EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. When the committee last sat, the critic for the official opposition was making her opening remarks and has five minutes remaining. The honourable member for Wolseley, to complete your opening remarks.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I will simply summarize I think by saying that the government's policy on education, I believe, is one that has led to some serious difficulties for parents, for teachers and for families in Manitoba. I believe that it is a narrowly conceived education policy, that it has led to reductions in a number of areas and that it has led to increased taxation at the property tax level which has put considerable hardship on, I am sure, many of the minister's constituents as well as those of mine. I think we are looking at user fees, unequal education across the province and in many ways a very inappropriate lack of accountability on the part of the department.

The government has said a number of times that it would be producing an indicators report, and for 11 years we have seen nothing. This is not something that has to be invented. It is something which is done in other provinces very simply, but this has become a government which is extremely secretive and which is unprepared and refuses after 11 years to produce an indicators report for the benefit of Manitobans so that they can see at least what changes are happening in education. Some of them may be positive and the minister may want to have presented them in that way, but so far they have refused to.

In post-secondary education it is a government which has a fee policy that is left open to the market and which I believe is affecting the futures of many young people quite seriously, a government which before the last election was prepared to put a cap on at 5 percent and before this election is not prepared to even look at any cap until the increases in tuition fees go to double digits. So, Mr. Chairman, I think we are not looking at a rosy future in education, and I think much of this has to do with government policy, with the kinds of narrowing of the curriculum, with the way in which the curriculum has been implemented. I think the government lost a golden opportunity there to introduce good, new curriculum. Much of this curriculum is good, and it is new and is welcomed by many people in the field, but the manner in which it has been introduced, the lack of resources and the reduction in support from the department I think has not given it a fair chance. It has also divided people within the education community one against the other, and I think that is very, very unfortunate. The government had a golden opportunity. I think it threw it away, and it did it for reasons which I can only begin to think of, but I guess, as we go through this book, we will suggest some of them.

Finally, in the special needs area, the government very successfully slid this through the last election by promising it in '93, in fact, even speaking in its annual report of 1994 that it had begun the special needs review, and then year after year there was no reference to the special needs review. On and on it went till the next election, and the government then began a review which was not a public review in the normal sense but was a series of focus groups which were interesting in themselves but which did not initiate a public discussion across the province on the needs of children in schools and on the needs of all the children who face difficulties in having access to public education in Manitoba.

So here we are at the next election, and the government now, I assume, is studying the special needs review report and manages to get itself through another election without having done anything in special needs and without having addressed the structural issues and the regional issues and the growing lists of waiting lists of children with special needs that have occurred as a result of their policies. So, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in this, something that we have raised over and over again, and the government has now come to a next election without having to, in fact, put forward any policy or plans.

* (1500)

I regret the kinds of divisions which have occurred in Manitoba education. I regret the inequalities which are coming. I regret the loss of languages, as I spoke in the Legislature today, and I think much of this could have been avoided. But we have, I believe, in the Education department–I have no way of judging this minister yet, but certainly we have seen a series of quite authoritarian ministers who ignored time after time the suggestions from the field, who ignored time after time until the year before an election the advice of their own advisory committee on education finance and who seem to close their ears to any kind of evaluation or criticism and, Mr. Chairman, I think that has done a great disservice to Manitoba education.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for those opening comments. Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of the department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line. Before we do that, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table and ask the minister to introduce his staff present.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): For the moment, Mr. Chairman, I would introduce someone I am sure is already well known to the education community in Manitoba, the Deputy Minister of Education, Mr. John Carlyle, who has been I think the deputy minister for a number of years now, and provided significant leadership not only to the department but also to the field of education in general.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for that introduction.

We will now proceed to line 16.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 46 of the Main Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Friesen: We are on a line here which looks at policy in the department and the setting of policy. I would like to ask the minister about the response to the special needs review. Could the minister tell us what plans he has, what kind of costing he has done on the implementations of special needs, when you review what the timetable is and what kind of personnel have been allocated?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I thank the honourable member for identifying the special education requirements of Manitoba's children as enough of a priority to bring it forward at the very beginning of this discussion. I share her assessment that special needs in our schools must be a key priority.

It was identified for me, if I did not know it already, very early in my term as minister as I made it my job to seek input from educators, parents and school business people. I learned early on that the special needs review was a matter very much on the minds of people in the system.

I think there is a general recognition, too, that the review is important, and that the government, having been the one to commission the review, should be commended for that. In addition, funding for special needs in Manitoba's schools has doubled in the past decade, which is an indication not only of support and priority on the part of the government, but also a recognition that anything that is growing by way of requirement at that rate ought deservedly to be the subject of a report of the type that we have received from the proactive organization.

The report was fairly fresh in terms of its release by the time I took office on February 5, and I made it my business to engage in discussions, as I pointed out already, but also discussions with Mr. Carlyle and members of the department to ensure that the department shared with me the view that special education requirements ought to be treated very seriously and as a priority. They, of course, agreed with that, because much work had already been done in preparation for the future. But the report is fairly well received, I think quite well received, by the education community.

I felt that, you know, just having the report and giving some lip service as to how we might implement it or when we might implement it simply would not be sufficient. I think I needed to demonstrate, not only to the general public but also to the department itself, that this remains a significant priority. So I asked Mr. Carlyle and I asked the government for some support for some early steps that could be taken that would demonstrate that we are very serious about meeting the needs of those who have special education requirements. I was pleased to be able to come forward with an additional $2 million for this year's budget to attach to the 2.3 percent spending increase for the school system, to make it a total of 2.6 percent. But that $2 million, I am very quick to underline and underscore and emphasize, is a first step in the implementation of the Special Education Review report.

I attended the MAST convention–I think the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) did, too–and was there for the debate with the party Leaders. Dr. Gerrard, the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) and the honourable member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) participated in that debate. They all committed themselves to implementing the special needs report. That is a good thing, because it demonstrates that there is a commitment on the part of everybody to move forward.

* (1510)

In addition to what was said that day, we have the $2 million to begin our response to that report. It is much more than simply responding to a report because there are so many different segments of the education community and the rest of the community as well who ought to be concerned about this and involved in the implementation. It is a very multifaceted report and requires a comprehensive approach. We felt it important enough that someone of the calibre of Carolyn Loeppky could be asked to head up that unit in the department that would take this on as a singular area of responsibility, the special needs requirements in our schools.

I had it brought very forcefully to my attention that this is not simply about children with special needs, this is about the whole classroom. This is about the teachers and the parents and the whole system, because there are children who are not getting the benefits that might be available to them if we had implemented this report. So that is what we will be doing. We have set up a special unit in the department headed by Carolyn Loeppky, assistant deputy minister, and this unit will make it their business to work with other staff in the department as well as those with whom the department works year in and year out to develop the strategies that will need to be developed to put into practice the recommendations in the report. Now that is a general response, and if there are specifics that I can discuss, then we can do that too.

I should, before going on, introduce Gilles Richard who is a financial analyst in the Administration and Finance branch of our department, and Jim Glen. I have known Jim a little bit better over the last few years. He is an assistant deputy minister for Administration and Finance. I understand that Jim is not going to be with us for too much longer, but he has been around in government for almost 25 years. I think that people like Mr. Glen deserve to receive some recognition for not only the years that they have put in but for the things they do during those years. I think we have come quite a distance in the Education department and in the whole education scenario.

I do not agree with everything the honourable member for Wolseley has said, but nonetheless I do not think she says that with a view of getting at anybody other than the leadership of the government. I appreciate that. But a lot of progress has been made in these changing times, and Mr. Glen has been involved with the department all that time, and I appreciate it very much. I thought I would mention that rather than simply just introduce him. This may be his last Estimates review process, and we wish him well.

Ms. Friesen: Yes, I understood there was a retirement on the books. Congratulations and best wishes in retirement.

I wonder if the minister could give us some more detail. He said that the new–I do not know whether to call it a new position, but the new unit headed by an assistant deputy minister. Could the minister tell us what kind of staff there will be in that unit and whether that unit is to be funded out of the $2 million that the minister has initially appropriated for the funding of the special needs review?

The question that I asked in the earlier question was actually the entire costing of the special needs review. Has that been done, because there certainly are numbers floating around out there. I would like to hear something from the minister on what he estimates the cost will be. I would like a specific costing on location in the Estimates book of the $2 million for the special needs that has already been allocated. Is it, for example, simply added to individual students to be part of the Level II and Level III allocations? Is it for a particular program? Is it for dealing with professional development? How has that $2 million been allocated?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, we expect the overall cost of implementation of this report to be significant. In fact, although costing of each and every activity that might be required as a result of this report is not complete–and I do not think it would be complete for some time yet. But I do know that in order to completely implement all of the recommendations, we know we are going to need something in excess of $20 million in addition to what is already in the budget, in addition to the $111 million already spent on special education Twenty million, it could be much more as well. At this point it is too early for us to tell what the price tag would be. If it were that precise, I am sure it would not take several years to implement, because we would be able to implement very quickly if we knew that kind of finite detail for what it was going to cost. If we knew what it would cost, we would know what was being paid for, and so therefore there would be more precision. But that is the best I can do at this point. I would hope in our next Estimates to be more specific with the honourable member when these questions come up.

I think that the other part of her question–there were a number of questions, but she asked about the make-up of this review team.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. There has been a call for a recorded vote. The committee will adjourn to the House.

________

* (1540)

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Just for the committee's clarification, prior to the recess there was a reference made to adjournment instead of recess, so prior to the recess I just want to clarify that it was not an adjournment, it was in fact a recess.

Prior to the recess for the vote, the committee was considering line 16.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 46 of the Main Estimates book, and the honourable Minister of Education was answering a question. Now, did the honourable minister wish to continue.

Mr. McCrae: Whether it was a recess or an adjournment, we are all back together once again, Mr. Chairman. The question was whether the $2 million which we made available for special education, whether the special needs review team and their budget would be taken from that $2 million. The answer is no. Those $2 million will be distributed to the school divisions. I do not think I said everything I needed to or should have about the team itself. At the present time the team consists of Assistant Deputy Minister Carolyn Loeppky, who heads the unit and a secretary and an administration officer and two analysts.

As we address the issues set out in the report, that staffing arrangement will no doubt have to be reviewed, and the funding for various programming that takes place will also be the subject of various proposals that will come forward. We expect the proposals to come forward from divisions. The $2 million is a formula, and it is based on the number of pupils in a given division between the ages of five and 12, which is the group that this $2 million is intended to provide services for.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, we are actually sort of proceeding on two parallel lines of questioning, one on staff and one on money, so I will continue with that. I would like to know from the minister where the staffing is located. It is an ADM position, and I understand it has two policy analysts. Could the minister tell me which line that is on?

Mr. McCrae: The unit is made up of staff taken from the School Programs Division who were previously involved in special needs programming functions, in any event, so that the unit is taken from within the department from the School Programs Division.

Ms. Friesen: Is the minister saying that the line that I would find this on is the School Programs Division, or is it the ADM line? What I am interested in is tracking this obviously in subsequent years. So where do we find this unit?

Mr. McCrae: You will not see it in this year's Estimates because the funding that we were able to secure came late in the process. So you will not see it as a line item. The School Programs Division from which these people come to form the new unit, you will see that next year. You will see the separate line for this unit in next year's Estimates, but you will also be able to ask us about reductions in the School Programs Division, which would account for the creation of that unit.

Ms. Friesen: So essentially it is being funded out of existing resources this year, though, in fact, people–there are two analysts and an ADM who is already an ADM, two analysts who are already analysts and are listed in the School Programs Division. So in effect the Estimates to that extent do not reflect what is actually happening.

Mr. McCrae: I think that would be correct. The idea here is not to enlarge the overall bureaucracy of the department, because we have some very talented people in the department who are used to the kind of outreach work that has to be done with the community. So you will see, as I have said, the unit referred to specifically as a line item in next year's budget, but you will not see a growth in the department so much as you will see growth in activity outside the department.

Now, I do not know, it may be that at some point the department will have to bring in some particular special expertise, and I cannot say that that will not happen, nor can I say today from where that expertise will come. But, to this point at least, the people who form the unit come from the department and are not additional in terms of expenditure. The dollars that we have earmarked, we want to be used directly for programming.

Ms. Friesen: To go back to the other question, which was the $2 million, the minister said it is to be used for children between the ages of five and 12. I just want to clarify whether it is actually going to individual Level II, Level III students, or whether this is a particular program. Is it a new program or is it following existing programs in the ages five to 12?

* (1550)

Mr. McCrae: I think we should invite Carolyn Loeppky to join us at the table, because she is already very well on top of these issues. As I said, because these are first steps and early steps at that in the response to a report–probably some kind of record had been set, I think, in terms of the speed with which we have been able to make some kind of early response.

We are dealing with children between the ages referred to who are emotionally and behaviourally disadvantaged to a point that it is affecting their performance in school. This is in the area of prevention and intervention so that it could include children at the various designated levels, but it could also include children who we could prevent from ever having to be one of those designated Levels I or even II and III.

But I think that we need at this early stage to find out from divisions how they see these dollars being useful to them in their taking early steps in response to special education requirements in their divisions. And there are about 57 of them, as I understand it. When you divide $2 million amongst them, for some of them it is a relatively small amount of money. So we are also encouraging at this early stage, because this will be very important later on, that divisions find ways to use whatever dollars that are available for special education kids. If partnerships can make the investment a better investment, we want to see that happen.

Obviously, in some of our rural divisions where schools are far flung, it does not make much difference to the child which division they are in. If there is a regional type of program available that they can benefit from, we want to see that happen. As I say, Ms. Loeppky and her team are doing a lot of work to get ready to deal with this in a more substantive way, but certainly I think identifying those children between the ages of five and 12, I think everybody will agree that the earlier we can do things to prevent and to intervene to make the learning experience something positive, something effective, the more money will be available later on for those who will require on an ongoing basis intervention on the part of the system.

So I think that is the whole substance of the report, and we are confident that we have the right people certainly in Ms. Loeppky to work with the system and bring about programming that will make the most sense to the greatest number of children so that we are not spinning our wheels in the education system dealing with kids who are clearly needing something more than the system has previously been able to provide for them.

Having visited in a few schools now as minister, you learn things that you do not learn when you are not a minister because you are not as focused in the same way. I have been fortunate to see the effect of some of the programming that is available. I have also been able to see the need that still has not been met. It makes you want to do something really quick. To take some kind of knee-jerk reaction is not a good idea. It might be well intentioned, but it is not a good idea. I think by careful examination of the recommendations here which come about as a result of quite a bit of consultation with people who do know more of the answers than I do, I think by taking that approach, planning a series of measures and planning an environment in Manitoba for our children for the future and taking the time that is necessary to do that will result in the best results in the longer term.

Ms. Friesen: I am still not clear where this $2 million is going. Is it, for example, money that the divisions have to apply for? Is it, for example, matching grants? Do the divisions have to have plans in place that indicate prevention? I understand or I assume that that $2 million is on the School Programs line, but I am interested in the policy here. The minister has made a specific move in pre-electoral terms, frankly, I think, to put some money into special needs, and I would like to know exactly where it is going.

An Honourable Member: That is a pretty gross assumption, and I worked for two years on that special needs review, obviously–

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think the former Minister of Education wants to put something on the record.

An Honourable Member: May I?

Ms. Friesen: Absolutely, be my guest.

Mr. McCrae: As I was consulting with my deputy, I missed out on the dialogue that was going on. It is probably okay if I did.

In any event, I did hear the honourable member for Wolseley speak about pre-election measures or something like that, and I am sure we will get into a discussion of that at some point in these Estimates. Whether something happens, as the honourable member states, just before an election or just after an election or sometime between, there is never a wrong time to do the right thing for our kids. I feel very strongly about that. As an Education minister now, I would like it to be more than $2 million. If I thought that I could get $10 million and throw it on the table and overnight everything would be all right, I would like that, but that is not the world that we work in, and the member knows that and realizes that, I know.

In fact the review told us that this is really is not about money so much as it is about doing it right. The best practices are referred to. We want to bring out and discover all of the possible best practices there are. The dollars that are being distributed to the divisions will be distributed upon application. This is not a question of matching, no requirement that there be matching. Now, the reason for the requirement that there be application for this is so that our unit can work with these divisions to ensure that best practices are what are being sought after and hopefully achieved at the end of it all. This is very much a working document, this particular report.

I dare say, depending on which party Leader you listen to, it is going to take anywhere from three to five years to get this accomplished, but even then I ask myself: are we really going to have the job done? I do not know today and neither does anybody else. I do not think even Ms. Loeppky probably knows that.

It is a question of making sure that we continue in our system to meet the needs. The needs today are not the same as the needs were 15 or 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. In fact, in my visits, it has been made very clear to me that each year different issues are coming forward. Children are presenting to school with problems on a scale that we have never experienced before. This is something that is probably worthy of a study all by itself to figure out why this is happening but, I mean, I think we know enough to know that programs like EarlyStart and BabyFirst are a good direction to go in as well.

* (1600)

I believe that we are going to see more attention paid on that in the future than we have in the past, and that is probably the best investment I can think of. I remember being present at the announcement of those programs for the regional health authority in the Brandon area, and I think educators would agree with me that the sooner we get at issues related to problems for kids, the better it is going to be not only for those kids when they get into the school, but the teacher is going to be much more efficient because the teacher is going to be able to deal with a class that is more ready to take on the lessons that are part of the teacher's work.

So there is no doubt in my mind. In fact, I have been preaching this for some time in my various previous portfolios as well. Let us get at the problem. It was years ago that I became aware of the Headstart programs that have existed in other places. The startlingly positive results that come out of those really give us good justification to move in the direction we are moving with special education, not only special education but programs brought in by the Child and Youth Secretariat.

Recently, I think, out of an abundance of zeal I have made the point that the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was behind these things, but it is really the Child and Youth Secretariat. I knew that, totally a slip of the tongue, but I think it is necessary to repeat that the Child and Youth Secretariat probably needs greater visibility in our society because they bring together departments in a way that departments simply were not structured to come together in the past on their own, no comment or criticism of anybody, but the unit was, in my view, the right thing to do, because it results in things like BabyFirst. There is other programming like that that is out there that once they are fully operational and meeting the needs of more children we will definitely see a difference as they enter the school. But even then, we are going to see children who, whether they slip through the cracks or whether the services simply did not do the job, we are still going to have kids with emotional and behavioural and other problems in our schools.

So I am very pleased that we have made a beginning on this. But I caution the honourable member, it is simply a beginning at this point. As a minister, for me it is an expression on my part and that of my department, of good faith with all of our partners that we are definitely moving in the right direction. We have the blueprint there in the report. Ms. Loeppky and her team have already, in a very short time that their attention has been exclusively riveted on this, done a lot. I am really happy about that, because it is another little piece of comfort for me that we are definitely committed to this and we are definitely moving in the right direction.

So, yes, it is a matter that we want the divisions to apply for, because we want to see what kind of programs they are going to come forward with. We want to have and we are going to fast-track these things so that we can evaluate what they are coming forward with to determine that it is one of the best practices that we can arrive at and then, to the extent that it is appropriate in other areas in Manitoba, recommend those best practices so that we are getting the maximum value for the dollars.

We have to remember that we are dealing with little human beings here that are pretty important to the future of this province and to their own future and that of their family.

So I think that there is a general understanding right around the table and well beyond that this is the right way to go. It was, after all, the government of Manitoba that commissioned the Special Education Review. The government of Manitoba paid for it. The government of Manitoba supported it. The government of Manitoba welcomed it. My predecessor very kindly left it on the desk for me. There was not anything else on the desk when I took over but that report, a little message from my predecessor about what is important. I appreciated that too.

Ms. Friesen: Well, it is good to hear the minister speak about early childhood education in that way and of the years, I think it is about 25 years at least now of research, all of it tending in the same direction on the benefits of early childhood education. I welcome this as a change in expression of policy, certainly in this department, from a minister who talked of it as an expensive frill in earlier years. It does make one wonder why the government is–

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Environment, on a point of order.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct some inaccurate information that was just put on the record. The honourable member has said the previous minister talked about special education as an expensive frill. She is wrong. I said nursery school was a costly enhancement, which it is, an enhancement, not a frill. I never used the word "frill." I said if you want to enhance education, this is a wonderful way to enhance it, but it has a cost and we need to find the cost. We need to fund that from other sources, which we are now doing, looking through the Children and Youth Secretariat.

She is leaving a wrong impression on the record purposefully, because she knows I was talking at the time about funding it from sources other than classroom sources. So I just want to correct the deliberate false impression she is attempting to mislead the committee with. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley, to continue with your question.

Ms. Friesen: From the perspective of the field, can the minister tell me what kind of criteria are going to be or have been established for them to make their applications under? Has, for example, a letter gone out to all of the divisions that would give them a sense of what kinds of things are appropriate in this area?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I am glad we got that other little matter sorted out. I think we can avoid any of that sort of thing. There are ways, I know that the honourable member for Wolseley and I and the honourable member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) all know how to do that.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question, yes, a letter has gone out to each and every division and district, and it has been sent to superintendents and chairs of school boards and student service administrators announcing the purpose of the initiative. In addition there have already been held regional information sessions to inform school divisions and districts about the purpose of the initiative, approval criteria, and we can go into more detail about the approval criteria, the approval process and the timelines for submission and approval of applications.

There is more than one department involved in this. We are going to be working with an inter-departmental team to review the proposed programs and to give feedback about the programs and to share those programs. The reason we were quick to get going on it is that it is important to make some early starts. The school year only lasts so long. We only have so much time in which to spend these dollars. I want to make sure we spend them properly, and that is why all of this has already been happening. There is an intersectoral program review team consisting of the departments of Education, Family Services, Justice, Health and the Children and Youth Secretariat, and it is going to help review and evaluate the proposals and make recommendations to the department and to myself. This intersectoral approach to the review of proposals is going to ensure co-ordination, and in some cases, enhancements to school division and district efforts.

Now I know when you include all those people, there is a tendency for it to take longer and this is a concern that I would have. I simply do not want, in the interest of collegiality and in the interest of making sure everybody's base has been touched, that it does not result in an unnecessary waste of time, because I think that is a disservice to the kids, so we have the benefit of the report which is kind of a guide for everybody, which I hope will help to speed up the process. But these are the right people for us to be working with. If we tried to do it alone, I have no doubt that there would be reason for criticism that we have left some important segment out. This is not the way to go. It sounds cumbersome, but I think it will still be doable and it will be a better result. I am confident that the initiative will provide divisions and districts with opportunities to ameliorate negative behaviour problems by getting involved early in the students' learning experience.

* (1610)

The type of criteria that we are going to be looking for, and it is good that these questions are being asked, because anybody then can access this information and get going on proposals. We want some evidence of research into areas of program design that will be coming forward so that we can do a quick analysis, a quick and effective analysis, with all the parties we are going to have involved and then make decisions, flow the money and get the help to the kids.

We want to include other service providers, and we want everyone to know that we expect results. We do not want to be back here a year from now saying: Are we not good? We have spent all these dollars when we cannot show you that we have got some results. And I think it is right that you should expect results when public dollars are being spent, especially when all these good people are doing their best to put programming together that will benefit these youngsters, which is what it is all about. So we do want results. We do not want to spend money unless there is an expectation of results.

We simply will want to know what type of evaluation process they are using so we can have some confidence that there will be results. We do not want this to be a bureaucratic or cumbersome review. We want it to be efficient and expeditious and that is what I want everybody to be reminded of because I think that in the past we have tried to do too much all by ourselves, or some other agency has tried to do too much all by itself, and they are not equipped. They do not have the money, the expertise, whatever. They do not have all of that and with this multisectoral, multidisciplinary approach, all the experts are recommending this these days and it is for very good reason.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could table the material that has been sent to the division which I anticipate gives us an indication of the criteria and the timelines and the evaluation processes.

Mr. McCrae: If we can get it right away, we will; if not, we will have it for you in the morning.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that was raised with me which applies to both the special needs review and the at-risk task force which the government had within the system on its own account some months ago. Both of these seemed, to the people who contacted me, to be very limited in their aboriginal participation. The special needs review had no aboriginal people on the committee of direction. It did not meet in any aboriginal communities. I am not thinking of reserves particularly, but I am thinking of areas where schools are shared between reserves and Metis communities. The same was true, I understand, of much of the at-risk study as well.

So I wonder if the minister had some comments on that. I have raised it in Question Period. It is a very genuine concern on the part of these people. It is one that I think has significant consequences for the way in which the implementation of the special needs review can be met.

Mr. McCrae: I certainly can appreciate the concern that might be raised and has been obviously with the honourable member. This was a study and a work conducted by the proactive organization. It is important for us to ensure that aboriginal organizations and individuals were consulted in the process of this work because I know that aboriginal children have amongst them their share of children, and probably more than their share of children, who need special education services.

My staff is shuffling through the papers. I had a list which I should have shared with the honourable member when she actually raised this. It is quite a long list actually of aboriginal organizations and individuals who were consulted throughout the process, which may not suit the honourable member's question if she is talking about membership on a panel or something, but the fact is the input was there. I can undertake and will undertake to bring that forward in a subsequent answer.

Ms. Friesen: Yes, I look forward to receiving that list. One of the issues that was raised was that the steering committee had no representation of aboriginal people. There did not appear–and this is part of my difficulties with this review, it is a semipublic review in many ways–that the public discussion and conversation has not taken place. I understand, although I do not agree, with the kind of strategy that the government adopted on this. I think I can figure out their political reasons for doing this.

But it seems to me that the kinds of reports and advice that was offered by a wide variety of organizations, not just aboriginal organizations, but school divisions, organizations which represent Manitobans in a broad sense such as the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities, that the advice and material that they submitted should be part of a public process. I have spoken to the department about this. This is not a new issue. I have spoken to the consultants about this. Each of them replied that it was in the hands of the minister.

So I am wondering, for the purposes of a public conversation, whether all of the information, with the permission of those people who wrote it, whether that can be formulated into a collection in the library, in the archives, so that they can be consulted. I am not sure if the minister understands what I am getting at.

Mr. McCrae: I am not sure either.

Ms. Friesen: Basically, what happens is that people across the province wrote to the reviewers. I have no way of knowing what was said in Thompson, for example. I have no way of knowing what was said in Selkirk. I went to ones in Winnipeg. Similarly, I am not putting just myself in this position, people in Selkirk do not know what was said in Thompson. Nobody knows what was said in the many submissions. The minister is going to give me a list, I assume, from aboriginal organizations. Nobody knows what was said in those.

So from the perspective of trying to understand what Manitobans said at one point at the end of the 20th Century about special needs, there is not a good and full public record. We have a report. I trust the report to have reflected some of those views, but I do not know whether that report reflects all the views. That is why I think people need to know about the public discussion. What I am asking for is a full public record and whether the minister is prepared to make a commitment to have that in the library.

Other government reviews have done this. I make reference in particular to the one on freedom of information. Initially the government said they would publish it and do a second paper. They did not. But they did at least put all of the submissions into a binder in the library where they could be consulted. I thought that was a fair way of going about things. It was public review, public discussion, and everything was available. Is the minister prepared to do that with the special needs review?

* (1620)

Mr. McCrae: The issues around special needs children sometimes are very sensitive ones. We, I should not say we, but the system chose this methodology on purpose because of that. We wanted people to be comfortable with the process. I think that is what we achieved. I look at results. If the report at this point is the result, at this particular point in time, I am pleased at what I am hearing from certainly the leaders of the political parties and others is support for what is in there. So if there is anything I can share with the honourable member that I should be sharing, I would like to do that. I want there to be some level. Between the lines, I am getting a sort of a cynical report from the honourable member. I do not think the motives are at all questionable. I think that our motives are the same ones that the honourable member has. I do not like to be accused of having the wrong motives in dealing with a matter like the special education needs of our kids in this province. So anything that I can make available to the honourable member, I will review that with my staff, because I do not want her to feel this way about it. There are people who do not want their issues discussed openly. That should be respected. The honourable member, I am sure, would agree with that.

So what I will do is, if there is some submission or some piece of information the honourable member wants, then, if she could be specific, I would be pleased to look into what I can do. I am not interested in holding back information for political or partisan purposes. I am quite sincerely interested in getting programming ready for the children of Manitoba so that they can benefit. It is as simple as that. I simply do not have it in me, I do not think, to engage in a process that is deliberately designed to leave some group or organization out. That is really counterproductive. So if the honourable member will be a little bit specific about it.

I mean, we cannot go back and do the whole process again. I think a lot of the people who were involved in the process appreciated the way it was being done. Again, I go to the result. I mean, what are the reviews? The party leaders are saying: This is a good report; this is a good product, however you got it. I am sensitive to what the honourable member says, and I have a long list of organizations, aboriginal ones especially, that were consulted as part of this. That list is something I want to recite for the honourable member. I cannot do it right at the moment, but the Special Education review report identified the need for a variety of actions that will strengthen the entire system for special education students. I have to say this is really the first time that I am getting any message or signal, which is clear to me at least, that there is a problem associated with this report.

If there is a way we can fix that problem, then let us do it, but I do not think we want to go over another couple of years of review and all of that when I know that lots of affected people and knowledgeable people have been consulted here. When I know all of that, and I have a report that generally receives support, I do not know what there is to go back over, but I am quite happy to answer to the best of my ability any questions or issues the honourable member raises.

The work of the report identified the need to work towards the development of stronger initiatives that would create supportive learning environments as well as the development of special education programs that were culturally appropriate. No doubt that culturally appropriate point has to come from input from people who have issues and concerns about culturally appropriate programming.

The report also indicated that the literature on aboriginal children and special education tends to focus on the effects of social conditions rather than on culturally based best practices. This is an area that we will be working on as the recommendations are implemented. We will not be doing it alone. As we have pointed out before, it is multisectoral, and that is for good reason, because we do–whether I like it or whether the honourable member likes it–work in a political environment. Politics do find a way into these things. I wish they did not, but that is the reality. Some people will use children with special needs as some kind of a pawn to make some kind of a political point. I do not appreciate that. I do not want to play that game, and, to the best of my ability, I will not play that game, because this is too big for mere politics, in my opinion.

It is our intention also to continue our partnership and dialogue with reserve and federal educational officials in order to share the learnings and any of the subsequent actions that are undertaken. I do not know what else I can say. We are trying to be as open as we can. I do not think there is anything sinister about any of the effort that has gone into this. If I find out that there was, I will be dealing with it in the most effective way that I can. No one has come to me. This is the first indication, really, that I know of, that there is something amiss here. So, if the honourable member can maybe spell it out a little better for me, I will have a better understanding.

Ms. Friesen: The minister will note that, when I presented the question to him, I talked about the actual conclusions and review recommendations as quite separate. But what I am concerned about is the process of a public review. For example, I had to ask the minister what aboriginal organizations were consulted. There is not a list in the review. Normally, reviews have a list of all the public presentations that have been made. I make reference, for example, to the Norrie commission, the boundary review report, which did have all of those. This particular review does not. It is not that I am implying there is anything sinister. I simply want to know who presented. I do not want personal information. This is an area obviously where there will be individual presentations of personal information. Fair enough. Quite separate. But organizations–I specifically made reference to that in my question–the aboriginal issue is one issue that has been raised. The other is: What organizations did make presentations? Where is the list of them? Is it possible for the public to view those presentations, which were made to a publicly appointed review body?

Mr. McCrae: The report itself outlines a lot of the people with whom consultations were had. I think the honourable member keeps saying presentations, because I think that sometimes people think of an effort like this as maybe being a committee room like this where there is a microphone at one end of the table, and everybody comes forward and makes their presentation. Not everything works that way, and this one does not. This was a consultation.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a point of clarification.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, yes, just for the minister, what I am asking for is the list of written presentations, because the committee did ask for written presentations if people wanted to make them. That is all I am looking for.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for that.

Mr. McCrae: What I am going to suggest for the honourable member is that the report itself has in it a list of all of the education groups and organizations, other organizations; for example, the Hanover Teachers' Association; the Brandon School Division, Mr. Jim Reid; Salisbury Morse Place School; and on and on, and then organizations like the Cerebral Palsy Association–I am not going to go through them all; do not be worried about that–Manitoba Down Syndrome Society; Manitoba Society of Occupational Therapists, Movement Centre. It is there, and it goes on and on and on.

What the honourable member wants to know is about written presentations. She can contact any of these groups, and that might short-cut the whole process, that rather than us going through the process of making them all available to the honourable member, she may find that it might be better for her to contact the organizations for their permission or to ask for a copy of the presentation they made to the inquiry.

* (1630)

The other point that needs to be made is that this thing involves case studies, lots and lots of case studies, in-person interviews with people, and all of these case studies, including the Agassiz School Division, but not limited to, the Brandon School Division, Mystery Lake, Red River, Turtle River, Winnipeg, for example, all of those had aboriginal persons involved in those case studies.

You may not have, I am advised, the list in the appendices, so this list that I have in my hand is something that I can make available to the honourable member, and then she can have a look through that. If she wants to know what presentation was made by any individual organization, she can be quite free to have maybe her research staff or somebody contact them, and that is the best way to find out if they want to share that with the honourable member. They may well want to, and they may not, too. I do not know. That is up to them.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy here of the proactive report. I do not believe it was in that copy. Now, I have a loose-leaf copy, and perhaps there are other reasons for that, but perhaps if it is wide, if it is general, that that list is not in all the copies, perhaps the minister could table them, so it does become a public document.

Mr. McCrae: I assure the honourable member that the appendix that I am talking about, all these names on it, is part of the report, and if the honourable member did not get it and wants it, simply put, we can get it for her or anybody else who wants it.

Ms. Friesen: Well, would the minister table it then, so it is part of a public document in case other people got copies that did not have it in?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, we will do that, if not this afternoon, tomorrow morning.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me whether that appendix lists the aboriginal consultations which were held and any aboriginal written presentations that might have been made to the committee?

Mr. McCrae: I think we are sort of formulating what we are going to make available here on this. I am not sure what the honourable member asked specifically on this last one, but I think the tabling that I am going to do is going to answer that question.

Ms. Friesen: The minister said this is already part of the report, which is a public document, so there should not be any problem in tabling it.

Mr. McCrae: There is not.

Ms. Friesen: Good, okay. So what is the problem?

Mr. McCrae: Either later this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

Ms. Friesen: I think I asked if that included the list of aboriginal organizations which had either been consulted or had made written representations.

Mr. McCrae: You see, the way the people doing the report did it, they did not identify political organizations. There were case studies of people involving divisions, and aboriginal people were very much part of that. But I do not know that anything comes out identified that political organizations representing aboriginal people have–I may be wrong about that. We spotted one, but there may be others too that in one way or another were, so I am having a little trouble.

I think the honourable member is trying to make the point that aboriginal people feel left out of this process. I am trying to make the point that should not be the conclusion that should be arrived at, but I cannot tell the honourable member what conclusion to arrive at.

Ms. Friesen: I am simply looking for the evidence that that is not the case. The only evidence that I can think of at the moment are the kind of presentations which are either solicited or offered. The case studies, yes. Obviously any case study in any school division in Manitoba is going to involve–well, not any one but most of them are going to involve aboriginal students.

So the minister is making the case that I should not think that people were not represented or consulted. Well, all right, where is the evidence? Is there another kind of evidence that the minister has if there are not any listed in this particular list?

Mr. McCrae: I think that as part of the process of doing this work, schools and divisions that had aboriginal populations were particularly picked out for consultation knowing that aboriginal people and students and children were part of those divisions. So, no, I reject any suggestion that somebody has been left out because we needed to get at what the problems were and the issues were. We know that aboriginal children are as likely or more likely than other children to need better services, and so that was the focus of the work. But certainly, you know, if you want to make that point that the chief's organization or something like that was left out, I guess you can do that. The point is we went to real people and real issues.

Ms. Friesen: The point I was making was that there was no aboriginal representation on the steering committee and that there were no hearings held in aboriginal communities. So I was asking for what other evidence, what other lengths had been gone to. I gather the minister's argument is the divisions did it, if anything was done, and it is part of any case study. Yes, I am sure it is a part of case studies, but it is that direction that I was asking for information on.

Mr. McCrae: I remember the honourable member's question about the membership of the steering committee, and with due respect whoever was on the steering committee, in my opinion, that is not the point, but if the honourable member thinks it is, she can think that. All I am saying is what work was done and what problems were addressed, and the sense that I get from talking to my staff is that what the review attempted to do was actually solve something rather than make some political point. Approximately 700 people attended the six community forums which was part of this.

I do not want the honourable member to think that this was a matter of having a bunch of public hearings and then sitting down and writing a report. There was much more to it than that. Approximately 700 people attended the six community forums which were held across the province. They were held in Carman on Tuesday, November 18, 1997; and in Brandon on Saturday, December 6, 1997; and in Winnipeg on Saturday, January 17, 1998; in Thompson, Tuesday, February 17, 1998; in The Pas, Saturday, February 21, 1998, and in Selkirk, March 24, 1998.

There were 130 organizations and 70 individuals who made submissions to the review. Just on that point alone, I would hate for the honourable member to try to leave the impression that somebody was excluded because the numbers just simply do not suggest that at all. Over 1,000 administrators, teachers, parents, students, professionals and paraprofessionals participated in the 12 case studies; 18 interviews with staff from the provincial government departments involved, that I mentioned earlier, were conducted.

* (1640)

When you do not have forums in communities ranging from The Pas to Winnipeg, forums about special needs in our schools, when special needs programming is required more by aboriginal people on a per capita basis than everybody else, and you have 700 people attend. You would not have gotten 700 people to attend unless there was some notice out there that these things were happening. To suggest that there is something wrong with the aboriginal input or to suggest that aboriginal people were not welcome or were not included, why would we do this? What did it cost? [interjection] One hundred and forty-six thousand dollars, and the work went on for a couple of years. Why would you do it? Why would you do it if you are going to leave aboriginal people out? Because we know that quite a percentage of the kids in our province who have special needs are aboriginal kids. I mean it would really be stupid to proceed without doing that. I do not accept that anything stupid here happened because again I go back if the honourable member's Leader supports the implementation of this report. So what are we playing around with here? Are we going to get to some facts or are we going to do this all afternoon?

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the department has a Native Education Directorate. It is proposing that this become–in fact it has been proposing this for quite a while now–part of the overall planning of the department. That the directorate be involved in all aspects of planning, that the previous ministers have argued a different approach, that rather than having a single native education branch, the director would have a corporate policy and a corporate impact.

What struck me as very curious, and the minister may not think this is a fact, but it just struck me as quite curious that they were not involved, or that there was not a departmental native presence involved in the planning and direction of this. Is there a reason for that? Was it an oversight or what was the reason?

Mr. McCrae: The department is not so big or scattered around that we do not talk to each other. My understanding is that there was a continuous presence and ongoing sort of involvement of that part of the department. It needs to be said, too. I have been advised that many efforts were made to accommodate participation. A lot of community-based advertising was done at local schools and in surrounding communities. There was a 1-800 line available for information purposes. Participants all had an opportunity to talk. The forum gave all people who attended the chance to give their views and their opinions. There is simply no case to be made here by the honourable member with all due respect.

Whether these people showed up or not, I want the member to know that these were invited: the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Ma-Mow-We-Tak Centre, Manitoba Metis Federation at locations in Winnipeg, Brandon, The Pas and Thompson, Anishinaabe Child and Family Services and Project Neecheewan, Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services, Awasis Agency of northern Manitoba. These people are the ones who know who these kids are too, by the way, Flin Flon Indian and Metis Friendship Centre, The Pas Friendship Centre, Lynn Lake Friendship Centre, to name a few. Those are their three copies there.

All these people received invitations. I guess I am just having trouble understanding where the honourable member is coming from. I am an MLA and normally I bring forward stuff that somebody is complaining about. So they want me as an MLA representing people to bring forward and do something with it. I assume that is what the honourable member is doing. Who is complaining? That is what I need to know, because it is never too late to do the right thing, you know. If we have left somebody out, there is still a chance for us to get some input. This is an ongoing process.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to receive that information. That is what I was asking for.

Mr. McCrae: Well, I should have got it to you sooner, I admit that.

Ms. Friesen: Fair enough.

Mr. McCrae: I just said I should have got that sooner to you, I admit that.

Ms. Friesen: Thanks very much. Mr. Chair, those were issues of process and inclusivity. The minister has given me assurance that these invitations were made and accommodation to the review for doing that.

I want to move now to the recommendations. The minister is right in saying that there is general support in the community, as well as at the political level for most of the recommendations of the review. I think there are differences of timing. There are differences of concerns about how quickly some of the legal issues can be dealt with, I think, certainly at least in two of the parties.

I did want to go through some of the specific reviews, because they seemed to me to speak to some things which may or may not have been happening in the department over the last 11 years. If we could begin with the first recommendation which is that the province, and I will read it into the record, Mr. Chair, because I am quoting: The province develop a mechanism for tracking the actual special education programs and services being provided, and that this mechanism be compatible with the new program review process being developed by Manitoba Education and Training.

Now that seems to me–it is a very puzzling recommendation. Does this imply, as it seems to do, if you go to the body of the text, that the department does not now have a mechanism for tracking special education programs and services being provided? My impression was that the department had ADAPs. On the other hand, as this review also notes, the requirement for ADAPs to be reported to the department was dropped before this review was presented.

I have raised the issue of ADAPs before in this process. There is a great deal of variety in the way in which ADAPs are presented. I think there are certainly many arguments to be made for making that much more systematic across the system. But I was very puzzled. My impression is that many other people have been very puzzled by the department not requiring those ADAPs now to be reported to the department.

I had my concerns last time about these ADAPs because it did not seem to me that the department was actually reviewing them anymore. They were being presented. It was a single page that was being presented. There did not seem to be any response to the divisions: yes, you are on the right track; what are you doing here; why have you–there did not seem to be any response at all. I think some of the divisions certainly felt they were dropping these things into an empty pool. I think I am mixing metaphors there. Anyway, they felt that they were not getting any response. So rather than improve them, and I think there are a lot of arguments to be made for improvement there, the departments simply seemed to abandon them. So what happened there? Why does the review believe that the department has no mechanism for tracking? If that is the case, why is that the case after 11 years?

Mr. McCrae: I think that some of this existed but not to the extent that the proactive people think it should. That makes sense to me, that that kind of recommendation should appear. Let us get a good inventory of what is going on in every division. Do not forget, we are dealing with lots of different programs run by lots of different people. Some of this was done, I am advised, previous to the production of this report. But not all divisions had within what they were reporting to the department the same level of information. It is not something that was developed to the point the honourable member's question suggests maybe should have been.

I guess if everything was the way it should be, then you would not need a report in the first place. I think there is a recognition that everything is not as it should be and that there is work to be done. All the money, a doubling of investment in these children has not solved all the problems. Therein lies the reason for going ahead with this work.

* (1650)

The program review process referred to in that first recommendation will be a comprehensive look at what the divisions are doing. In many areas we are going to be starting this in September. We are going to work with the divisions to develop the process and the mechanisms.

I guess it is easy to say that if you are going to start something new, then I guess it is easy to say: why did you not do that 20 years ago or 11 years ago or whenever you had a chance to do something about it? The fact is, there are lots of services being delivered to children now, $111 million worth, and if you do not have the kind of inventory that we are talking about with this recommendation, you do run the risk of maybe having some overlap and the kinds of things that the Child and Youth Secretariat, for example, is attempting to improve on, that being some sense that each child is getting the best that the system can provide within the ability of the resources to make available to those kids.

I just repeat, I do not think it is fair of the honourable member, but I cannot stop her from concluding that if this is the recommendation that it should have been done before. Well, if it had been done before, we would not need the recommendation. I think we all recognize that we need these recommendations to do something better for our children. When these ADAPs were first initiated there was a lot of feedback that went back to divisions and many changes and improvements were made over that time.

This is not unlike New Directions. Just because we come out with some ideas to improve special needs education, by that I do not think we should be concluding that what we have been doing is bad, which is the implication in the question. I think the honourable member might want to review her thinking on that. This is not a contest. This is a job we all want to do for our kids. I will not go further than that. We have only got a few more minutes.

Unless the honourable member wants to get into a debate, I am quite happy to do that, but in the course of it, I would have to be asking questions as well as just giving answers. My role is apparently just to give answers. So the honourable member has an advantage on me because, strictly speaking, I am just supposed to be answering questions. I have got a lot of questions for the honourable member. I have a feeling she will not answer them even if I do ask them.

Before I conclude on that, a little while ago, and this is thanks to the responsiveness of my staff here, we have made material available to the divisions, all superintendents and chairs of school boards. This is the letter that I sent out when we came up with the $2 million additional for this year. I am going to give the honourable member a copy of the letter that I sent. I can table it if that is the easiest way or the best way to do it. I have only got the one copy.

The other material I am going to give to the honourable member I am not going to table because I think that really all she wants is to have it. If she wants it tabled, she can arrange for that. There is a PowerPoint presentation that we have been sharing. We have an application form for the Early Behaviour Intervention initiative, a submission review check list. I mean, we have tried to make some progress here. We are trying very hard, given the shortness of the time we have had. I just think we need to just go at this. I am very pleased with the people we have doing this, and I am pleased that that is happening because it demonstrates that kind of commitment. Another multipage document, three or four pages, that sort of enlarges on what is in the letter and maybe talks about the criteria and submission review check list.

So I am going to give all of this just directly to the honourable member, and then if she wants to see it tabled, she could do that. I have no problem with that. So I will pass that over to her. I do this because I want to demonstrate that we have tried to hit the ground running, and, besides that, the honourable member asked for whatever information we could make available to her.

Ms. Friesen: The minister wants to talk about fairness and equality here. I see eight staff, no, seven staff, is it, sitting here, and he believes that he is at a disadvantage? It strikes me as a little odd. And I think there are a few more behind the eight, and I think there is a great deal of information that the minister has that I will never have. So I do not think the minister should want to portray himself at some disadvantage here. Of course, I know the minister enjoys answering questions, and he certainly enjoys the informal debate that comes with the questions and answers.

I do think it is fair to ask about the ADAPs. We are talking here about a process of reporting and evaluation. It is one of the fastest growing areas of finance in the Department of Education. Many ministers have told us that. So the evaluation and reporting and accounting of the spending of that money in special education I would think would have been a focus for the department over quite a long period of time. And, yes, it is appropriate for the special needs review to suggest that there are better ways of reporting this.

But what I am curious about–and the minister did not address this part; in fact, I can remind him of it–is the ADAP system which was developed by the department to address this need for accountability for the increasing dollars which are spent in special needs, and yet (a) the feeling on the part of divisions that they were not getting any response or guidance on that; (b) perhaps the sense of the department that these were not very useful and that, hence, there was not the kind of continuing discussion with departments; and (c) the initiation by the department of a change in policy before the special needs review reported, and that was the dropping of the requirement that these ADAPs–which are, after all, the only form at the moment of reporting to the department on what special needs programs exist and how they are put into place, how many children they serve, what kinds of needs are met, and how these policies change year by year. It is a simple–well, not simple, but it is a straightforward and I believe the only form of accountability for the particular special needs policies across this province.

My question is why was that dropped and how does that connect to the kind of unease, dissatisfaction that this review clearly found with respect to the tracking of special education programs?

Mr. McCrae: I guess I came into these Estimates naively, Mr. Chairman. I thought we were going to engage in some meaningful discussion about our kids and how we can make things better for our kids, and what I am finding is the honourable member hidden in some pretty nice language. There are little arrows in there that are not helping in terms of a meaningful debate. You know, to make reference to staff of the Department of Education, there are about 600 people in the Department of Education, the K to 12 part. We have about 200,000 students out there, I think, in Manitoba. What point is the honourable member trying to make, the fact that I said that she has got me at a disadvantage? [interjection]

It was meant to be a compliment to the skill of the honourable member in debating, but this is not a debate. I mean, I am trying–it is not supposed to be anyway, but at every turn I have tried to be responsive to the honourable member, and what I am finding is the debate is what is the thing here. Well, fine, I can do that. I mean, I have been around here, I know how to debate, but it is just that, is this what Estimates is all about?

Ms. Friesen: ADAPs. Tell me about ADAPs. That was the question. You did not answer it.

Mr. McCrae: I am not going to be bullied either, you know.

Ms. Friesen: I am not bullying him.

Mr. McCrae: I am a member of this House.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, to continue with your response.

Mr. McCrae: I have rights, too, as an individual person of this House. As a minister, I am earnestly trying to put forward ideas and programming and leadership that will be good for our kids. I expect a little good, healthy discussion about things but, I mean, I am just being berated here today.

I do not know. On behalf of the kids, I do not think it is right. I do not think this is right. I do not think this is fair to the kids. We are not just dropping things. We are trying to do things better. She is talking about the ADAPs. They were not dropped.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.