normally accepted into such a program, which they have now announced in the way that would be most public to students: it will not be available to them. So I am concerned about the fate of students who might be interested and who might go to other universities. Calgary, for example, I think, is one university which still has a program in this area.

Secondly, and here I am not sure really how to phrase it, what I am looking for is the argument about the UGC. The UGC approves new courses. Must the UGC approval be sought before a program can be withdrawn? I think the minister will find that there is a distinction being drawn in this case. I think that the dean has not said that he has cancelled the program. I think that he has said that he has deferred it, put it on a shelf. I do not know what term he is using. But the net result is, from a student's perspective, that this is not available to entering students.

So there are a number of issues there. One of them, certainly, as the minister has indicated, is the various levels which may or may not have yet given their acceptance of this decision, and the other is, what should they be doing, and what should students be thinking?

Mrs. McIntosh: I should indicate that the University Grants Commission does not need to give permission for a program to no longer exist, and the pause in this one, so to speak, is the result of the enrollment dropping down to approximately 11 students. I may be off one way or the other by a couple of students. I understand the rationale that has been put forward is that to put the number of resources into 11 students that are required to make the program viable, when they have hundreds in other sections of the engineering faculty--the rationale presented was that the dean felt that it would be better to put those resources into programs that have high enrollments. I understand they have made a commitment to those students currently enrolled in geological engineering that they will be able to--

* (1530

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. A formal vote has been called for in the Chamber. I am interrupting this portion of the Committee of Supply to recess at this time to attend to this business in the House. The committee will recess until this business can be attended to.

The committee recessed at 3:32 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 4:11 p.m.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. We were considering line 16.6 Support to Post-Secondary Institutions (a) Universities (1) Universities Grants Commissions (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, what I was looking for at the end of the last question was the principle of the withdrawal of university programs not necessarily having to go to the UGC, and I think that is what I was hearing, was a general principle that it went to the senate, the board of governors, and there was no requirement for the withdrawal of a program to come to the UGC.

Mrs. McIntosh: I should indicate, without placing a judgment on the decision to either retain geological engineering or not, that deans and others will make decisions as to at what point a program becomes a viable program or ceases to be a viable program. Eleven students versus, you know, a hundred is a fairly substantial difference. So we have people in those decision-making areas making statements such as we would be better to redeploy our resources into a more required or more sought-after discipline. The university, I am sure, would be taking into consideration, as it formalizes this decision, if it formalizes it, where those students might then obtain geological engineering. They have indicated that any who are currently in the program, of course, could complete.

But we do see universities taking care of each other, so to speak, and I think the member is aware of certain ones. I will just read a few where we as a province pay for courses in other jurisdictions. In Education and Training Manitoba, for example, our Advanced Education division pays for veterinary medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, optometry at the University of Waterloo, and surveying engineering at the University of Calgary. Similarly, the Department of Health will pay for nuclear medicine in Alberta and prosthetics and orthotics at British Columbia.

We also will have here in Manitoba students coming to Manitoba for occupational therapy training and being paid for by other provinces. So there are those kinds of opportunities to ensure that Manitoba takes responsibility for training in a certain area being made available for our students that do not necessarily mean a course being offered here in Manitoba. Those decisions, as they affect geological engineering, have not yet been decided and/or announced. So I await the final announcements on this and indicate that it is my expectation that students in the program would complete here, and that opportunities for students who wish to enter the program would be made available either here or in another jurisdiction close by.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask a couple of questions on the university innovation fund which is on another line, but if we could look at it here and then we can just pass straight through on the other one. The issue, of course, overall in universities is the declining resources that I think almost every section of the university feels. It is felt particularly in libraries, laboratories, laboratory sections, areas which have a direct impact upon the nature of the student experience. It is also particularly being felt in the area of graduate studies. I think Manitoba universities, and in this case it is largely the U of M since that is where graduate programs are focused, are, I think, feeling that they are increasingly less and less competitive with other universities to attract graduate students.

This has implications for the province's economic development as well as for the well-being of a rounded university program. I think it is important to put that on the record. I am sure that the minister is aware of it. It is not just in the capital area but it is also in the continuing grants to universities that people are feeling as though we are slipping further and further behind.

I wondered how this innovations fund can be used to address some of those issues. There is a million dollars in a different line. It is part of the Lotteries funded program under 16.8.

Could the minister give us some idea of what the criteria are for that Incentive Fund and who will be making the judgments?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have three basic criteria for accessing the Incentive Fund. One is probably an obvious one, but it is stated because every once in a while it is not always obvious to people who put forward ideas, but that the project and the initiative, or the innovation, be consistent with the mission of the university. That is the first criterion.

The second is that the project or the initiative or the innovation be consistent with the government's response to the University Education Review Commission. This may include projects which are linked to the government's framework for economic development; emphasize improving the quality of teaching; emphasize joint research projects with business and industry; create joint university-community college programs; are intended to increase internal management efficiency and effectiveness; promotes institutional co-operation; promotes the use of communications technologies, et cetera.

Three is that the project or the initiative or the innovation changes the way the proposing university delivers its services. So we are looking for an innovative change in the way of doing things, in other words, as per Roblin, doing it differently.

Those are the criteria, and considerations will be given to proposals which will either seek one-time funding or long-time funding. All of the proposals have to define the objectives being pursued, identify what the institution intends for change or intends to change, establish the need and the demand being addressed and identify the student or other populations being targeted and describe any co-operative or articulation arrangements being established and present a detailed budget.

The university, the government, as you are aware, is looking at in terms of another point that you raised linking up libraries and has set money aside for that purpose to link up libraries electronically. That is just an aside in response to one of the points that you mentioned in your query.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Would it be accurate to say that $260 million--

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Excuse me, could you pull your mike forward, please?

Mr. Kowalski: Would it be accurate to say that the $261 million figure for support to post-secondary education together with $11 million in capital expenditures for universities, community colleges, represents our provincial commitment to post-secondary education for this year? The two things combined, is that our commitment to post-secondary education?

* (1620)

Mrs. McIntosh: That is not completely correct, because we have money going to post-secondary education from a wide variety of sources other than just through the Department of Education and Training. For example, Government Services spends money in support of colleges. Student aid. Through the infrastructure program we are putting money into an agricultural building. The Department of Health is putting a tremendous amount of money into the downtown centre. The Winnipeg Development Agreement is putting money into a technology centre. We also fund Access. We also fund interprovincially. We also fund the Bible colleges. Those types of things are not included in the amount that you identified. We do indeed spend the money you identified, but these types of items I have listed will also receive money from the government of Manitoba over and above and beyond the amounts that you have named there.

Mr. Kowalski: So is there a figure on how much the provincial government of Manitoba spends on post-secondary education in Manitoba? Is there an accumulated, total figure on our commitment to post-secondary education here in Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: Staff advises that it would be difficult to add this all up here and now, because they have to get into the other departments and break out, for example, how much is Health putting into the downtown centre, and go into Family Services and look at the Welfare to Work programs, what kind of training are they providing through Family Services for post-secondary advanced training through Welfare to Work, and all those other things, but it can be done. We are quite happy to do it for you, but we probably cannot do it today. We could try and get you the information, but with so many departments--it is easy for us to identify what we are spending, but we do have a lot of cross-departmental initiatives. If you would like us to do that, we could, and bring it back to you, probably later this week.

Mr. Kowalski: Continuing with the line I am going along, how much money did the federal government designate for post-secondary education in the province with its formula for apportioning EPF between Health and Education? How much did the federal government apportion to education for this year, for 1995-96?

Mrs. McIntosh: Staff advises me that that particular piece of information would properly come under Department of Finance because they will take a look at all of the government of Manitoba revenues, all of the government of Manitoba expenditures. What I can say, especially financing for existing or established programs, I can say that we do not, or the provinces generally do not support an arbitrary splitting of funds between health and post-secondary from the federal jurisdiction. That is just an aside, a little digression.

Mr. Kowalski: I will table a letter from Bruce Leckie, special assistant to the Minister of Finance, in which it shows the EPF funding from 1986-95 and the proportioning if you follow the federal government formula for health and education. I would like to table that document.

Looking for today we have the figures right up until 1994-95. We are in '94-95 according to the federal government funding formula; post-secondary education from cash entitlements would have got $111,932 from cash entitlements and from tax transfers $126,982. I am looking for a similar figure for the 1995-96 year that is going to post-secondary education in Manitoba. Is that figure available?

* (1630)

Mrs. McIntosh: Those are based on population, and they are done twice a year. Updates are done twice a year, and I just point out two things: the cash transfers to the province are declining from Ottawa; and the tax points you referenced represent our citizens' money collected as taxes and returned to us. So it is not money that was given to us from some other jurisdiction. It is our own money or our citizens' money. They collected it, and then they gave it back. So I guess it is better than not giving it back, but it is not new money. It is not a gift.

Mr. Kowalski: With the information we have received from the Minister of Finance, and with the federal government's report to Parliament on federal-provincial support to post-secondary education in Canada for '93-94, we are able to determine the net provincial contribution to post-secondary education every year, from '88-89 to '93-94, by looking at those reports and looking at the information given by the Minister of Finance's staff here in Manitoba. By net provincial contribution, I refer to the amount after the federal EPF funds are factored out. Is it fair to characterize the proportion remaining, after EPF funds are factored out of the total provincial spending on post-secondary education, as a net provincial contribution?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is just not that simple, for a variety of reasons. I will just give you one example. If you go back to 1977 when this was first put in place, when all of this started, at that time the federal government made a funding arrangement that included Grade 12, because not all provinces offered Grade 12. So Grade 12, then, was included or counted as a post-secondary item for purposes of advancing this money, and it is not really, of course, in the world we live in today, but we have a lot of interesting things like that caught up in this particular arrangement. So it is not quite that straightforward. Grade 12 is not really post-secondary.

Mr. Kowalski: The federal report I mentioned, that is, the Federal and Provincial Support to Post-Secondary Education in Canada, employs a consistent method of measuring post-secondary education financing from StatsCan data. For all provinces, it is consistent. This data allows us to compare different provinces' net provincial support to post-secondary education.

Now, looking at that and using the figures supplied by the Minister of Finance's office, we have taken a look at the last six reports to Parliament on Federal and Provincial Support to Post-Secondary Education in Canada. Here is what we found.

We found in '93-94 Manitoba spent less money per person on post-secondary education than every other province except Saskatchewan. This is also the case when you exclude federal EPF funding contributions to post-secondary education. From '88 to '94 Manitoba spent less money per person on post-secondary education than any other province except B.C. When EPF funds are factored out, Manitoba spent the least of any province over the six-year period. Regardless of the federal government's commitment, when it comes to spending its own money on post-secondary education the province has been reducing its support.

In '91-92 Manitoba spent $58 million on post-secondary education after EPF. In '93-94 they spent $48 million. If Manitoba had kept pace with the national average, the province would have spent $28 million more in post-secondary education. Similarly, had Manitoba spending on post-secondary education been on line with the national average from '88 to '94, the province would have spent an additional $106 million. I would like to table that report that I just quoted.

Now, is this Minister of Education going to continue along the lines that the previous ministers have with Manitoba's contribution?--and I am not talking about the federal government. I could join in the calls for more money from Ottawa. When I was on the school board, I screamed about the offloading by the provincial government to our Seven Oaks school board, but once we finished with all that, we went on with the business of saying, with the money we have got, what we are going to do? We had to find the money, we had to set the priorities. Will this minister indicate that she will put a stronger commitment and bring this province's spending on post-secondary education up in line with other provinces?

Mrs. McIntosh: It would be helpful if I could get the source of some of the statistics you are quoting, because I do not know where--you must have been adding in some statistics on your own that were compiled from you or someone with you as opposed to some statistical group. That is a question.

Mr. Kowalski: It was done by our research department by taking the Federal and Provincial Support to Post-Secondary Education in Canada report, the document from the Minister of Finance and StatsCan figures for the populations in each province.

Mrs. McIntosh: Any federal reference report that you had talked about earlier, I believe, did not include per capita information, so it would be very hard to verify accurately. The member did indicate that our support was lower than Saskatchewan and British Columbia to other provinces in Canada with different political parties than we have here.

I just want to indicate to the member--and I appreciate what he is trying to do here, because I know and I regret that they are locked into trying to defend the federal Liberal government in almost everything they do. You may recall that I indicated to the Liberal leader before the election when he was trying to follow along the same line, I said that the member for St. James would live by his support of the federal party, and he would die by his support of the federal party. I welcome the new member from St. James who is not the leader of the Liberal party.

I would just indicate to you that when you get into the game of trying to defend the federal government at all costs because it happens to be your own political party, whoever is advising you is leading you down a death row, and if you were not such a nice guy you probably would have been out on the street with your leader. You know, we never made that mistake of saying, our party, do or die. We always said what is best for our province, do or die, regardless of that. I have got to indicate to you that my staff has just indicated to me that British Columbia and Saskatchewan expenditures were lower than us. So wherever you are getting your statistics from, that was not a correct statistic.

Manitoba participation rates, just to give you some information that might help correct some of the conclusions drawn from the information you have presented, we have, as you know, people who are registering--the member for Wolseley pointed out earlier that enrollment figures are down in terms of some of the post-secondary institutions here, and I indicated that whenever job creation is up, that is a traditional thing that happens. We have had 14,000 new jobs created between this time last year and this time this year, and, historically, whenever that happens, enrollments at post-secondary institutions go down because people have work. Enrollments will go up when there is less opportunity to be employed because people will decide either to fill in their time by taking education or try to pick up some particular training that will help them acquire a job.

It is fair to say that we do spend less on post-secondary education than some other provinces. I come back to Roblin saying that universities need to do things differently. I caution people to bear in mind some of the things that Roblin identified that are going on at universities in terms of the need for cost containment, overlap, duplication, those types of things. Roblin had suggested money be pumped into colleges, which we have done, which the federal government has not done. Twenty-seven percent cut, no matter how you slice it, 27 percent cut from the federal government into community colleges, which our detailed study indicated needed a boost because that was the area of post-secondary education we should be concentrating on and that universities should begin to look at doing things differently, particularly as it pertains to costs.

* (1640)

Throwing more money at things that have been identified that should start to contain costs does not make a lot of sense. Putting more money into things that have been identified that should have money put into them does make sense. The provincial government is responding to both of those things and the federal government is not.

In terms of education expenditures per capita, these are the most recent Statistics Canada figures, the most recent available StatsCan figures. Manitoba ranked fifth in terms of education expenditures per capita, fifth, F-I-F-T-H, in 1992, which is the most recent StatsCan figures two years ago.

In terms of education expenditures per capita of the labour force, Manitoba ranked fourth, again, using the same source for statistical analysis. Education expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product, Manitoba ranked sixth. Education expenditures as a percentage of personal income, Manitoba ranked fourth.

I think the member has to take that into serious consideration because we know, and I will tell you if you do not know, but I think you also know that in terms of personal costs and taxation, it costs less to live here in Manitoba than in most other provinces in Canada. So we can afford to set up businesses here less expensively. We can afford to have almost any kind of lifestyle here less expensively. We can afford to run our institutions less expensively. Not to say they do not need money, but to run an educational institution in Toronto, believe me, costs more than to run an educational institution in Winnipeg because you are taking into consideration all kinds of other costs above and beyond the training that are real.

My department will review the most recent StatsCan information on post-secondary expenditures in light of your question here, but I caution you about saying that we are the lowest in terms of expenditures, and I also caution you against drawing any implications out of the lowest if that is your conclusion. I cannot take you away from that conclusion.

Spending more does not necessarily mean providing higher quality. As we move into setting up councils and looking at all kinds of articulation processes where we see costs to students being reduced and opportunities increased because we have various kinds of articulations, when we see all kinds of other things occurring in terms of reform at the university level that actually improve quality while at the same time delivering that with a lower cost, the member must remember that is within the realm of reality.

We have historically--and this is another very important point--since 1977, Manitoba has historically given more of its EPF transfers to Health expenditures, and I suggest it is a critical area and with the Canada Health and Social Transfer being what it is, it is something that cannot be denied. I have to indicate as well that we have tuition fees that are really good for students in terms of their place on the line nationally. The university is very accessible in Manitoba when you look at the size of the fee; it compares very, very favourably indeed to other provinces. In addition to that, we have capped them for the last two years to ensure that they do not rise beyond 5 percent, that the universities cannot pass it on.

Our community college tuition fees are amongst the lowest in Canada, if not the lowest. They certainly are the lowest in the four western provinces and Ontario, and those tuition fees, as I say, they compare very well across the nation.

We have also now made a commitment to the tax credit where university fees--people are going to be able to get a credit for fees that have been paid. So what I am saying is that none of these costs that are going to be incurred because the federal government has cut transfers will be passed on to students.

Paul Martin's budget indicated that there is a $79 million reduction in cash transfers to Manitoba for post-secondary education over the next two years, and that is a big reduction. If you want to try to build the case that we should not be requesting that money still be sent to us, then I invite you to try, but I would encourage you for your own sake not to publicize too much that you are asking the government not to ask to have that money reinstated because I do not think that is a service to the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Kowalski: To talk about provincial spending on post-secondary education is in no way a defence or talking about the federal contribution to post-secondary education. I am not here to defend the federal government. I am in the Legislature of Manitoba. It will be interesting in two years time, it seems a number of our members are more interested in the federal parliament than they are in what goes on in Manitoba, possibly they will be running in the next federal election because that seems to be where the majority of their attention is diverted to.

I was talking about this province's spending on post-secondary education, and the figures that the minister just quoted, putting us fifth and sixth depending on which terms of reference you use, all include EPF funding in them, which brings up our position. If you remove the EPF funding, this province's commitment, the amount of provincial dollars--and I am a member of the Manitoba Legislature and I am here dealing with the Estimates of Manitoba Education and Training in the government of Manitoba, so taking out whatever money, and the more money we get from Ottawa, the happier I will be, okay.

But taking that out, this province's portion of spending in post-secondary education, and I will stand by the stats that we presented here that were taken from the Federal and Provincial Post-Secondary Education in Canada, a report to Parliament in '93-94 and from previous reports by the same title from '92-93, '91-93 and so on, and using the figure supplied by the Manitoba Minister of Finance from his office subtracting out the EPF funding, it has established that this province's funding of post-secondary education is lower than other provinces.

That is what I am here dealing with, this province's commitment to post-secondary education. So I will stand by that.

I continue to ask, will this minister make spending in post-secondary education equal to the other provinces?--keeping in mind that the minister tries to play on both sides of the fence, where if this government spends smarter in post-secondary education, they are being efficient, but then if the federal government, who I am not here to defend, does it, it is unconscionable cutbacks. You know, you can not play both sides, but I am hear talking about the Manitoba spending, the Manitoba budget in post-secondary education.

* (1650)

Mrs. McIntosh: The member is absolutely right that you cannot play both sides of the fence and expect to get away with it. You cannot do that. Let me talk about provincial comparisons between Manitoba and other provinces and federal-provincial comparisons between Manitoba and the federal government.

Manitoba spends more of a percentage on Health, Education, and Family Services than ever before in the history of this province. Manitoba has consistently said, we have three priorities. They are Health, Education, and Family Services. Each year we have been able to keep taxes frozen or reduced and bring in tax incentives for things like mining, aviation fuel, other very important economic incentive things that we have tried to put in place to build the economy. We have been able to do that and make Health, Education, and Family Services the biggest percentages of our budget. That means that we have reduced expenditures in a lot of other areas in order to keep that high percentage.

Two-thirds of our provincial budget goes on to those three items. We are saying to the federal government and we are encouraging other jurisdictions as well to show that kind of prioritizing, to show that you would be willing to spend two-thirds of your budget, federal government, on Health and Education, instead of on a lot of the things that the federal money goes on, and we could bring a list in if you want to find out where the federal government spends $79 million on things that I would not consider nearly as important as the cash transfers to Manitoba for post-secondary education.

We could start taking a look at the CBC, a whole lot of other things, a whole lot of other things where money goes that are not deemed as important as this. We have made the decision here that we will live without some of those other things in order to fund Health, Education, and Family Services. We have done it without raising taxes, as other jurisdictions have, and if other jurisdictions are spending more money, I assure you, I absolutely assure you, that their people are also being more heavily taxed.

That is why we have more businesses, and more expansion of business, and those kinds of things happening in Manitoba today than other provinces are experiencing because there is a tax advantage, and people come here for that tax advantage, and when they do, they add to the strength of the economy, and more money is generated for things like our three priority items which are not necessarily the three priority items of the federal government which you are defending.

Nine out of 10 new dollars since 1988 have gone to Health, Education, and Family Services. You show me, sir, that the federal government places the same priority on its new dollars and I will agree with you, then, that we are asking for one set of standards for us and one set of standards for them, which you have not recognized here. What you should absolutely recognize is that we have managed to do more with less and other provinces, not all, but some, have managed to do less with more.

It is a question of priorities, and I do not know what your point is here because you are sitting there wanting to make it clear to people that we could have spent more money on post-secondary education in Manitoba. Indeed, we could have spent more money on post-secondary education in Manitoba. What is your point, sir? Are you saying that because we could have spent more money, tuition fees are the highest in Canada? They are not. They are amongst the lowest. Are you saying that because we could have spent more money that we do not have new initiatives and new innovative things happening at colleges and universities such as, for example, Distance Education and Technology? We are having those things happen.

So I do not know what your point is. Are you saying we should spend money for the sake of spending money so we can say we spent more? Are you saying because we did not spend more money on post-secondary education we should no longer ask the federal government to reinstate the money that it has chopped from us, which it is currently spending on other things that are not nearly as important as this? I mean, what is the point you are trying to make? I would really appreciate knowing, aside from the fact that you have said that we have not spent as much as we could have spent, which I acknowledge, what is the point that you are trying to make behind that?

Mr. Kowalski: Again, the minister has gone on and on about federal priorities, federal spending. Again, I am in the province of Manitoba in the Manitoba Legislature. You know, if the minister sometime in the future will run for federal office, she will have input into the federal budget, but in Manitoba, yes, we could have spent more. Yes, right now we are hearing a lot of the negative effects of underfunding at the universities from programs closing, layoffs, and, as a result, our competitiveness amongst the provinces in Canada has been decreased.

So my point is that, yes, possibly as a proportion of our spending, but we built up a deficit in this province. It may not be financial, but a social deficit of high suicide rates, high crime rate, less spending on post-secondary education, that shows the priorities of this government. Again, I am concerned about the provincial proportion of funding. What I am hearing today is the minister indicating that the continuing underfunding of post-secondary education in Manitoba in comparison to other provinces will continue to leave us at a competitive disadvantage to other jurisdictions.

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, what you are hearing is incorrect because we are not at a competitive disadvantage with other provinces. I invite you to attend with me when I go to visit other provinces, and you will hear what you should be hearing here. Manitoba has an advantage. Manitoba has an advantage, and all of the economic indicators are there to show it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) could give this answer far better than I, but we have economic indicators in Canada that are known, proven, true economic indicators and Manitoba is winning on virtually all of them.

We have a major Manitoba advantage. It is referred to in other provinces as the Manitoba advantage. I mean, it has a name in other parts of Canada. It has a name in some of the neighbouring states. It has a name in Kansas. It is called the Manitoba advantage. It has a name in the Pacific Rim, the Manitoba advantage. We are not disadvantaged.

You mention suicides, and I feel it is really sad when we have suicides. That is very tragic when we have suicides. No one would ever deny or negate that. I would ask you to indicate how our making Health, Education, and Family Services our top priorities has caused more suicides in Manitoba. We know where the suicides are taking place. It is something that is very difficult to talk about because whenever we do people get upset in terms of references to the tragic circumstances in which our aboriginal people find themselves, but we know where the highest suicide rates are. We know where the highest incidences of teenage pregnancy, of solvent abuse, of mothers and children in care. We know where the highest medical costs are in terms of dialysis and renal failure and all of those things.

* (1700)

We know that our aboriginal people--if there is anybody in Manitoba that is experiencing a lifestyle and requires help, it is our aboriginal people. We are doing the absolute best we can to try to change the circumstances of their lives, to make things better for them, recognizing that in many instances when we do this we are once again picking up dollars, real true dollar costs, that are the responsibility of the federal Liberal government, which you defend, which you defend to your detriment. We pick up those costs over and over again because we cannot bear to see things left unattended, even though they are the responsibility of a federal jurisdiction which chooses to ignore its responsibility and persist in offloading onto jurisdictions like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which have the highest per capita percentage of aboriginal population living in these kinds of circumstances, needing help, and those two provinces are pitching in and providing the help over and above their own responsibilities.

You are saying that somehow because we could have spent more money on post-secondary education as a province, that is the reason for all of these terrible things happening in our society, and I am saying to you that what you are doing here today is trying to find a point that you can argue with the provincial government to help the federal government look good.

I am saying to you, that is what you have been sent here to do today. You have come here to try to make the federal government look less bad than it is by pointing out that we could have spent more money in one of our top three priorities. That is what you are doing.

Point of Order

Mr. Kowalski: I believe my motives are being questioned, and I believe that is not parliamentary, that the motives of an honourable member should be questioned.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order. I would remind honourable members, though, when they are making reference to other members of the committee, that they do choose their words carefully, and you are absolutely right, the honourable member for The Maples, all members here in this committee are honourable members, and I would hope that we will continue to maintain that level.

* * *

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for The Maples, did you have any further remarks to make?

Mr. Kowalski: Yes. I was not sent by anyone other than the people of The Maples, and I am talking about provincial spending in post-secondary education.

As much as the minister would like to paint the picture that I was sent here, I am a defender of the federal government, no, I am here in the Manitoba Legislature talking about provincial spending, and while I am using figures from Stats Canada, from the Minister of Finance of Manitoba, taking the Stats Canada figures for post-secondary education spending in each province in Canada, subtracting the EPF funding as reported by the Minister of Finance, looking at the per capita spending, in this government's literature, it has said that post-secondary education is an engine to drive industry, to drive the economic boom of Manitoba, I agree with it.

When I was referring to suicides, teenage pregnancy rates and all that, I was not talking just about their priority in funding post-secondary education at a lower level than most other provinces. I was talking about their overall priorities of spending.

As Mark Twain used to say, there are two types of lies. There are ordinary, everyday lies and then there are statistics. No, I am not saying anybody lied. I am not saying the minister lied, but statistics can. We can manipulate statistics to say what we want to say. I will let the statistics stand. They are there in the report I mentioned. They are there in the document I tabled from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). They are there in the Stats Canada populations for each province. Anyone can take that figure and compare, when you take out EPF funding, this province's commitment to post-secondary education is lower than what I think, and many other people think it should be as a priority in Manitoba.

I will just go on to another subject a lot easier to deal with, probably. It is regarding the veterinarian medicine program in Saskatchewan. How many Manitobans are there attending that program this year? The second part of that question would be, has there been an increase or a decrease from the previous year?

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Before I recognize the honourable minister, I would just like to remind the committee members that they choose their words very carefully. They are bordering on imputing motives, and I would ask honourable members to bear that in mind in their questioning.

Mrs. McIntosh: We see the absolute stability there in that the enrollments for this year are 48 and projected for next year to be 48, as well, from Manitoba students in the veterinary medicine at the University of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Kowalski: How many students does the province fund, new students, would the province fund each year, allowed to go into that program from Manitoba? Is it, you know, 12 per year, or how many go in each year for Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: Twelve.

Mr. Kowalski: How long has that number been fixed at 12?

Mrs. McIntosh: We do not have previous information here but certainly since '94-95.

Mr. Kowalski: Has there been any study to compare the need in Manitoba for veterinarians with the number of students that we are funding?

Mrs. McIntosh: We believe the number of veterinarians graduating as Manitoba students may be correct in terms of identified need, but where they choose to practise may be a bit of a problem. What we find is that there are not enough Manitoba-funded veterinarians who graduate who wish to practise in rural Manitoba with large animals. We see a disproportionate number of them gravitating to urban centres and dealing with companion animals, pets, dogs, cats, as opposed to horses and cattle in rural Manitoba. We believe we have the right number of veterinarians but not practising in the right location.

It is a problem we are aware of, and it is one that the Department of Agriculture has identified. Like we have with medical doctors who deal with people, again there is difficulty attracting these medical graduates into some of the more remote places in the province. If you have any suggestions on that one, we would be sure willing to listen as to how you can inspire veterinarians to want to settle where they are most needed.

Mr. Kowalski: For those 12 veterinarian students that enter per year, what assistance do they get from the province, financial assistance, if any?

Mrs. McIntosh: It would be the same as they would get were the veterinary college situated here. For example, we fund the University of Saskatchewan itself for the cost of the program. The student pays whatever the regular tuition fee would be and is eligible for any student assistance or financial aid, just as they would be if the college were here in Manitoba.

* (1710)

Mr. Kowalski: I guess that opens the door for the possibility of some kind of contract for someone who wanted to enter in the program, because the added cost of going to Saskatoon to study as opposed to Manitoba is an added cost to Manitoba students. If some students from rural Manitoba could receive some type of assistance with an agreement to practise in Manitoba for a period of time, possibly that would be one way to rectify the shortage of veterinarians in rural Manitoba.

Mrs. McIntosh: I thank the member. I should indicate that if a student is from, for example--I will just pick a place--Russell, Manitoba, and was going to veterinary college, he or she would still have to travel to either Winnipeg or Saskatchewan, incur travel costs and residential costs whether they be in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. It is not necessarily more of a cost unless the person was already resident in Winnipeg, in which case there maybe would not be the same residential cost.

The suggestion he has made about trying to look for some incentives to encourage people into rural Manitoba is one that we will accept as a constructive criticism and put it into our mix of ideas we are trying to get to address both rural medical doctors, rural veterinarians, and rural dentists and all of those needs that rural Manitoba has that we are having trouble luring people into--I mean, if only they knew how great it was in some of these towns. Once they got out there and lived there, they would just love it. But you have to get them out there first and that is part of our problem.

Mr. Kowalski: Maybe the minister could get the federal Liberal government to help fund such a program.

Mrs. McIntosh: With a little of assistance from my friend from The Maples, I would be willing to go for it.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 16.6 Support to Post-Secondary Institutions (a) Universities (1) Universities Grants Commission (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $268,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $113,100--pass; (c) Grants in Lieu of Taxes $18,837,800--pass.

6.(a)(2) Grants $195,296,500--pass.

6.(a)(3) Access Fund $640,000--pass.

6.(a)(4) Faculty of Management $1,139,000--pass.

16.6(b) Community Colleges (1) Colleges Secretariat (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $377,900--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $65,100--pass.

6.(b)(2) Grants $41,637.300--pass.

6.(b)(3) Strategic Initiatives $2,620,000--pass.

Resolution 16.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $260,994,700 for Education and Training, Support to Post-Secondary Institutions, $260,994,700 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 16.7 Expenditures Related to Capital (a) School Divisions $24,777,900--pass; (b) Universities $8,940,000--pass; (c) Community Colleges $2,120,600--pass.

Resolution 16.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $35,838,500 for Education and Training, Expenditures Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 8. Lotteries Funded Programs (a) School Divisions - Technology and Science Resource Centres - Capital $700,000--pass; (b) Universities Incentive Fund $1,000,000--pass; (c) Manitoba Educational Research and Learning Information Networks $744,400--pass.

Resolution 16.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,444,400 for Education and Training, Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

The last item is consideration of the Minister's Salary for the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. It is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary, page 37 of the main Estimates book.

At this point, I request that the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $22,800.

Ms. Friesen: We have gone through the last section of the department very quickly, and I think I just want to put on the record that it is not because of a lack of concern about each of those areas. I had indicated I wanted to discuss further some of the issues in community colleges and also MERLIN, and I look forward to spending more time on those next time, next year. There are other departments which are following behind us and obviously want to have some time as well.

Other things that I want to raise in this last opportunity with the minister are a number of individual cases which have been brought--I think that she has probably seen most of them, but I do want to put them on the formal record. Since we talked about the library issue, the change in the person assigned, seconded to deal with libraries in the department, I have had a number of additional ones, letters, and I think they have also been sent to the minister. The one that I have in front of me is very typical. It is from the Boissevain School library, which has also been sent to the minister and deals with the issues facing school librarians, many of whom, as this particular writer points out, are not teacher-librarians but library clerks. This is particularly an issue in rural areas where they are feeling the loss, the potential loss of this specialist from whom they had found a great source of assistance and guidance.

* (1720)

They are particularly concerned, and I did emphasize this earlier, about the future of the resource-based learning model that the department is introducing and the prospects for that for schools which do not have teacher-librarians and which are involved in a great many other activities besides the selection of books and overall library activities. So what I am doing here really is drawing to the minister's attention that there really are concerns out there about this issue. They are particularly strong in rural areas, and I did suggest at the time that there were some options the government had for dealing with part of this issue, just part of this issue, through other means, and again it is to draw to the minister's attention that issue.

I do not know if the minister wants to respond on each of these. They are each very different, so I can stop.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, and I will not prolong it, just to indicate that I have now received some correspondence on that issue as well from people in the field, and so I will certainly take a look at what she has there just to let her know that I am familiar with the issue.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you. A second issue I wanted to raise, and I have faced this issue with constituents over a number of years, and this is people who take out a student loan. In this case both the constituents are disabled people who took a student loan and then found it extremely difficult, more difficult than other people, as I am sure the minister would appreciate, to find a job upon graduation.

So they are graduated, they have a large student loan, and they are unable to find work and yet the interest is mounting up. My guess is that this is not an extensive problem, but it is a very severe problem for those individuals who are facing it, and I do not think these people are alone. I want to draw that issue as a general policy issue to the minister when she looks at student loans and bursaries or at the tax credit program or at alternatives to the tax credit program that might address the issue being faced by these particular graduates and also will look at the issue in more general terms for the future as to how this can be addressed in the future, particularly when we know what the federal government's intentions are with student loans and student issues.

Mrs. McIntosh: I think I heard the member correctly. Just to confirm, you are not talking about people who just are not repaying their student loans, but rather people who through circumstances have been unable to, and the interest is mounting up and that type of thing. Okay, I understand.

Ms. Friesen: Yes, Mr. Chair, these are people who have greater difficulty than others finding work at the end of their degree program because of their disabilities of a variety of kinds. In that period when they are on a form of social assistance, the interest on the loan begins to mount up, and they have no way on social assistance of even beginning to make those repayments. In some cases, the loan has been turned over to a debt collection agency even though they are on social assistance, even though they are looking for work. That adds to the frustration and to the increasing mental difficulties that people have in facing any situation like that.

Mrs. McIntosh: Are you suggesting, just for clarification, that if a person was caught in these circumstances that there would be, let us say, a pause, and that there would be no attempt to begin collecting until such time as that person was employed and then resume once the person is off social assistance and working, that type of thing? I mean, we are not asking for a full solution but is that the kind of idea that you are talking about?

Ms. Friesen: That was an idea that was proposed by the federal government, and it is what they call the income contingent loan repayment system. Certainly aspects of that would address these kinds of issues. I remember the minister and I talked about this during Estimates. It does not look as though we are going to get that kind of a system. Is there a possibility, I suppose, for having some policy that would address the issues particularly faced by people with disabilities? That is really all I am asking the minister to look at at this stage.

These are primarily federal loans, I think, that are involved so the actual redress for the individual is at this stage. I shall also be dealing with the federal government on it, but it is an area of joint interest, I would think, and an area where it might be possible to define a particular policy that would address this.

Mrs. McIntosh: I thank the member.

Ms. Friesen: A third issue that I want to draw to the minister's attention and which has also been drawn to her attention, I think, by the individual himself--it is Allan Hawkins in the Dauphin-Ochre school area. The issue is really one with the University of Manitoba, but the individual does not seem to have been able to reach an agreement with the university. It deals with teacher certification. The issue is really a particular course which is required for clinician's work. I am sure the minister will find all the details in the correspondence.

Essentially what has happened is that the university is now not offering this course in the summer, which it had previously done. So for somebody from a distance outside Winnipeg, it becomes very difficult to take the course. As he said, it is not possible without people in our area quitting their current jobs to take the course in Winnipeg every Monday. He has discussed it with his school area trustees, he has talked to the university. Now he seems to be in a Catch-22 position. I wonder if the Minister--I am sure the department has an interest in having well-trained rural-based clinicians, particularly for an individual who has got caught in a series of changes of scheduling at the university. The date is June 2.

Mrs. McIntosh: I will look that letter up. In all likelihood it has been referred to staff, but I will check it out.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, finally, I want to draw to the minister's attention the School for the Deaf issue which we spent a number of hours discussing earlier. I do think there is still considerable discomfort among some parents; I do not know how many. I again draw that issue to the minister's attention and hope that some meetings can be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, that one issue, I can assure the member absolutely that I will be doing whatever I can in my power to make sure that everything is resolved satisfactorily for those parents and students. I think I saw how things unfolded there. It would be wonderful if we can go back in time and change things, but I guess we work from where we are. I appreciate her concern and interest in that topic and want to see them satisfied, as she does, in whatever appropriate way we can manage here.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $22,800--pass.

Resolution 16.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,054,800 for Education and Training, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This now completes the Estimates for the Department of Education and Training.

The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Department of Northern and Native Affairs.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I should have said this earlier, but just a thanks to the minister and to her many staff who have been here over the last 30-odd hours.

Maybe for the record we should also say that some of these Estimates were conducted in temperatures of well over 30 degrees.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, yes, 37 degrees outside for a couple of days running, but I want to thank the critics too, and I am sorry that the critics from the independent MLAs are not here. I learned a tremendous amount through this process myself being a new minister. Some of the questions were questions that sent me delving, and I thank the members for getting me delving in some of the areas they did, because I have gained some knowledge through this that I appreciate having. I am glad we do not have to sit through this evening's heat. Thank you very much.

* (1730)

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: I thank all honourable members. Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and the critics the opportunity to prepare for the commencement of the next set of Estimates? Agreed? [agreed]

We will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed at 5:32 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 5:34 p.m.