We are on Resolution 16.2. School Programs (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I have some tablings, Mr. Chairman, that were requested by the member. I have the e-mail addresses that she was requesting, plus the project teams.
Joining us at the table, as well as the staff who were here yesterday, is Gina Perozuk, who is the interpreter for Norma Jean Taylor, who is the principal of the Manitoba School for the Deaf.
* (1440)
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chair, at the end of last time, the minister was, I think, telling us which 10 citizens she is taking with her to the meetings in Newfoundland. I do not know that the minister had the full list, and I wonder if she could give it to us.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am taking with me, as I indicated, consumers and amongst them will be--and I am going from memory here, so if you will pardon the pauses--a board member from Red River Community College who is also the parent of a special needs child in the public schools system; the student, or I guess the immediate past president now of the student union at Red River Community College; the immediate past president of the University of Manitoba Students' Union, UMSU; a parent from an independent school, a faith-based independent school; and a parent from the public school system--both of these members of their respective provincial organizations, I should add, as well.
I am taking Mr. Gerry MacNeil, who is the executive director of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees representing the duly elected representatives of consumers, the trustees. How many are that? Six. As well, of course, the two deputies and my assistant and myself.
Accompanying us but not as part of the delegation will be Mr. Dick Dawson, the chair of the Council on Post-Secondary Education, and he is going because he is presenting a paper to the forum. So he is not part of our delegation, but he will be, hopefully, present and able to converse with members of our delegation who will be there.
In short, we have the minister, the two deputies and the assistant who more or less always go. We have two students, three parents, and a representative of the trustees. That is our delegation.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I believe last time the minister included teachers. Is there a reason for not having teachers this time?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, and I explained that, I thought quite clearly, in my earlier answer when I indicated that--and I think if she reads Hansard she will see that the first two national forum events were comprised mostly of teachers, superintendents, et cetera, and ministers of Education and Education officials. We, in our last two delegations, took official representatives of the teachers' group, the superintendents' group and so on and so forth.
One of the pieces of feedback that we received after they compiled the results of the second national forum was a grave concern that the numbers of service providers outnumbered drastically the number of consumers of education, and the request was made through feedback from the conference that more effort be made for this next one for ministers of Education to select delegations that would give more weight to the consumer representatives as opposed to the service providers, and hence we have agreed to do that for this, at least here from Manitoba.
I do not know what delegations are being taken from other provinces, but here in Manitoba we have said we think that made a good point. We had noticed it ourselves, actually, because what had happened was that in an effort to be fairer, people had selected one representative from each organization, so to speak, and the first two, without any of us really realizing that the number of employee organizations vastly outnumbered the number of parent organizations, so you would have representatives from--depending which province you were talking about. In Ontario, they have several different teachers' organizations. They all could be considered for a representative and so on. In Manitoba, we had teachers and superintendents if we wanted to. We did not. We could have gone down into the subcategories who each have their own organizations. Also, we did not take a principal as someone of MAP because we accepted the MTS statement that principals are not represented by Principals but rather by the MTS.
So we have had some complaints from principals over time that we do not include them, for example, on my implementation committee where we said we would take the president of MTS and one other member. Then the principals complained that even though most of the work of that committee affected principals, we had not selected any principals. We said to them very strongly and clearly that that is because you principals have made it very clear that you wish to be represented by the MTS, and the MTS states that we should not be selecting you independent of the MTS, and the MTS has chosen not to select you for representation on this committee.
So I did put two principals at large on finally anyhow, and the net result of that was that very quickly then the MTS did put on an official representative of MAP because they feared I had chosen principals who believed in New Directions rather than ones who might adopt the union line. So they then did put their own principals on, but those are the kinds of things we have to go through sometimes to ensure representation. It is easier for us just to say MTS represents them, period, and that is what MTS wants us to say.
So we have never taken some of the subgroups that other provinces will recognize, like the Protestant teachers' association or the women teachers' association or this type of thing.
* (1450)
Parent groups tend to have just one parent group, like nationally there is the home and school. Now there is the Canadian Parents For French. But if you total up the number of employee organizations versus the number of parent organizations that are listed nationally, you will find many, many more employee organizations. So, in an attempt to be fair, the organizers had, in taking one from each organization, inadvertently tipped the balance of opinion to those deliverers rather than those consumers, and the consumers complained fairly vocally and fairly bitterly about it last session, hence Manitoba has agreed to ensure that we take consumers this go-around in response to that identified feedback.
We also recognized, of course, that teachers, for example, do have other vehicles to use to get to the conference. Through their own Canadian teachers' association they can go, and we know that members in Manitoba are involved federally and can go that way also. So we knew they had another vehicle that could enable them to attend.
Ms. Friesen: The minister strayed rather wide from the question, which was a much simpler one, but I gather the minister had some things she wanted to put on the record, so that is fine. We can pass this line now, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. McIntosh: I am sorry if I misunderstood. I thought the member was asking for my rationale as to why I had selected consumers, and so I gave a full and complete story as to why, for example, I did not choose subcategories of MTS, et cetera, and gave historical rationale for that. I apologize. I thought she had asked for the rationale.
On a point of order, I think the member in saying that I had strayed from the question, I believe I was absolutely on topic for every portion of my answer. So I think that it is important that the record note that I was in every aspect answering the question and not deviating or wandering away from it as she stated I had. I think if she reads her question and reads my answer, she will be able to determine that.
Mr. Chairperson: Can I get some clarity here? Was the honourable minister speaking on a point of order?
Mrs. McIntosh: On a point of order.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, the honourable minister did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Item 16.2. School Programs (a) Division Administration (2) Other Expenditures $76,200--pass.
Item 16.2.(b) Manitoba School for the Deaf (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,710,700.
Ms. Friesen: I know that the School for the Deaf staff have been here on a number of occasions, last week and this week, I think, so I am glad that we have arrived at this line and hope we can deal with it today.
I wonder if we could begin by looking at enrollment at the School for the Deaf. The school is now in a new facility, and I would like to ask some questions about that facility later on. Perhaps we could begin with the enrollment, the sources of the enrollment and the range of enrollment. For example, how are the students spread from kindergarten to Grade 12, what provinces the children are coming from at the moment, and what are the changes in enrollment from previous years?
Mrs. McIntosh: For the range of grades and the distribution: kindergarten to Grade 4, there are 25 students; Grades 5 to 8, there are 15 students; Grades 9 to 12 or Senior 1 to Senior 4, there are 42 students; for a total of 82 altogether, and that is fairly stable. Last year there were 73 students; this year there are 82. The enrollment over history has tended to range between 75 and 85, so 82 would be sort of closer to the high end of the normal range of students in terms of numbers. We have seen an increase this year. We do not know if that increase is due to just a regular fluctuation in the number of students, or if the new facility or the new location had anything to do with it or new principal but I do not know what those factors are. It may just be a normal fluctuation, but we note that it has gone up about nine students this year.
The member asked about the number of students and where they are from. The students are all Manitobans except for one student from Saskatchewan. There are 13 students who come from rural Manitoba, and that would include the one from Saskatchewan, who live in residence. They live at the school and the remainder all are either urban or close enough to commute to the school. I think that is all the information she asked for in this particular question.
* (1500)
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what the capacity of the school is? In the new facility, was there built in the opportunity to expand or was this seen as not the direction the school would want to or need to go? That is one part of the question. The other part is that I am interested in the post-secondary destinations of the students. Could the minister give us a sense of where the graduating class of last year has gone, how many there were and what their destination has been?
Mrs. McIntosh: In terms of capacity, the school can house for daily classes about 175. So there is ample room for expansion. The residence itself can handle 18, so there is room there for an additional five students. In terms of the destination of the graduates, last year there were four graduates: one has gone to a university in the United States of America, in California; one has gone to Red River Community College here in Winnipeg; and, two have gone straight to the workforce.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, does the school have a particular program for transition for students? Are there staff who are working with people in the workforce or with colleges and universities in the province to make a transition for these students?
Mrs. McIntosh: To anything they might be doing after school, like, not necessarily just in the workforce but also to post-secondary training.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of transition to university or college or work, the school has a career education program as well as a work education program for those who want to go straight to work. They have a guidance counsellor on staff who provides information and assistance to prepare students for that transition from the school to life after school.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have an estimate of how many students in the public and private system in Manitoba are deaf or hard of hearing and are choosing not to go to the School for the Deaf?
Mrs. McIntosh: There are about 150 deaf students attending public and/or private schools; they are in a mixture of both, in addition to the 82 who attend the MSD.
* (1510)
Ms. Friesen: I notice that on page 45 of the detailed Estimates book there is contained a footnote that some of the money is for ASL interpreters in the rural schools, and I wonder why that is under this line rather than in Special Needs or in another part of the department. Is there some particular connection to the school, or is there a broader program that is being estimated here in the Estimates book?
Mrs. McIntosh: This is a new position, and it is likely to be housed at the Manitoba School for the Deaf. Whether or not the person is housed at MSD, we believe the link to the expertise at MSD must be made. The person will find from time to time, if working at the Manitoba School for the Deaf, there may be occasions when there will be some other work that is required for that person to do, but it is the intention to use the technology at the Manitoba School for the Deaf to support rural areas and the Manitoba School for the Deaf will have that capacity in this coming year.
Members of the Manitoba Association of Visual Language Interpreters, which was called MAVLI, have met with me to discuss a document which included a proposal to employ specialists with ASL skills to support ASL interpreters in school divisions. The goal of the ASL specialist will be to travel throughout the province and meet with ASL interpreters working for school divisions, with the goal being to improve interpreting skills at the local level. There are about 40 interpreters who currently work throughout the province who may also need support and training.
Department staff from Student Services Branch have had regular meetings with the MAVLI group and other agencies involved in the interpreting field to discuss the need for this service, but we see this housed in Manitoba Education and Training in terms of the line. We are planning to use the technology at MSD, as I have said, to support rural areas, and the School for the Deaf will have that capacity in this coming year. So that is the reason it appears under this line.
Ms. Friesen: A couple of clarifications from that. The Estimates book actually says interpreters in rural schools, and I just wanted to clarify. The minister said to strengthen skills, I think, throughout Manitoba. So I am interested in whether these are actually rural or rural/urban. What are they? The book clearly says rural schools.
Secondly, the difference between last year and this year in full-time equivalents is 49.85 last year and 50.85 this year. There does not seem to be a large increase in staff. Does this program include an increase in staff, or is it simply a trainer for existing staff?
* (1520)
Mrs. McIntosh: The person is employed to work for all of Manitoba, rural and the North, Killarney, Thompson, places such as those. There is a one-member staff increase, and the increase of one was for the FTE for interpretive services and for interpreter training. The prime focus is training the already existing 40 interpreters and to have them in the classroom. The member has seen interpreters in the classroom. There is a real skill that is involved in making sure that the student is able to participate fully in terms of asking questions and getting quick responses, and the higher the standard of interpretation, the better the quality of learning for the student will be, so that is, I hope, an answer for her that satisfies the questions asked. I should just add that the interpreter, even if the interpreter is housed in the Manitoba School for the Deaf in Winnipeg, that interpreter will spend most, if not all, of her time in the North and in rural Manitoba and would only occasionally actually be working in Winnipeg at the Manitoba School for the Deaf.
Ms. Friesen: What I wanted to clarify was were these services, and was this training, available to Winnipeg school divisions. For example, I know St. James has a school that includes a number of student who are deaf or in hard-of-hearing programs, so that is what I was getting at when I asked the minister does it include all of Manitoba, and the answer was, yes, all of Manitoba, Killarney, the North, et cetera. It is always the problem when you do a list, you leave some out inadvertently, so could we just clarify the responsibilities?
Mrs. McIntosh: I appreciate the member's request for clarification here. The interpreter is available for Manitoba. Having said that, the bulk of the requests, and the need expressed, comes from rural Manitoba, so in practice what happens is that the interpreter spends most of his or her time in places like Killarney, Thompson, et cetera, in rural Manitoba and not as much in the urban areas. People requesting the service would go through Howard Miller who is in the department and who served as principal prior to Ms. Taylor coming. So he has a good sense of the needs of deaf students, but for those in the main stream, the city divisions tend not to use the interpreter service the way the rural divisions do. They also can go directly to MAVLI, I believe, if they need to, and since MAVLI is located in the city, it may be easier to do that.
The other thing that the city has that rural schools do not is just in terms of the numbers. In the city you will find, for example, that--you mentioned St. James School Division. They will have hard-of-hearing or deaf students located in St. James Collegiate, for example, where they can have a fair number of them together so that they can achieve efficiencies of scale, whereas in rural Manitoba they cannot always do that. They have distances that are inhibiting and, hence, the interpreter service becomes even more critical. Of course, the School for the Deaf has the specialist right on staff there, so they do not need to make the same kinds of requests. They have the capabilities within the school.
* (1530)
Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask if there are any programs or interpreter programs or training programs or programs for students. What exists for students who have English as a second language and also for aboriginal students? We have talked a lot in these Estimates about the department's intent to expand the graduation rates of aboriginal students. Are there specific programs for them? And does the minister have any sense of how many aboriginal students do have issues with hearing and with language?
Mrs. McIntosh: American Sign Language is not based on any spoken language, so to speak. It is not a translation of English, so a student growing up on a reserve or someplace where Cree was the mother tongue, would have no more difficulty learning the sign language than would a person whose mother tongue was English or French or some other language. It is the language of instruction for the deaf and hard-of-hearing students regardless of their first language. As I say, it is not a translation. It is a language of its own.
So you might have a student be proficient in sign language with two other languages that that student can speak, and maybe neither one of them is English. That does not impinge upon the ASL. There is a definition, or I guess this is a philosophy. It is from the four basic principles of bilingual, bicultural education, bilingual here meaning American Sign Language and some other language. In this case, we are talking about English as the second language. So four basic principles of bilingual, bicultural education are: one, that the American Sign Language, ASL, is the language of instruction. English is taught as a second language, much the same way we would teach core basic French; two, aspects of deaf culture are incorporated into all aspects of the school to augment learning and social behaviour; three, technology is used as a key element of the learning process; and four, role models of successful deaf and hard-of-hearing staff within the school demonstrate the value of obtaining a quality education and thereby motivate the students to learn. So that is the bilingual, bicultural education milieu, the atmosphere that is--
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
The staff has just pointed out one thing that I had not realized and is quite interesting, that in Quebec--this is the only exception that they are aware of--you could take a French language speaker and translate into LSQ, which is Langues des signes Quebecois, but it is a separate language. It is not ASL. It is Langues des signes Quebecois. That is a new one to me too. It is not ASL. That is the only exception that the staff is aware of. Interesting that, my goodness, the language dilemma flows into even signing in La Belle Province, our dear neighbours to the east.
Ms. Friesen: I thank the minister for the definition. I think I had assumed this, but I certainly did not have the vocabulary to describe it.
My questions were coming from two different perspectives, actually. I probably should have separated them. A student--and I am thinking first of all in terms of the people with English as a second language. I am thinking of the new immigrants, particularly in my community who will have been surrounded by a language other than English in terms of the written language. Are there provisions for them to make that transition? I am sure that it is an extremely small group, but I wondered if there is a method, if there is a process. Is it the kind of thing that a student should go to the School for the Deaf for? Is it something that is available in schools generally? So one issue.
* (1540)
My second issue with aboriginal students, which I should have addressed separately, comes not from the linguistic aspect but from the service aspect. How many students are there, aboriginal students in Manitoba, who face these challenges, and how are they being met through the department, either through the school or through other means?
Mrs. McIntosh: We are not quite sure how many aboriginal students in Manitoba as a whole are deaf. We do have 13 aboriginal students at the Manitoba School for the Deaf, but, basically, any child who grows up in any written or spoken language that is the language of the home begins at school, whatever school, whether it is the Manitoba School for the Deaf or otherwise, using ASL.
So basically what staff has indicated is that if a student is deaf, a student will not have acquired a language via hearing. That student will enter school using signs or signals of some sort. If it is not ASL, they would begin using ASL immediately when they started school. In those cases it would be ASL. So no matter where they come from, so to speak, in terms of the language of the home or the community, they come to school and begin using ASL as the language of instruction and a language of learning.
Many of them have acquired that prior to their coming, but they would not, say, have learned Portuguese at home if that was the home language because they come to school without yet being able to read or write in most instances, and all communication with them would have been via signalling or signing of some kind. I do not know if that answers the member's question or not.
Ms. Friesen: Well, the part that was not answered, I do not know if it can be answered, and that is the issue of how many aboriginal students across the province, including band schools, need ASL services and whether the department has the resources to meet them.
Mrs. McIntosh: We do not think we have that information. Although, we could certainly do and would do a double-check to see if it is available. But I do not think we have got it broken down into--we have a listing of the number of deaf students in Manitoba. We have got that from school divisions, but we do not know of those how many are aboriginal and, as I say, they do not believe they have got it in the department. The divisions could probably provide it if asked, but again it comes back to the self-declaration on ethnicity, so some may not declare. The only thing I guess I can say is that 13 out of 82 at the School for the Deaf is a fairly high percentage of the students in this deaf school.
Mr. Chairman, staff has just provided me with some additional information. We do provide services, as the member knows, for band schools for certain things on a contractual basis. This year, it is two that we have contracted for from band schools. That may not be the total number, but we do have the two contracted for band schools right now.
Some band schools could be sending students into public schools as well, because they will do that from time to time for various reasons. Again, we do not have a breakdown on that.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask a couple of questions under Other Expenditures and then pass the two together, if that is okay.
On Transportation, there seems to be quite an increase from $5,000 last year to $13,000 this year. I wondered what the reason for that was.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, that includes the transportation costs for staff to supervise work education and residential students. It is an increase of $8,000 for the ASL interpreter-consultant position that we talked about a few moments ago.
* (1550)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, further down on the Desktop Services, I am a bit puzzled by that one, and it is not just the overall government contract.
I thought that one of the reasons for moving to this school located in the St. James Division was that renovations could be done, that we would have state-of-the-art technology. Yet, this seems to be a very large increase for a state-of-the-art technology building. So could the minister explain why this has gone from zero to $135,000, if as the annual report said a year and a half ago this was state of the art?
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mrs. McIntosh: What we had before was, frankly, very little. It was part of the whole circumstances surrounding the move in that we knew to upgrade the old School for the Deaf to meet the standards that we knew were required would have cost a tremendous amount of money, six-figure sums of money, hence the search to relocate if we found that it would be less expensive to do all that needed to be done in the new facility, as opposed to attempting to renovate and upgrade the older one.
Having said that then in terms of our commitment to move to a state-of-the-art facility, we have put in some very high-standard equipment which now requires ongoing maintenance. Whereas before we had little equipment and little to maintain, we now have state-of-the-art equipment which requires a high and careful degree of maintenance annually, an expense which before had not been met.
We have interactive television in the school. We have sophisticated alarm systems. We have in the residence, for example, the beds are hooked up to fire alarms so the beds will vibrate if the fire alarm goes off as opposed to hearing a bell which, of course, the deaf students would not be able to hear. So just all those kinds of things are costly but really bring the deaf students to the same level--say, for example, the fire alarms--of safety as hearing students. We tried to match that all the way through so that the nonhearing achieve the same level of service in all areas as the hearing would. I do not know if that is an answer that satisfies, but it is basically going from nothing to something.
Ms. Friesen: My concern is when did this section of the department go from zero to something? It is listed here under last year's Estimates, 1997-98, as zero. I remember that in earlier Estimates we looked--I think it was in the region of $2.5 million for equipping the school. At the time I asked questions about that, is this going to bring us up to--and I think we discussed issues of a school in Newfoundland as being the ideal, the one that we were looking to emulate. I think at that time I received assurances that the money that was in the Estimates that year would, in fact, bring us close to the Newfoundland example.
In the Estimates for '97-98, it is listed as zero. In the annual report for '96-97, the annual report says in January of 1997 classes began. The new building has state-of-the-art technology and is architecturally designed to meet the needs of deaf children. So it seems to me that last year we had state-of-the-art technology, so it was not zero. Why was it listed as zero, and how have we gone to 135,000 in one year? What has changed?
Mrs. McIntosh: A couple of points that may help put some clarification around the issue, one being that of course last year the school was still partly under the auspices of the Department of Government Services. Now my timing is getting mixed up, but we went through a period when it was all Government Services. It has come through now that more of the cost is being picked up by the Department of Education because some of the material in it is educational in nature and belongs to the Department of Education.
* (1600)
So that was one shift in more money coming from Education than from Government Services, but it is also that the money is not for new equipment but for maintenance in that the minute the equipment is begun to be used of course it starts to depreciate, so it has to be maintained at a very high level. Some of it is pretty sophisticated stuff.
There is a central room in the school, for example, which does all the electronics for the school, and from that room they can dispense, at any given hour of the day, a particular video to show up on a screen in any room. The technological nerve centre of the school--they have a name, I just cannot think of it, but it is awesome to watch how that works, because teachers can program in, and the technician can just simply--at two o'clock in the afternoon a certain program will appear up on the screen. It has been pre-programmed in the night before throughout the school, and it will come and go in the hallways or wherever they need it.
Along with the interactive television are a lot of those other things, all done through a central controlling room. That is high-cost maintenance and it is higher than we would experience for so-called normal schools where they can use a loudspeaker system, where the principal can just take a little microphone in his office and say, attention all classes, and all classrooms get it. The School for the Deaf has the same capability, but it is done with more sophisticated technologies that do not require sound, and they are more costly to maintain and more costly to buy initially. This money is for maintenance, not for purchase of new equipment.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I am not disputing the nature of the equipment. I am not disputing the cost of that equipment. What I am concerned about is the difference between last year and this year. The minister has said, for example, one answer she gave me was that, well, part of it was under Government Services. Well, that is possible, but on page 21 of the annual report for '96-97, it does indicate that there was a $114,000 overexpenditure " . . . due to renovation costs associated with the relocation of the School for the Deaf to Alexander Ross School."
Now, it is not the cost. It is not the $114,000 that concerns me. It is the issue that is listed under the Department of Education. So if the overrun costs are listed here, it seems to me that the cost of the renovation must also be listed here. You are not going to have the cost of the renovation listed in Government Services and the overrun costs in Education. That does not make sense. So I am not sure about the minister's first answer that some of this was in Government Services.
Secondly, the minister is talking about maintenance, and, yes, I can imagine that it is very high cost, but I do notice that under this particular section of the department there is a line for maintenance. Again, I am not disputing the cost. It is the fact that it is maintained at the same level; $39,000 last year, $39,000 this year. That would make sense. You had the same equipment last year; you have the same equipment this year. One might have expected a slight rise in a contract fee or something like that, but on the whole that seems reasonable. You also have under Other Operating--I am adding a new piece here--there is a $20,000 increase, from $40,000 to $62,000 under Other Operating, so I would have assumed that there was some issue of maintenance increase there. That is possible.
But, when we look at Desktop Services, it is listed as zero last year and it comes to $135,000 this year. That is a huge increase for a state of the art building. If there was no cost on that line for the admittedly high-tech services of this building, then why is there $135,000 this year?
Mrs. McIntosh: Several points. Last year the expenditure was zero because we did not have any technology equipment to maintain. The equipment is now approaching three years old and we are phasing in purchasing some new equipment or repair or maintaining. The member had asked for clarification on the Government Services. The Government Services had acquired the building and done the renovations, and all of those things were Government Services expenses. They put in the equipment. We now have to maintain all of that under the Department of Education and Training.
* (1610)
Just in terms of how these expenses break down, the rentals and maintenance includes costs for office equipment, photocopier rental, fax rental, repairs to equipment. Then you have other, you have the purchase of office supplies, printing costs, cleaning supplies, technology requirements to access the Internet services. Then, and yet a different category, Other Operating, Desktop Services. There was an increase there for desktop management costs that was quite high.
So, if you start looking at how those break down, you can see that, yes, there is a direct comparison in certain categories where the amount we spent this year is very similar to what we spent last year, but others where the circumstances are quite different, hence the costs are quite different. Does staff have another piece of information there for me? Staff has also indicated that Government Services acquired, renovated, and paid for most of the equipment. By equipment, we are talking about educational equipment, not office equipment. Now, there could be occasions when the piece of equipment might be used for both, but there will be distinctly educational equipment that is not used for general office work, and we have to maintain that.
The school has been in operation now for 15 months, and we are going to enter the next fiscal year. We are looking at having to do some replacing, as well as maintenance, in the next fiscal year. The equipment is three years old because even though the school has only been in operation for 15 months, because some of the computers were purchased in the school year '95-96 by Government Services so it has maybe only had 20 months of use or may have had some use before we used it, but they were purchased in that '95-96 year, made available in the school for its use for the last 15 months, but it is time to take a look at the maintenance and possible renewal of some of the technology for learning equipment.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain to me why the cost overrun, then, for renovation was listed in the annual report under Education?
Mrs. McIntosh: That money was divided in part, some of it through the Department of Education and Training, some of it through Government Services, so it was not entirely one or the other of the department. It was--and I do not have the percentage, except that the lion's share would be Government Services, but a smaller portion was actually Education and Training. Those would be things that were really, in our perspective educationally, imperative-type things. So you have two departments kind of overlapping for awhile, all from Government Services to a portion of Government Services and Education and Training, and now the maintenance solely, in terms of the educational equipment, done by Education and Training.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I am not an accountant, but I am puzzling over the accounting principles here, and I do not know if the minister has the staff here to explain it to me, and maybe there could be something written later. But essentially there is a cost overrun. It has been portioned between two departments. Now, presumably that would not have been in the Estimates. It would be moving things not only between lines, but between departments, and that seems to me unusual. Could the minister explain whether it is unusual or not and what the accounting principle is, and how that is dealt with through the whole principle of Estimates?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do hope Harry is listening. The only cost overrun that was borne by Education was due to the extra costs for education equipment. There was no apportioning of costs into two departments. We paid education costs; Government Services paid capital. To my knowledge, there was no way that we paid for, say for example, you know, the construction of walls or the adding of fire doors or that type of thing, but we did pick up extra costs for education equipment. Those were borne by Education and Training as opposed to Government Services, because we were the ones that wanted them there and they were not essential for the integrity of the structure.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, actually, I should correct the record. We should be speaking about $370,000, not $114,000. The $114,000 is an underexpenditure due to a vacant position. In '96-97, there was a $370,000 overexpenditure on education equipment, the minister is saying.
Would the minister be able to table at a later date the complete budget that Education spent on the Alexander Ross School, including that education equipment, of which $370,000 is the overexpenditure?
* (1620)
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we can do that and not to worry. I was thinking of the same figure she was referring to, but it is good for the record to have it clarified that we were talking about what the figure was that we were talking about. We can certainly get that for her. We do not have it here right now, but we can provide it.
Just to make sure I am absolutely clear, she is looking for the total breakdown including the extra costs that Education paid for education equipment, that type. Okay, we will provide that as soon as we can. It probably will not be today.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, so I want to come back to the Desktop Services and to ask what service the school will be getting for that $135,000.
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, that $135,000, that is the figure we are talking about right now, right? So with that I may have left a few things off, but we get maintenance, some new equipment. We need two servers, for example, to replace old ones. We get the troubleshooting for those times when problems arise. We get upgrades to our software, and those are basically the types of things that that $135,000 would be used for.
Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask a related question and that is who will own the new equipment that comes under that $135,000, and then a second question which may or may not be related and that is on the line on capital there is, I think, more than a doubling of capital requirements this year from 15 to 37.
Mrs. McIntosh: That has gone from 15.9 to 37.9, and that includes computer hardware, software, appliances, and electronic equipment. There is also an increase in there for technology requirements to access Internet services and for the new ASL interpreter-consultant position.
* (1630)
Ms. Friesen: I want to confirm with the minister that the goods that are acquired under that line, the Capital line, that has gone from 15.9 to 37.9, will be owned, continue to be owned, by the School for the Deaf/Manitoba government.
My other part of my question was, the new equipment that was coming in part under Desktop Services, the 135,000, whether that would be owned by the government or that would be owned by Systemhouse.
Mrs. McIntosh: I do not know, are we as interesting as the other room? Because I can hear the other room, it sounds really interesting--[interjection]
At any rate, in answer to the member's question, Systemhouse has agreed not to provide service to MSD due to the specialized educational equipment at MSD, and arrangements are being made to obtain desktop support and systems management support from MERLIN. Part of this includes equipment replacement. MSD will own all the new equipment. Systemhouse will only support a few office computers to connect to other government departments and then their service to MSD will end. That will be in August of 1998 coming up in just a few months time.
Ms. Friesen: I am not sure I understood all of that. Let me say what I think I understood and the minister can correct me. There is an overall government contract for Systemhouse. Part of that $135,000 has been allocated to the Manitoba School for the Deaf, but there is an out clause by which the Systemhouse will not be providing services to the Manitoba School for the Deaf after summer of '98--I forget the exact month.
So this is a very temporary contract under which there will be some maintenance, some new equipment, which, if it is office equipment, will belong to Systemhouse. If it is educational equipment, it will belong to School for the Deaf. Then the troubleshooting, the upgrades and software are going to end this summer '98; I mean, this does not make sense.
First of all, have I expressed it correctly? Secondly, it does not make sense. What is the point? Why is there such a small period of time? Why is it such a large amount of money? Why does it do something which you did not need last year? And, what kind of new equipment can be purchased in that period that makes sense for the government to own on a temporary basis?
* (1640)
Please, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could simplify the question. The minister may still want to comment on whether I have understood it correctly or not, or which portions are right and which are not. But the simple question it seems to me is: Why is the School for the Deaf involved in a Systemhouse contract of $135,000 for three months?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I think we have a response here that will be helpful to the member.
With capital costs, we had an increase of $22,000 for access to the Internet and interpreters' equipment. The equipment will be owned by the Manitoba School for the Deaf.
With Desktop Services, this is an increase of $135,000, and for this, we get, one, maintenance by Systemhouse which continues on. It has been in place now for lo these many months and will continue until August of '98. Equipment: New servers brought by MERLIN, as our broker server, will be owned by the Manitoba School for the Deaf. MERLIN is our broker, so MERLIN will be the broker there, and we own the equipment; troubleshooting provided by Systemhouse until August, after which MERLIN does it.
We and they agreed that MERLIN, due to its expertise, was in a better position to provide MSD with the ongoing service it required. The only ongoing support to be provided past August, 1998, at the Manitoba School for the Deaf by Systemhouse will be office support for two or three office computers that are hooked up to the government-wide system, and the two or three computers will be owned by the Manitoba School for the Deaf.
I just apologize. It took us a bit of time just to make sure we had the figures correct there.
Ms. Friesen: I am not sure why under the Systemhouse contract that the department then even talks about equipment because, if the broker is MERLIN, if the new services are going to be brought by MERLIN, is there something I am missing there? Is there a piece of equipment, are there any pieces of equipment, which are going to be provided under the $135,000 contract? Maybe we can start there and then come to some other stuff in a minute.
Mrs. McIntosh: This is not a contract for $135,000. We are talking about here, for example, of capital costs which went up to $37,900, I believe it was, which was an increase of $22,000. The increase was for access to the Internet and the interpreters' equipment. It is not a contract. It is the increase in the amount that we are spending on capital costs.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, I understood that. The minister dealt with that in part (a) and then part (b); she talked about the Desktop Services and she mentioned four items.
One was maintenance by Systemhouse until August '98, of desktop equipment. Secondly, she dealt with equipment, and rather than talk about the ownership of the equipment, the minister talked about brokering and services to be brought by MERLIN, and so I was going back to the issue of equipment since, in an earlier answer, she had given me under the $135,000 contract that there was an equipment component, and I wanted to know who owned it and what it would consist of. Thirdly, the minister talked about troubleshooting, which would be covered until '98, August '98 I think is the date, and then MERLIN would do it. Fourthly, there would be office support, which would continue past August '98 for two to three office computers, and that would be done by Systemhouse and the computers would be owned by the Manitoba School for the Deaf.
So I am still left wondering why there is $135,000 for what essentially appears to be a three-month contract with an extension for servicing of two to three computers, office computers.
* (1650)
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, there are several aspects here. There is the contractual aspect for services. The member repeats back to me my response earlier in troubleshooting maintenance, ongoing desktop services. The first two items are via a contract with Systemhouse until August. After that, the services will be under contract to MERLIN. The third item will be an ongoing contract for desktop services for two or three office computers connected to the government network. The remainder of the 135,000 is to purchase outright one server. So in conclusion, the 135,000 is partly to buy outright one server, which would be around, say, maybe 10,000, but do not hold us to that; that is ballpark. The rest is for a contract to be split between MERLIN and Systemhouse.
That, I think, may provide the clarification that I think the member is seeking here because I think we are maybe talking about the same thing but in two different ways. I hope that clarifies for her what she has been seeking to have clarified here.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, that helps in part. So we are looking at approximately $125,000 to be divided between Systemhouse and MERLIN. Could the minister give me a breakdown of how that is divided?
Mrs. McIntosh: We can do that, but we cannot do it today. We can attempt to have that again at our next sitting or as soon thereafter as possible. We will provide it to her.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 16.2. School Programs (b) Manitoba School for the Deaf (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,710,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $586,200--pass.
Item 16.2.(c) Assessment and Evaluation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,089,500. Do we need a minute to change staff? I think we might just--do you want to just recess for a minute? We will just recess for three minutes.
The hour being five o'clock, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour now being five o'clock, the House is now adjourned as previously agreed.
This House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.