LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Wednesday, May 25, 1994
The House met at 7:30
p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order?
The committee will be resuming consideration of the
Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 5.(a)(1) on page 43 of the Estimates book.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, as I indicated last night, I was going to try and bring
additional information to the committee with respect to Workforce 2000.
I undertook to try and provide additional information with
respect to Caron's Collectibles Inc.
This company produces customized greeting cards and business cards by
doing the design work and printing the product to customer specifications.
The total value of training was $18,000 for 168 hours of
training for two employees. The cost to
Workforce 2000 was $10,000, representing 56 percent of the eligible costs of
training. Workforce 2000 funds up to 75
percent of eligible costs of training to a maximum of $10,000 per fiscal year.
The training was specifically tailored to meet the business
requirements of Caron's. This training
involved new digital graphics technology specifically tailored to permit
Caron's to take a painting or drawing, scan it and digitally transfer that
painting or drawing to a press system.
The training included familiarization with several input technologies
such as computer‑assisted design, 3‑D rendering, motion‑video
imaging, photographic compact discs and desktop communications. This is an active company.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also undertook to provide some additional
information with respect to Murray Chev Olds:
Training of nine employees for 120 hours of training in quality
assurance, this was done by Automotive Service Consultants Inc. The total cost of training was $26,600. The actual Workforce 2000 contribution was
$9,258.
I might point out that of interest was the fact that the
Workforce 2000 training consultant did background research to ascertain whether
this specific training‑‑and we are talking about training related
to the introduction of new processes to the businesses‑‑had
received government support in other jurisdictions.
In 1992, the Ontario Skills Development program approved
funding to seven dealerships in Thunder Bay, Ontario, for applied service‑management
training delivered by Automotive Service Consultants. The training was rated as excellent by the
participating dealerships. Prior to the
training, the needs assessment measured existing system efficiencies and
provided a cost‑benefit analysis which was utilized as the basis for onsite
training. A monitor was conducted by
Workforce 2000 training consulting at the first classroom session in Portage la
Prairie. Training was well organized and
received a positive response. A second
monitor occurred onsite at Murray Chev Olds.
The trainer met with all of the participating employees, requested
feedback from participants, and then incorporated that feedback into subsequent
training at the dealership.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is the information that I have
to provide at this time.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I want to thank the minister for that. I wondered if he would have an address where
one could actually have an example of Caron's Collectibles. That was what I was having difficulty finding
from the information the minister gave us.
Is there a business address or somewhere one could look at the greeting
cards or purchase them?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have that
information. I am led to believe,
though, that they are not a formal business in the sense of being
registered. They are an informal
business, and they are located outside of the city of Winnipeg.
* (1935)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): After we had the break, I had asked the deputy
minister if he could get me some figures.
Unfortunately, I was not able to get here early enough to talk to him in
advance to it. I believe he has it now,
maybe. I am wondering if the minister
can just clarify what the specific funding formula is for special needs I.
Mr. Manness: For Level I, you take the population, you
divide by 180, and whatever that quotient comes to, you then multiply by
$43,700, or allowable expenditures, whichever is less.
Mr. Lamoureux: When we had left, when I had asked the
question, again I am not 100 percent accurate, but Hansard would demonstrate, I
believe it was, the minister, when I asked him specifically about St. John's‑Ravenscourt,
he had indicated that you take the number and you multiply it by 154. So, using the formula the minister just
finished talking about, that would not indicate, then, that St. John's‑Ravenscourt
would receive, if you go‑‑I understand there are approximately 650
students. If you divide that, you are
looking at 4, say, times the 43,000. It
would be a grant of approximately $157,000 to St. John's‑Ravenscourt?
Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a
different formula in place for the private schools. The private schools, in this case, is a $154
times the student enrollment, $154 per student.
The number, the product, then, is much less than the $157,000 referenced
by the member.
Mr. Lamoureux: I do not have my calculator here, but I
believe it would be around $100,000 for St. John's‑Ravenscourt. I did ask questions with respect to
that. I do not want to continue on that
particular line. I think that the
minister indicates that he has a committee that is addressing the whole issue
of special needs and the different funding formulas that are out there.
It was interesting, I did get the chance to talk to the
member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) after we had broken, and she had
indicated to me that Alberta, in fact, went back to the old system, from what I
understand. They used to do what we
currently do, and because of the discrepancy between the different school
divisions and the independent schools, I understood that they actually went
back to the way we used to do it, which no doubt, administratively, was an
additional cost in order to implement, but it was more fair than the current
formula. I do not know if the minister
would want to comment on that. If not, I
would like to continue on to another area.
Mr. Manness: Only to say this, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
that we must remember that there was an equivalent per student last year
provided of $63 in support of special needs.
So that, then, does not represent, when one looks this year compared to
last year, $100,000 increase to the institution mentioned. It basically represents $60,000, yes, a
$60,000, in rough terms, increase.
As far as the Alberta situation, if the member is asking us
to emulate education funding in Manitoba compared to if he wants us to change
the system of funding in Manitoba to reflect that in Alberta, I would hope he
would state that for the record.
Generally overall, they took 10.8 percent out of the system and,
certainly, there is a mature system of funded support in Alberta that has never
existed, in other words, a fully funded Catholic school, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.
* (1940)
It would be nice to be able to pick and choose the best of
everything, but unfortunately that is not possible. What we have decided to do, and we said we
were doing, we will review again as governments have long before us and indeed
continue to do‑‑every three or four years special needs
requirements are reviewed. It has tried
to be determined with greater accuracy where the logistics lie, where the
greater focus is, because these issues shift over a period of time. I say, in all honesty, that we are committed
to that. As I indicated on the record
the other night, we have funding in place to do this analysis and maybe after
we have the results and do the evaluations, at that time we may again change
the funding formula to reflect those realities.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just wanting to
move on and not necessarily having the last word because the minister might
want to comment on it again.
I believe what I was referring to is the model that Alberta
is using, not necessarily the amounts of dollars that are being allocated out
to special needs. It is just that they
are recognizing that there is a difference in the social economic demographics
of different regions in the province and felt that working on a straight
percentage across the province was not, in fact, appropriate. This is what Alberta is, in fact,
acknowledging.
This is what we did acknowledge up to the change that his
predecessor in Roblin‑Russell implemented, that particular change. I believe that it was pointed out to him at that
point in time, that that will cause a number of discrepancies depending on the
school division that you are in. Some
will be penalized more than others.
I did want to move on to the whole question of block
grants, I should say conditional dollars, that are tied. For example, the Department of Education will
say we want to have libraries enhanced, and we are anticipating that the school
divisions will use this block amount of dollars towards improving libraries or
whatever else it might be.
I am wondering if the minister can just give some sort of
an idea‑‑money that is actually tied from the Department of
Education that goes into the school divisions, how is that followed up to
ensure that the monies that are being allocated are in fact being used for what
they have been allocated for?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are into the area
of categorical grants, and the FRAME budget which we provided to the member, I
believe last night, shows division by division, the amount of expenditure
within the library services area. I
might indicate that there has always been an on‑running dialogue between
school divisions and the department as to whether or not there should be fewer
categorical grants and therefore greater block funding that would lead to
greater flexibility at the school division level. That is an ongoing discussion and will
continue to be, I am sure, regardless of who is in government at what time.
I think it is important to indicate that the Provincial
Auditor has reviewed the Schools Finance Branch. Of course, the Provincial Auditor wanted to
indicate, or at least find out, come to some conclusion, as to whether or not
receiving divisions were spending money in accordance with the direction of the
funding as laid out in the formula.
By the Provincial Auditor's assessment, at least, there was
compliance as far as school divisions' spending in the areas that had not been
targeted by way of funding formula, including library services.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate under the
categorical grants what would be the library services policy or the
conditions? I am not too sure of the
actual wording that I should be using, but how has the minister instructed the
expenditure of monies towards libraries?
Mr. Manness: The definitions, of course, again come out of
the glossary of terms that are presented in the FRAME reporting document, and
the formula is the lesser of eligible enrollment divided by 600, multiplied
also by that $43,700, plus $15 per eligible enrollment. So it is the lesser of that or allowable
expenditures. In other words, that is
the maximum one can receive, yet if the division spends less on that by way of
the FRAME accounting, if less is spent, then they do not receive what the
formula would provide; they receive an amount equivalent to what they actually
spent.
* (1945)
Mr. Lamoureux: The department monitors that. Again, the Provincial Auditor goes through
the department's and the school divisions' budget to confirm that. I am not completely sure or understand in
terms of how the Department of Education ensures that the money is actually
being spent, in this case, for libraries.
One of the specific reasons why I bring it up is because of the resource‑based
learning document in which there are strong recommendations in terms of that
provincial involvement.
Some of the individuals that I have talked to actually gave
good marks to the government if in fact they follow through on some of
this. A couple of the concerns that were
quite specific were how government ensures that there is some accountability to
the monies that they have allocated out.
That is the reason why I ask the question.
Mr. Manness: We do not have the capacity to go through all
of the line‑by‑line expenditures of school divisions to determine
whether or not the proper allocation as to category has been done by their
administration. So we rest very heavily
on the audited financial report from the school divisions as prepared by
obviously creditable outside auditing firms.
We, therefore, I guess, put a lot of trust in the
professional accountancy trade and the way that they certify the audited
financial statements of the school division, because they also know that
obviously the professionalism around their column would be severely impacted if
they misallocated these numbers to the wrong category. We very much heavily rely on the financial
statements of school divisions.
Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister indicate, how would the
department measure or evaluate the success of the school library funding? How would they measure that? Is there something?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is very
difficult. It is hard enough to measure
the effectiveness of the whole public school model, let alone to take a subset
and indicate whether or not library services were contributing greatly or could
contribute even more to success. We all
intuitively know that libraries and resource materials have a real fundamental
role to play in learning. We accept
that.
Now, the member says, well, to what degree is it
important? I cannot answer that question
other than to say, good libraries, well managed, well used by the student body
are obviously tremendous resources.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the other area that I
wanted to comment on was, and I had made reference to it at the beginning of
the Estimates, and that was the actual cost that would be put on to the
Department of Education because of offloading from other departments.
I am wondering if the Minister of Education could give us
some sort of an idea. An example that I
quite often use is the additional demands on our schools and professionals in
education to provide counselling, physiotherapy, the whole special needs issue
again could come into this area, where at one point in time other departments
were picking up the tab for this. I am
wondering if the minister could give us some sort of indication where the
government currently is at with respect to trying to come to grips with the
offloading from the other departments.
* (1950)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member would like
to pretend, and I know others in the education field would too, that this is
the fault of other departments. Set up
the enemy now as being the Department of Health or the Department of Family
Services. We are a government. We govern in an attempt to reach out to the
needs of all our citizens. Where the
funding comes from or what Estimates we happen to be in does not really mean a
lot.
The great arbiter becomes the Treasury Board process, the
Premier and the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board ministers, who sit
and make these decisions. They are not
made in the closed context of this department versus that department versus the
next department, they are made in the context of the greater good for our
citizens.
The member seems to believe that if Health now picked up a
greater share of some of the health‑associated costs that appear to be
happening and that are happening within the public school system, and if Family
Services would embrace a larger measure of the costs that are having to be
picked up by Education, then Education would be better off. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is kind of an
academic argument. Those two areas have
not offloaded. How can you say that
Health has offloaded, when we have put $500 million more into Health in the
seven budgets that we have brought forward.
So what is the member then saying?
Well, you should have put $600 million more into Health. It would have kept pure the funding with
respect to Education, not ask it to do more things.
The reality is, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have asked
Health, within their $1.8 or $1.9 billion budgets, to do more things. We have asked Family Services, within their
area of budget, to do more things. That
is because we have identified more needs or more problems. There are more professionals coming along
pointing out to the problems, and there just has not been any more money. So we have to do as much and more with
less. Education is no different.
Some would like to set up this wall of demarcation and say,
well, keep all the health problems out of education, keep everything else out
of education.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, government did not impose in all
the cases. Society said that they wanted
the school to do certain things. Society
said that they wanted the government through the Department of Health to do
certain things. Society has also said
that they will pay only so much for accomplishing all of the good around the
needs, real and perceived, that are out there.
Of course, the greater arbiter becomes the government of the day.
* (1955)
I say to the member, I know where he is going. He would like to say there would be more
support for education if we could more clearly define the roles and keep them
within their boundaries. It is not that
simple.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to bring up an
example that is quite often brought up to me in my capacity as Education
critic. That is, for example, when
mainstreaming came into place, when government decided that the special needs
students should be integrated into the public educational system, and society
is what dictated to government, at least in part, that that be‑‑[interjection]
Well, the minister says totally. I
believe that everyone that was associated was quite supportive of seeing
mainstreaming done, but I believe there was also an expectation that the level
of funding would also be there to support that.
Using this as a specific example, I was not around when it
was actually implemented, at least inside the Chamber. Can the minister indicate the year in which
that would have been implemented and be able to demonstrate the difference? What sort of an increase in funding would
have went to, let us say, the Department of Education, because no doubt there
would have been a substantial decrease in Health?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think this process
started in Canada 15 years ago. It may
have been 12 years ago. It may have been
16. I could ask the educators around
this table. They would know as well as
me as to when mainstreaming really began.
Certainly it started in the '70s, from my memory, in a significant
fashion, and it has been growing ever since.
Governments have been putting incredible amounts of money into education
to take into account this and other demands.
If you want to look at the history of education funding
through the '70s and '80s, when all types of political parties were in
government, there was an explosion of the number of dollars that went into
education. As I have said many times,
this explosion of dollars, of revenue going in, was based not on taxing people
of the day but for the most part was borrowed money. At the end of the day, society turned around
and they saw, and still do see, incredible needs, but the ability to borrow is
no longer there. So then it becomes a
period of very difficult decisions.
The member for Inkster, today, gave us some incite as to
how the Liberal government, if they become government, how the Liberal Party
will handle the situation. They are
saying they are going to put even more money into education. They will pull it off of property, and they
are going to tax people. They are going
to increase personal income taxes significantly.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the equation is the same. I will not let the member move into this
dialogue on special needs and the funding and the support thereof unless he is
prepared to accept dialogue around the larger picture. The larger picture dictates that the
government of the day can only reach so far in trying to solve the problems or
direct funding in support of all of the pure academic areas of education, also
the desire of society to see all students of all mental capacities and indeed
of physical capacities have opportunities that somehow are equitable, but at
the end of the day, somebody has to, of course, pay for all of this activity.
* (2000)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I would go to
the minister and look at some of the social services that are being
administered today, particularly some of the school divisions, where you will
have breakfast programs, in some cases lunch programs. It is not necessarily because of individuals
were wanting to have their children have breakfast at school and this is why
the program was instituted, it is because in many cases the children were not
eating before coming to school and their minds during the morning would have
been on eating, therefore not enabling them to learn what is being taught, if
you like.
There just tends to be, and this is a consistent discussion
that I have with different interest groups, more and more reliance on
Department of Education to pick up on costs that are not necessarily related
directly to education. I guess I am most
interested in trying to find out what, if anything, the Department of Education
is doing to at the very least recognize that.
Is there something that is in place saying, look, this is in fact what
it is costing the Department of Education to be able to do, this aspect of it,
even though it might not directly be teaching in the classroom or however else one
might want to say it.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we reviewed
this issue in part the other day when we talked about the $10 million or $10.2
million that was put into at‑risk funding, 60 percent of it or at least
$5.9 million going to Winnipeg School Division No. 1, to take into account some
of the variables or factors that the member addresses in his commentary.
Money is not going to fix all of the problems that the
member addresses. He may not believe
it. I know there are some in the
education field who believe that if there were twice the amount of money then
all the problems will be fixed. That is
not true. I do not pretend to be an
expert in the field, but I do watch human nature and activity very, very
closely.
I am mindful, as I look around either in our own backyard
as a province or whether I look at other developing countries where indeed the
level of support, individual, by family and/or by state is a pittance as
compared to what we have here by way of state support. Yet, in those circumstances, I see the love
of learning that is in the house.
Nothing comes before it, absolutely nothing, so much so that the
parents, they will find, they will give the highest priority possible to making
sure their children are fed and have shelter and have comfort so they are in a
position to learn. These are
socioeconomic factors that exist in some of the poorest countries in the world.
I am not saying anything other than if there is a desire
for learning and it comes No. 1 within the household, however you define it
today, there will be means. But, I
recognize that the love of learning is not No. 1 within the Canadian context in
many of our homes, not only that, within the North American context. So society has taken upon itself, either
through the province supporting by way of $10 million and/or school divisions
going beyond that, they have taken upon themselves the responsibility for
trying to be the surrogate comforter, surrogate parent, if you will. That works to a degree, but that in itself
will never make up for the shortfall in the home.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because I know there
are other members who wanted to ask some additional questions on this, I wanted
to emphasize at no point have I ever indicated that the overall budget of
Education, in order to deliver a better quality education, that you have to
increase the overall budget of Education.
I have suggested, I believe on numerous occasions, that you need to
change the way in which monies, tax dollars, are in fact being collected.
I just thought it was important that I put that on the
record. It is not to limit what it is
that I might say in the future in terms of the overall budget for Education,
but there has been a significant amount of movement towards more regressive
forms of taxation, whether the minister wants to acknowledge it or not.
I just want to make that point, because I know when he goes
out to speak he constantly makes mention that you do not have to throw dollars
in order to resolve the problems facing education. I believe the minister also has to
acknowledge that there is a need for adequate resources, and if in fact it is
demonstrated, then it comes to a question of government's priority.
If there is a shortfall of dollars to provide an adequate
level of quality education, then there is a need for additional dollars. We see that through independent schools where
there have been hefty increases during the same period of time in terms of tuitions. So to try to say that the dollar has
absolutely nothing to do‑‑or to increase the education does not
necessarily guarantee the quality of education will get better‑‑is
somewhat misleading.
I think that if the money is allocated, and there is accountability,
and there is monitoring, the more money that you provide, the better the
quality of education you are going to be able to deliver. For the minister to make the blanket
statement that, look, we are going to operate from within‑‑and I
must admit it is like the whole education reform package. I only started hearing about education reform
when the minister decided that he is going to have a cut. The previous ministers, I did not hear them
going around saying what the current Minister of Education is in fact
saying. So I just wanted to say that and
let other individuals here ask some questions.
Mr. Manness: What you have now is the classic case of
confession by the member for Inkster and the classic backup scenario where he
is trying to protect himself from the statements he made earlier. I am not going to let him do that. The Liberals are fully on the record stating
that they would like to see the removal of education tax on property, and they
would like to see it funded out of the consolidated revenue. They would, in other words, like to see
income taxes go up significantly and/or payroll taxes and/or sales tax and all
the consumption taxes.
I acknowledge they are both taxes. What the Liberal Party is saying is that they
are now going to see a significant shift.
They are going to call on income taxpayers and consumers of products
that are now taxed to pay a significant higher level of levy.
My final comment in respect to the member's statement is
that he says that they have never said we should put more money into
education. When the member is talking
about not sufficiently funding special needs, what he is saying is that you
have not put enough money in, or else you are putting too much money in another
area of education.
Again, I challenge him to tell me what areas of education,
either by division within the public school sense, what divisions are we
putting too much money in? Are we
putting too much money into community colleges?
Are we putting too much into universities? Are we putting too much into other areas of
education so that we should direct more to special needs? I mean, he has to do more than just say, no,
these are the priority areas, find some more money within the education envelope.
I would hope that he would find it within his heart to tell
us what areas he would then reduce, because I think that is crucial. And if he wants to be open with the public, I
would suggest that he provide that information.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a pleasure to
participate in the debates concerning the Department of Education and
Training. I want to raise a few issues
this evening in terms of the Lord Selkirk School Division. As the minister is aware, the Lord Selkirk
School Division No. 11 experienced reduced revenues and government grants,
minus 5.88 percent or a reduction of over $1 million in the 1994‑95
school year. This will result in the
staff reductions of 47.5 full‑time staff, 25 professional staff and 22.5
support staff. As well, they will be
required to close the system down for eight days because of Bill 22, and there
also will be a reduction in the transportation budget for extracurricular field
trips by $60,000, which would explain why there are no children visiting from
Selkirk to the Legislative Building in the last couple of weeks.
I want to ask the minister, in light of all these cuts,
what action is he prepared to take, or what action has he taken to alleviate
the effects of these cuts upon the students and the staff at the Lord Selkirk
School Division?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is part of the
record. We addressed that. Outside of the formula, we have tried to work
out or offer an arrangement to Transcona‑Springfield whereby we would
advance a level of funding from next year's proceeds to try and help for a
period of a year so that the impact of the decisions that they have finally
agreed to did not have to be quite as severe.
Secondly, once the effect of the taxation cap is off, and I am talking
now about Bill 16, they will have an opportunity to decide either to find
additional expenditures and/or go to the local ratepayer for additional
revenue.
* (2010)
I point out to the member, I know he must be fully aware,
that in 1992‑93 this division received a 3 percent increase. I would point out that in '93‑94, given
that there was a 4.2 percent reduction in student count, there was a 3.4
percent reduction in funding. In '94‑95,
the member, of course, regrettably, fails to point out that there is a further
reduction in student count of 5.5 percent.
Nobody really talks about that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. Nobody wishes to be honest and open with the
facts. That, in part, is responsible for
the reduction of 5.9 percent, as indicated to the member.
There is another obviously outside impact, and that is, of
course, the reassessment impact. It has
hit this division hard. I took that into
account. It hit many divisions
hard. I sense this division and Agassiz
School Division No. 12 warranted some special consideration, the only two
divisions throughout all of Manitoba that I sensed we should try and find some
solution to deal with their problem.
Mr. Dewar: In the beginning of your answer, you
mentioned Transcona‑Springfield.
Were you referring to Transcona‑Springfield or to Lord Selkirk?
Mr. Manness: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the
record should show Lord Selkirk. I was
in error. Yes, I did mistakenly say
Transcona‑Springfield. I meant
Lord Selkirk.
Mr. Dewar: I do not agree with the position put forward
by the Leader of the Liberal Party, and that, of course, is to kill a grant or
a loan to a business that is interested in setting up in Selkirk, which,
according to the Liberal Leader, if you were to follow his logic, would mean
the killing of 594 jobs in the community.
He suggested that instead of giving that grant to a reputable firm, they
use that money to help the school division.
Well, I do not agree with that.
There are other means, of course, to help the school division. My colleagues have mentioned numerous
examples of funding for elite schools and some of the questionable grants given
to Workforce 2000, the $600,000 that is spent by the Lotteries corporation promoting
Conservative backbenchers in the Selkirk paper.
It is a great series. Every week
there is a new one, and we have a chance to view all the fine work of the
Conservative backbenchers as they go around cutting ribbons. This is, of course, dubious work on their
behalf.
Another thing is the Manitoba Telephone System. They recently had to double their advertising
budget from $3 million to $6 million because of long‑distance
competition. So there is plenty of money
there that the minister could have brought forward and used to support the
public education system in Manitoba.
As the minister is aware, the Lord Selkirk School Division
No. 11 encompasses an area much larger than simply the town of Selkirk. William S. Patterson School is in Clandeboye,
which is in the Gimli constituency, and Happy Thought and Walter Whyte are in
the Lac du Bonnet constituency. I would
like to know, what representation has the minister received from the member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer) or the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) in terms of
these cuts to their school division?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thought the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was all over the map. The member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), he makes
no sense at all.
I did not hear the member for Selkirk criticize Workforce
2000 when directing some funding to the Selkirk Rolling Mills. I have never heard one word of
criticism. Indeed, I have not even heard
criticism from the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). So the member has to be consistent. When he runs down Workforce 2000, then he had
better try and be somewhat consistent.
I should also correct for the record, I was looking at the
wrong chart when I was talking about per pupil reductions, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. I was in error when I made
reference to Lord Selkirk as if there was a significant reduction in pupils.
I do not know what the essence of the member's question
is. Is he asking me to justify how it is
that there have been some expenditures within Crown corporations that have
increased? Is he asking me why I did not
begin to attach myself to these levels of funding for communication purposes in
Crowns and move it into the public school system? I do not know what he is suggesting. All I can say is that Lord Selkirk School
Division had an impact, through reassessment, had a loss of $360,000. We also know, at least by the financial
audited statement of the school division as of June 30, 1993, almost a year
ago, that that school division had a surplus of $450,000.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we also know that the special levy
mill rate at 12.7 is amongst the lower, but I will not pass judgment on
anybody's local mill rate. So there are
decisions that school divisions have had to make, obviously, and most have made
them because they understand fully well that government today and government
tomorrow is not going to have large sums of money to direct to school boards by
way of grant. Anybody who wants to be
honest with themselves, they do not need to be honest with me and they do not
need to be particularly honest with the government, but if they are going to be
honest with themselves, they will know that governments are at the realities of
a time when there are not going to be significant increases in revenue. We may be in this period for a couple of
years yet.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that most school
divisions, including Lord Selkirk, realize this. As distasteful as some of the decisions are
that they have had to make, I know that in the long run the school divisions
will just be in a better position to deal with the eventualities of the future
because of the decisions they have had to make, like many others have across
the province.
Mr. Dewar: In terms of the MRM, I spent two and a half
years of my life working in the rolling mills.
I do not need any lesson on the Manitoba Rolling Mills. As I worked there I recall that there was a
serious commitment made by the Pawley administration to that particular
facility. I know that we had a chance to
visit there recently and discuss many, many topics with the president, and they
at least showed us their curriculum in terms of their grant they received.
I do not believe that we have had a chance to see the
curriculum from Keystone Ford owned of course by Mr. Kozminski.
The question I was raising was, are we getting any
help? I am speaking of the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), who has raised this issue, and myself. Are we getting any help from the member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer), the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik)? Their constituencies are also within the
boundaries of the Lord Selkirk School Division.
Are we getting any help from them in our fight to stop this attack on
the Lord Selkirk School Division?
Apparently they have not. They
have sat around the table and said, go ahead do it, cut it. They have done absolutely nothing. They are silent. They are in the bunker on this issue.
* (2020)
I just want to know, has the minister received any comment
from them? Where do they stand on this
cut to their school division?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know how
that question is in order. Did I ask the
member whether his Leader put him up to this question? Is this what they discuss at their
caucus? Because he has no notoriety in
the Selkirk community, has his Leader put him up to asking this question so he
can run around with Hansard and say that he has protected Lord Selkirk? I would think that question would be as out
of order as much as the one he posed to me.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Deputy Chair, at a recent meeting of the
board of trustees of the school division they passed the following resolution
that the board appealed to the Minister of Education and Training with regard
to the 1994‑95 funding. They asked
to meet with the minister. I ask the
minister if he had a chance to meet with the board of trustees of the Lord
Selkirk School Division No. 11.
Mr. Manness: I had a meeting, as of this morning coming
in, with the Lord Selkirk School Division, I believe set for May 31 at eleven
o'clock. My secretary had to cancel that
today because of another meeting of education reform that has come
forward. I am meeting with all the
partners in education on education reform again on May 31. I have asked the Lord Selkirk School Division
to set the next best time for them as quickly as possible that I might meet.
Mr. Harry Schellenberg
(Rossmere): I have more concerns, maybe some questions,
concerns passed on to me by parents, teachers, trustees. I appreciate your comment that love of
learning is maybe lacking sometimes in our schools. That climate is fostered by government,
education leaders over the years. I do
not mean just right now either.
As we look at your whole funding formula, as I have been
listening here, it is based on really the three Rs. It seems to be the basic educational
philosophy to support that. You can see
the cuts to specialists like phys ed, guidance.
Those are cut. It seemed like they
maybe are not too important. The grants
to them are cut, as I understand. Also,
there is great fear that physical education and the Independent Skills for
Living will become optional courses.
There are those fears, and there has not been too much support for
extracurricular activities, and also the belief in teaching the whole child
seems to be slipping somewhat.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
The dropout rate is increasing. I am not just blaming the government of the
day. That is a great concern, violence
and abuse, and people are concerned about the‑‑I just got a phone
call today‑‑educators about the emotional, social, physical needs
of students.
Will the educational reform revitalize our schools? We are not looking for perfection. That is a question that I would like to leave
with you. I know it is very general,
very broad, very difficult to deal with.
But how will our classrooms be changed so that there is a love of
learning? It is very difficult, I
realize, but it is more of a‑‑I raise that as more of a concern and
as an issue.
Also, there is fear that we might be going back to the '50s
and '60s. We do have the '90s now, and
the solutions to our problems are very different. We have a very different student. That is a concern. If we look at the early Greeks and Romans,
and I just paged through a book recently, they emphasized music, drama, art,
phys ed, excellence and so forth, and they, of course, built great, great
civilization, and their educational system was the basis of it.
I do not know if we have really addressed the issue of
revitalizing our schools. That is my
major concern, and that is being passed on to me continuously by people in the
educational field.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know
where to begin. I guess I could spent
two hours in addressing the issues brought forward. Certainly the concern as posed in the
question is one shared by most of us around this table.
I have to correct the member, though. In the preamble he talked about reduced
funding for phys ed and for some of the other‑‑Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, we do not fund by subject.
The funding formula has nothing to do with subject matter. We provide funding on the basis of students
and classrooms, so I do not know what he is talking about funding. Maybe he is mixing it up with the fact that
we have not seen fit to fill the position of the physical education consultant
within the department, and that is a long stretch away from not funding
physical education.
I say to the member and I realize he is new to this
process, but be very, very careful what information one receives from those who
lobby you and always check it out with another source. If it is something that one does not do, he
ends up ultimately being horribly embarrassed and losing a lot of credibility
along the way.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, revitalizing the schools, I
think it is the issue that bedevils not the province of Manitoba and outside of
any other province of Canada, outside of any nation in North America, outside
of the western civilization as we know it.
It is facing all of us. The
member talks about bygone civilizations, Greek and Roman, and I have studied
those civilizations also, and the member is right. These were well‑rounded students, but
the first focus was on literacy, the first focus beyond that was on mathematics
and science, and yes, there were expectations beyond those courses which were
included in the day‑to‑day learning, and good students came from
that.
I find it difficult to accept that from a teacher‑‑the
reading tells me that there was structure, incredible structure in the learning
environment, incredible respect shown to the educational leaders of the day.
So the member can talk, and I can talk, and any person can
talk about the well‑rounded program.
They can talk about the curriculum being improved. They can talk about more options, again, to
making the well‑rounded student, but I can tell you one thing, unless you
have structure in that classroom and you have respect for who is imparting the
knowledge, you have got nothing, virtually nothing.
If you are not prepared to give thought to the process of
learning when you are not in school‑‑in other words, if you are not
prepared at times to take some work home and practise some of the thought
process, the critical thinking, the problem‑solving at times other than
the classroom, there is also a difficulty.
So the issue is monumental.
The member talks about going back to reading, writing and
arithmetic. I do not know what he is
talking about. I honestly do not know
what he is‑‑
An Honourable Member: There are those fears.
* (2030)
Mr. Manness: Oh, well, so there are fears. Yes, yes, because it is so easy in this game
to brand somebody something. I have
never used anywhere‑‑can somebody show me in quotes?‑‑Where
I have used the term "back to the basics." Not one person, and I have challenged
hundreds, can show me that. But the
fears, the telegraph of drums passing along the message that this Minister of
Education wants to lurch this system back 50 years, back to readin', writin'
and 'rithmetic.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I said was that I will
do everything in the system that I possibly can to make sure that those
students once they have achieved Grade 9 or 10 standing have an understanding
of literacy, and that is not the proper term, but are literate far beyond what
they are today even though they are in Grade 12. That will mean, yes, that there is going to
be some increased focus on the core subject areas, and I make no apology for
that.
Because today if you cannot read, and if you cannot write,
you therefore cannot comprehend, you cannot pull yourself up. The basis of everything you do beyond formal
education is dependent upon your ability to communicate and to read and to
write. If we do nothing more in this
public school system‑‑and I tell you today we are challenged today
in large measure by those parents who really care to make sure that we at least
do that well, because they will tell me, yes, I want a well‑rounded
graduate‑‑but before I want that, I want them to have the ability
that they can read.
Today our students, as I have said before, the 13‑year‑olds
did the mathematics exam in comparative terms across the country, and this is
not a reflection on Manitoba, this is a Canadian score, did relatively well in
the mechanics of doing mathematics‑‑A plus B divided by C
multiplied by D. But put that
expectation in the guise of a problem where you had to read and write and
comprehend and yet do the very same mechanics to get to the very same answer,
16‑year‑olds could not do it.
Do not tell me what the problems are with respect to
funding. Do not tell me what the
problems are with respect to how it is we are favouring some subjects over
another. Tell me why it is that our
students who understand and maybe can do basic math, put it in terms of a
problem, a written problem where you have to comprehend, and they cannot do
it. Tell me what the problem is.
The problem is they cannot read. Well, why not? Why not?
It is not money, because there are countries throughout the world,
students in social economic conditions far worse, developing countries where
they are reading, and they are reading far beyond our standards, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson.
So where does revitalization begin? The member says it should be a government
edict that this love of learning come back.
I am sorry, I would have passed that law, I am sure. The members of my government would have
supported that law. It would have come
in yesterday. And you know what? I bet members from the NDP would have
supported it, too. You cannot government
edict the love of learning. It is either
in society or it is not.
I know my forebears, and I know the member's family history
and I know his forebears, because it carried over to the member himself and to
certain members of his family how important education is. But saying how important education is is just
like saying that the future of the society is dependent on our youth. Well, that is like saying that morning
follows nighttime and nighttime follows daytime. That is just what it is like saying.
So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the reality is, who is
going to revitalize education? Who is
going to revitalize it? Well, we are
going to revitalize it. We are going to
seek the support from the opposition parties.
There are going to be changes, but there are going to also have to be
decisions made. Those choices are not
going to be easy to some, particularly those who have been part of the
education fraternity for a long period of time.
I am saying that I would ask that the member wait patiently
yet for another few weeks and we will put out a basic blueprint. We will add to it after that period in
time. It is not going to deny the
importance, for one second, of physical education. Nobody has to tell me of the importance of
physical education. But I say, if the
community wants it, the community can have it, because if the member is saying,
well, mandate it, then what he is saying is, keep the status quo. Keep the status quo. Keep it in physical education. Keep it in all of the other areas.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, do you know what? Today, knocking at the door are at least six
other groups in society that want me to mandate units and courses in support of
their vested interests. What they are
saying, but they do not say it, is take away more time from those basic core
curriculum subjects. Take even more time
away from them.
So, when the member says, you are not going to mandate it,
what he is saying is, the status quo stays.
We have school divisions today, and schools, that are falling outside of
the guidelines, and our general guideline is we expect 110 hours to be directed
towards our subjects. Today, we are
finding out that there are school divisions directing to some of our core
curriculum subjects 70 and 80 hours. How
can that happen? [interjection] I hear the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)
muttering there. I do not know really
what she is saying, but this is happening within the school system at present,
and this government will not stand for that.
Maybe the members opposite will stand for it, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson.
So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is what the
revitalization will be. We know where we
are going on this and so will the whole province in pretty short order.
Mr. Schellenberg: I just want to pass on concerns that I have
been hearing. [interjection] Well, you mentioned structure lacking. We should ask ourselves, how do we achieve
structure?
We will leave that, we should keep that in mind. But I was at a parent meeting just recently,
and we were talking about the school system, abuse and violence and so forth. The community police were there and they
said, well, people in the Legislature must show leadership, and they all looked
at me. I am only one of 57, but they are
looking for leadership from our Legislature, from all members. They are waiting, parents and so forth,
students even, teachers, are waiting for direction. They are.
It might not be the direction that they necessarily want, but they are
waiting for it. There are many more
concerns in the classroom that the teachers face every day, and it is very,
very difficult for them in the classroom.
But I think you are aware of that, and I will leave it at that.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know that
the member means exceedingly well. He is
encouraging us to take the strong leadership towards hopefully causing to come
into being a revitalized system, and I appreciate his views.
Let me say, I fully understand that today, when you talk to
the educators, yes, the teachers are one component of the educators. But there are other partners, and when they,
of course, wear the mantle of expertise because they study the research, they
are trained in this area, when you have had an opportunity to sit amongst the
formal educators like I have on several occasions over the course of the last few
months, what you realize is there is so much expertise, there is so much
reading of the research, there are so many different views that, left to find
the solutions, I do not think it would happen purely within the educational
community. So whose role and
responsibility is it ultimately to try and take the good and reject the bad and
move forward? Ultimately, it does become
the government's responsibility.
I accept that, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but it is not
going to be easy because there is a lot of turf that is going to be challenged
along the way, and a lot of people are going to be asked or some people are
going to be asked to take on additional powers.
They may not want to take them on because that will be a threat in
itself. With added power, of course,
comes the added responsibility of having to make decisions and having to make
changes and having to produce more effective education.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I look forward to the
dialogue around education and reform because each and every one of us, within
and outside of education, as educators, are going to be significantly
challenged. I will force at every
opportunity to the extent that people disagree, and many will, with the thrust. I will challenge everybody to speak in the
clearest of terms because if education reform needs anything today, it needs
clarity of expression like it has never needed before, clarity of expression,
not like the Liberals try to do, try and be on all sides of all issues. So there has to be clarity.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few
questions of the minister. I am going to
be somewhat parochial in my questions, and most of them will be pertaining to
the Transcona‑Springfield School Division, although there will be the odd
question pertaining to the overall policy with respect to the minister's
Department of Education.
* (2040)
I have had the opportunity to meet several times with the
trustees of the school division [interjection] Transcona‑Springfield
School Division No. 12 [interjection] and also meet with the teachers within
the school division itself. [interjection]
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. I believe the‑‑[interjection]
Yes, I agree with the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). It is the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
that is posing questions to the minister.
Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. I probably should start
over, since there were some distractions here, and put my comments on the
record again.
I have had the opportunity to meet with the trustees of the
Transcona‑Springfield School Division a number of times and have met with
the teachers of the division, as well.
Of course, the questions that I am about to ask the minister are
relating to policy and come from many of the discussions that we have had, not
only with the people directly involved in the education system but the parents
within the community, as well, who ask me why certain policy decisions are made
and why certain funding decision have been made and the impact that it has had
upon the school division for which the schools of my community fall under.
We have seen a reduction in the funding to Division 12 over
the last several years, and I know the minister has said this and his
predecessor tried to say that they have received excessive amount of money in
the past and that they should have no room for complaint. I know I have listened to those replies to my
questions in the past.
Can the minister give me some kind of an understanding or
information relating to the current enrollment levels for the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division and what the historical levels have been with respect to that
division?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, while we are
looking for those enrollment numbers, I would point out to the member that in
'92‑93, this division received a 6.8 percent increase. Funding of $29.5 million increased to $31.5
million. I cannot remember the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) asking a single question on funding to this division
that year when funding went up 6.8 percent.
It was very much a favoured division under the same formula that is in
place today.
The member talks about numbers, enrollment numbers. There will be a slight drop, 1.3 percent, 100‑plus
students, 103 we are expecting in terms of the estimate as of September '94 as
compared to September '93.
So back to what I was saying on funding. Last year, '93‑94, after that
significant level of increase, even though I would sense that the enrollment
numbers had not changed, in '93‑94, level of expenditure dropped 2.7
percent and this year it is forecast to fall an additional 3.6 percent.
I should also point out for the record that the support
this year is 72 percent of the net operating expenditures, which is far in
excess of many other divisions within the Winnipeg region; 40.1 percent of the
unsupported expenditures in special needs, transportation, technology education
and operation maintenance are equalized through supplementary support. This division is a strong receiver of
supplementary support.
Of course, I know the member knows the former chair of the
division, Mr. Marshall, very well, and he has made representation to me as to
how there should be pure equalization across all the divisions. In other words, take even more money today
from the so‑called deemed wealthy divisions, and a lot is being taken
today, an awful lot. I would point out
that we favoured the divisor a little bit in that portion of the school
division which is outside of the city of Winnipeg. We have applied the formula to help those
schools, which of course is a benefit to the whole division.
I point out that this division has the second lowest
special levy mill rate in the city of Winnipeg.
Again, I do not pass judgment on that.
I have always looked favourably upon those divisions that have tried to
manage within restraint.
But we also allowed a $280,000 adjustment that increased
this division's maximum '93‑94 special requirement. This automatically increased of course the '94‑95
special requirements.
So we have gone some distance in trying to help where we
could. We are mindful that this division
took off 6 days under Bill 22 last year, and I say to members, that is what
impressed me. I saw a division that was
trying, and that is why I try to find some accommodation to help them out of
their difficulty.
Mr. Reid: The minister has provided some information
here. There was indeed an adjustment,
$280,000 I believe for two years, to allow for an error, or an oversight I
should say, on the part of the school board for a problem that they had
encountered and that they had no way out of.
So that was a special allowance that was given by the department to
allow them to access the necessary funds to pay down that expenditure. That is not my point here. My concern is, and even though the minister
says that there were increases, 6.8 percent in '92‑93, I do not have the
historical facts in front of me for the other school divisions, so I am not
going to argue that point here. I will
leave that to my colleagues the critics for Education.
My concern is for what has happened within the school
division for the last couple of years, where I have seen a decrease in the
funding allowable. The minister had made
reference to the fact that this particular school division, No. 12, has tried to
run very close to the line on their operating costs and that they have not kept
any significant amount of funds in the reserve fund to allow them to pay down
any emergencies that may come along.
Now, I looked and can make reference to the minister's comments before
this session started, where he said that he is going to have to look at capping
the reserve funds on the various school divisions.
What is the minister's intention with respect to capping
these reserve funds? I also have further
questions along this line as well.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I missed the
full essence of the question, but we acknowledge this division, because of two
actions unrelated to anything it has done, particularly reassessment, Nos. 1
and 2, the effect of Bill 16, has been caught in a situation, given that it is
a low‑spending division and has not built surpluses, caught in a special
set of circumstances. It was to that end
that we were prepared to advance significant amounts of money out of next
year's support. I have even gone further
than that.
I mean, I do not know ultimately whether there will be
unfettered relief for school divisions to go back to their taxpayers in a large
fashion or not. It ultimately depends on
the government of the day deciding what the status is of revenues and to what
extent it does not want to see ratepayers‑‑I say this to the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)‑‑automatically being the last
repository of the wrath of the budget.
* (2050)
If indeed there is, and I say it only in the purely
hypothetical sense, because it is too soon to know whether there will be
complete freedom, but if there were not I certainly would take that into
account with respect to divisions like Transcona‑Springfield, because
they have to have some opportunity to go back to their ratepayers, given that
they are not only a low‑cost division but their local mill rate levy is
relatively low‑‑[interjection] Yes.
That would have to be taken into account. Again, there are two divisions that warrant
special consideration. For the most part
neither‑‑they fall into both political parties. It is not a political decision at all.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
If I had begun to favour divisions there would be no end,
because there are other divisions, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, who for the last
three years, before this reassessment was done, were having reductions even
though they were, for whatever reason, having significant reductions. So I refuse to rush in without some thought
process, without some rationale, without some foundation on which to make a
decision. I found one. I offered it to this division, and I
understand by a vote at the board it was turned down, but of course that is the
right of that board to do so.
Mr. Reid: The $450,000 advance, let us put right on the
record right here, right now, that the minister offered to the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division, was an offer that was made by telephone and was not put in
writing to the trustees to give them the opportunity to have something
substantial in their hands that they could look at as a serious offer from the
minister. It is my understanding that it
was only just two weeks ago that this minister forwarded a letter to the
trustees making that offer to them, and the trustees have responded to this
minister, to the department, rejecting that offer, because what it does
essentially is borrow from the future.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Minister, but does this
policy, this thought that you have of advancing $450,000, not go against the
grain of the philosophy that your party has not to borrow from the future? Is this not something that is contrary to
what you believe in? Why are you even
proposing that the school division borrow from their own future grant monies
that may be coming to them, and giving them the opportunity to take that money
and spend it today and then have less money potentially in the future to work
with? How is that furthering their ends
and allowing them to meet the needs of the education for the students in the
community of Transcona and Springfield?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member
brings up two points. First, he calls
into question the credibility of my assistant deputy minister to represent the
ministry. When I delegate the responsibility
to make an offer on my behalf, I do not think that is just an ordinary
offer. When the call in Estimates comes
from the minister's office‑‑[interjection] I see. The member rubs the paper. He says you put it on paper.
I was engaged in exploratory talks through my assistant
deputy minister with a certain number of divisions. I did not want the exploration of how we
might help committed to paper. I
deliberately did that because it was not government policy. I was trying to find a way to accommodate
this division, to help them out of their problem, and we will talk about
borrowing from the future in a second.
To do so, to put the offer on paper would have meant that I
would have to take that process through the bureaucratic process, because when
I make a commitment or an offer on paper, I do so only after receiving the
blessing of my colleagues that are on Treasury Board, and indeed my cabinet
colleagues. That is the way government
works.
I tried to short‑circuit that process, I confess to
my member now, by exploring avenues and opportunities, and as soon as one of
the divisions said, yes, they would be interested in doing it, I then went
through the process of seeking support from my colleagues, No. l, and No. 2,
committing in a hard fashion to paper.
The member seems to suggest that when a call comes from the
ministry it has no value. I have talked
to ministers of different persuasions. I
talk on the phone with Lloyd Axworthy.
When I was in opposition, I talked to Sam Uskiw on the phone, and, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, when they said something, sitting at the desk of the
ministry, I took it as a very, very meaningful statement, one almost as good as
having been written on paper. I am
disappointed that the division, in this case Transcona‑Springfield School
Division, who have been in years of contact with my senior staff, would not
have seen fit to accept the validity and the sincerity of the offer.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member talks about borrowing
from the future. I had no other choice,
given the restraints that were placed upon it, but asking the division to
receive some advance funding coming from next year. I also indicated that they were special
circumstances, and that within the leeway or the opportunity and the freedom
and the flexibility that sometimes expands from budget year to budget year,
they would not be forgotten.
If they did not trust me to follow through with that, well,
then, I say that is too bad, but to the extent that there was an element of
trust there, that they could see I was not rushing to the paper to boast how it
was that I was trying to help, that I was not wanting to engage in conflict
with their member who is trying to make it a political issue, that I was trying
to do the honest brokering. They would
have seen, certainly, if they had looked into the matter at all, a willingness
to try and keep open the commitment to hopefully trying to smooth it over just
not one year. But, no, the member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid) rushed in. He was
going to be the saviour. He was going to
try and embarrass me in front of the public, and that is rather difficult to
do. He was going to try and do it,
though, nevertheless, and he was going to win the day.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think he did a great
dissatisfaction to the school division.
I actually think he hurt the whole situation because no doubt there
could have been greater dialogue leading to maybe even greater certainty
regarding a year hence.
Mr. Reid: I do not know if I should take the minister's
comments, his last comments there, as a threat to the school division or not,
but I will let them decide that for themselves because he seems to indicate
that there are future repercussions to be felt by the school division for my
raising the issue in the House.
I fail to understand how it is, when I raise an issue in
the House or I raise an issue in the community or I talk to the minister
personally, when I am representing the interests of my community, that I am
trying to do this for political reasons.
I raise this because the public education system in my community is
being severely impacted by the policy decisions of your government. It is my job as the MLA for the community to
raise those issues in the House, and that is what I am doing. If I do not do that, I am failing my
responsibility. I raised those
issues. I have done my job. I have asked the questions that they want me
to ask.
The information that they had released regarding the
$450,000 advance on next year's grant monies was information that the school
trustees had released at a public meeting in my community when it came to
announcing their budget decisions relating to the funding from the province and
the monies that they were able to generate through the assessment for the
property values of the community. That
was their announcement, not mine. I took
that information and brought it back to the House and asked the minister why he
was making those decisions, borrowing from the future monies that would be
payable by way of grant to that particular school division. That was my job to do that.
* (2100)
I want to know what benefit is there in borrowing from the
future, and would those monies be made up and the next year's grant money to
make sure that the school division then would not suffer another $450,000 loss
of revenue for programs and education in the community on top of the program
cutbacks that had already been sustained by the public education in the
Transcona‑Springfield School Division.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I certainly lodge no
threat nor do I call into question the member's method of operation. I honestly do not. The member is a representative of the people
and the method he uses is his method, and I do not call that into question. I never have.
But I say to the member, I do not remember when he wrote me
a letter seeking greater information with respect to this, and I only say to
him and to the extent that I personally dislike ad hockery‑‑ad
hockery, that means doing something for one and not doing it for the others who
have also legitimate claims, outside of the bounds of policy, outside the
bounds of consistency.
When I was trying to work toward finding a solution‑‑that
once the member has decided‑‑as he indicates, he will do it his way
and that is his right‑‑once he has heightened the focus on one
school division under the 50‑some that exist in the province, he should
be mindful that everybody tunes in and everybody has special sets of
circumstances that would dictate that they should have, by their arguments,
more funding.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I handed out a list yesterday. How many school divisions were hit by
reassessment‑‑16 or 17.
Every one, every one of those school divisions sensed they had special
sets of circumstances if for no other reason than the fact that they were hit
by reassessment, and they would request, and again, the number is 19 as the
member suggested.
All I tried to do was look at those divisions that in my
view, at least, had the most difficult problem, and I tried to find a solution,
bearing in mind that if I did find one, everybody else, the next on the list,
would also want the same solution, which there was no capacity to fund, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson.
So I looked around at the options. I found one, and only one, that I could live
with, and that was advancing. Yet, as I
indicated to other divisions, you know a year from now we still may have to do
something extra. We may have to take
into account, again, the reality and the impact on these divisions.
What did they have to gain?
Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, they had some time to gain, No. 1, and No.
2, maybe they did not have to make the pressure of these very difficult
decisions all within the context of one budget year. That is what I was trying to accommodate, and
I make no apology for it. I thought it
was an honest and sincere attempt to try to help.
Mr. Reid: Well, I believe the minister is correct. I have always had great respect for his
abilities as a legislator and a debater in the House, but it does not mean that
I cannot be critical of some of the decisions that he has made and some of the
comments that he has made in reference to the departments for which he is
responsible.
The minister says that the school division was going to buy
time. There is no doubt that they would
buy time by taking the $450,000 advance, but I can tell the minister, in my
discussions with the trustees, that they were very worried and are still very
worried about what the future holds for them as a school division. They are so close to the line right now. I think, if I am correct, they have a
$520,000 reserve fund to work with and on top of that, they have just informed
me they have additional expenses that have just come forward to them, over
$100,000 for two items.
Now this division is running very close to the line. The minister has indicated at the beginning
of his comments that they have tried to hold the line on tax increases in the
past for the property owners in the communities, and we give them credit for
that, but they seem to have been penalized because of their actions to run
close to the wire. They have had
cutbacks in their funding, and if you take a look at the effects of the
reassessment on the school divisions, the Transcona‑Springfield School
Division lost $374,000. I mean, they
cannot continue to sustain losses and have no reserve fund to work with, like
the minister has indicated that other school divisions do. There has to be some program or some policy
in place that will allow them to continue the same programming opportunities
for the students in those schools that is on a comparable level with other
divisions in the province.
That is all we are asking for is fairness. We are not asking you to take out a whole
bunch of new money and throw it at the problem.
All we want is fairness in the funding opportunities for the schools of
this division in comparison to other divisions. That is the only thing that they are asking
for, and that is the only thing that I am asking for on their behalf. That is my job to do that.
I am told that as of just recently, they have had to remove
fuel tanks. They have gone to changes in
the fueling for their school buses. They
have had fuel tanks that they have to remove, and there has been soil
contamination. So it is an environmental
concern and an environmental cost, $60,000 for one removal and cleanup, and it
is my understanding it is going to be substantially more for the second
site. So if you take that, say $150,000,
out of the reserve fund that is there, it does not leave them with very much
left. If they blow a boiler in one of
the schools, coming up in the fall, now what do they do for funds necessary to
keep that school running? Is there a
special funding that is in place that the department has that monies can be
given for emergencies if there is no reserve fund available within the
division?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if there are no
reserves in place and an emergency arises, it is no different than many
homeowners in the city. When an
emergency arises, government is in place to try to do the best it can to
relieve that emergency, but let me point out our records show that as of June
30, 1993, Transcona‑Springfield School Division had a surplus of $1.5
million.
The question is, well, is it allocated or unallocated? When we asked the questions as to where the
allocations are, and I am not saying that is the case here, but quite often the
allocations are fairly soft. I am not
making that claim with respect to Transcona‑Springfield. But we believe, before the decision was made,
that still there was going to be a sizable surplus at the end of this present
fiscal year before the hard decisions that they made as a division take place
or take effect leading into the next school year. I do not know really with certainty where the
final surplus will be this year. I
suppose we will know that come fall.
When the member talks about difference or equity in
programming, my home division was one that had a very low mill rate. After conscious decisions were made by the
local trustees that in spite of all of the shortcoming in funding‑‑and
they criticized me, too; they wanted more‑‑and all of the other
particular circumstances that exist within my home division, still when you
looked at the level of local mill rate vis‑à‑vis many of the urban
divisions, it was much lower. That was a
conscious decision made by that board.
When parents did say, well, look at St. James or look at
Winnipeg South or Fort Garry, look at these programs they have and the
additional options that were in place, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the local
ratepayers paid for that because I can know of many situations where the
variance in local mill rate is between 12 and 13 mills and 18, 19 mills. In many cases, that reflects the local
autonomy, the local authority of school divisions to raise money locally, tax
locally at a higher rate in support of additional programming.
That is why in some cases there is a difference in
programming, but that is because of conscious decisions made by one division
vis‑à‑vis another. I only
point it out, and I still think that Transcona‑Springfield is one of the
finer school divisions. It certainly has
not only managed well, but I think it has a high academic standard and, I know,
will come through this process with that intact and will continue to deliver
quality education.
Mr. Reid: Well, the minister made reference to a surplus,
and I guess it is from my understanding that he does not have up‑to‑date
records of the surpluses that are available on the various school
divisions. When previously asked, he
would not supply that information. I can
tell the minister that the projected, because we have not reached the point of
the end of June of this year yet‑‑but the projected surplus for
that school division is going to be approximately $520,000. It does not leave them a lot of room to
maneuver. It is not the $1.5 million. That is the unallocated funding that will be
available.
The school division is trying hard, I believe, to continue
with quality programming, but they are having a hard time doing that with
reductions in funding that is coming to them from the province; in addition to
that, their hands have been tied because of the 2 percent cap that the minister
has placed.
Now, the minister made reference to other divisions that
have a higher mill rate. School
divisions now, based on this minister's legislation, are not in a position to
do that; their hands are tied. So they
have no way to achieve any funding that is necessary to continue programs, and
all you have to do is look at the sheet that the school division has put out
where they have had their special requirement based on the 2 percent, another
$218,000. That does not go very far on a
$42 million budget for the school division.
I can tell the minister that.
* (2110)
They have had to cut back again teaching positions this
year, 10 teaching positions, and a child guidance clinician,
paraprofessionals. They have cut back
custodial positions, the maintenance positions for the people who repair the
buildings and the structures. I mean,
how does the school division continue to operate, provide quality education
programs in a sound learning facility when we keep cutting back the people that
perform these jobs? Where do we draw the
line on this? Is the minister going to
say, well, they have to make these decisions, they are a separate and
autonomous body, and they are empowered to make that? If they keep cutting back the funding to them
and do not give them any option or room to maneuver, if you box them in a
corner, they have nowhere to go. When
they have asked the minister for help, the only solution that came forward was
the $450,000. They were not willing to
borrow from their future, not knowing or having any certainty about where they
are going to get their money in the future or if they are going to be reduced 5
percent next year, because they do not know.
They have no assurances.
The minister has even said in the House, in response to my
questions, that he can anticipate further cutbacks next year. So now this school division is very
worried. On top of the 3.6 percent this
year, I think it was 3 percent they lost last year, how much are they going to
lose next year, and where are they going to cut next year? Are we going to be into the basic programs?
The teachers in the school division have already indicated
that they are not going to be willing to provide any extracurricular
activities. Now the minister, or his
government, may think that this is not important to education, but if you look
at the quality of life for the students in our schools, extracurricular
activities are part of the learning process.
It is part of the quality of life of school. I am sure the minister can relate to the days
when he was in school. I know I
can. That was something that was
fundamental to the education program, to the learning process.
Maybe the minister can comment about the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division teachers withdrawing extracurricular services that they were
providing, and are going to continue to provide up until the end of June of
this year but potentially may not provide those services in the fall.
Mr. Manness: My comments are on the record with respect to
teachers withdrawing extracurricular services or, indeed, their volunteer
time. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is very
much on the record with respect to Bill 22.
I am troubled by it. I think it
is bordering on being somewhat shameful, to be honest with you. I say that because, of course, society would
not do very well today if each and every one of us did not contribute our time
in a volunteer sense, and there are countless hundreds and thousands of
Manitobans who give of their time for the greater service of their community,
however defined.
When teachers are interviewed they are almost always asked
to what degree they are prepared to make additional commitment beyond the
classroom time, and many are hired on that basis. Many are hired on the basis they are prepared
to give of their time to the greater good of the school community and
ultimately of the individual, and for teachers to decide that they are going to
get even by withdrawing those services I say is very regrettable, most
unfortunate. Indeed, it calls into
question with me their commitment to the greater good of the community. Manitoba would not exist today in the fashion
it did if there were not people who gave of their time freely for public
service, and by that I am meaning volunteer service. For the teachers to say, well, we are not
happy, we are going to deny it, well, then, they are free to do that. It is a free society, but I say it is most
regrettable.
If it is an issue of‑‑Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I
challenged the teachers through their president back a year ago when we looked
at Bill 22. I challenged them to
voluntarily agree to reduce their salaries, because indeed 80,000 other public
sector servants had done that, not voluntarily, but the impact of Bill 22, of
course, had caused them to take reductions.
Teachers told me no way they were going to do that. So the government of the day did not know
where else to turn, because the member can talk about certainty of fundings,
school divisions want to know, governments offloading. The reality is the provincial government does
not have any more money. It has less
money. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson), again indicated in the House the shortfall of transfers coming from
Ottawa. There is no use screaming about
it up and down. It is a fact of
life. We live with it.
I know the Transcona School Division will also make the
choices that they have made. They are
hard, but they will make the decisions in the best manner to try and maintain
the quality that exists in that school division, and next year I am hoping that
the economic situation is changed throughout the country so that there will be
some additional revenue that we can direct to school divisions.
Mr. Reid: Go back a few minutes ago to something that
the minister had said, too, about having his word taken as a sign that he would
stand by his commitment to advance funding.
I think back to the commitment that the previous Minister of Education,
his colleague, had made when she was Minister of Education and I had raised the
issue last session with her in the House, that she would look at the
circumstances surrounding the inability of the school division to generate
enough revenue to sustain the programs.
There was nothing that came out of any of the activities of the minister. From my understanding, no changes happened to
recognize the special circumstances dealing with the inability of the school
division to generate funding by way of the special levy, or by way of any
changes in the grants or the funding formula of the province to offer any
monies to this particular school division and other school divisions of the
province for that matter that were suffering.
So I can understand their reluctance to take the $450,000,
and I can also understand why there would be some reluctance on their part to
accept the word of the minister because they had seen the word of the
minister's colleague when she was the Minister of Education saying that she was
going to look at the special circumstances and nothing ever occurred. So there is some concern on their part that
there has been no action taken, and this is why, I believe, that there appears
to be some reluctance on their part to accept the word of someone saying that
they are going to look at the circumstances and make some changes because no
changes have occurred and in fact they are further in the hole now than they
were before.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is not
speaking the truth. The former minister,
my colleague, did take that into account, and I can remember being on Treasury
Board when the former minister came forward, and through that special
dispensation was allowed to provide for $280,000 additional levy‑‑[interjection]
Well, that was taking into account the special circumstances. That was allowing that division to increase
its revenue.
Secondly, we took into account the sparsity argument with
respect to those schools outside of the city of Winnipeg and we allowed a lower
divisor, which of course again turned over more money to that division. That was done by my predecessor, the member for
Fort Garry, so the member is patently wrong.
That information was taken into account, and it is important that the
record reflect that.
Mr. Reid: Well, that is not the information I am
getting from the school division trustees, so the minister can have his
comments and I will have my comments, but unfortunately for the minister I have
to believe what my trustees are telling me, because they are the ones dealing
with the funding that is available to them.
Mr. Manness: Do you understand the formula?
Mr. Reid: Pardon me?
Mr. Manness: Do you understand the formula well?
Mr. Reid: I believe they do. I mean, Mr. Marshall has been a long‑time
trustee, and we have enough staff on the school administration to understand
the formula that is in place and they also understand the unfairness of the
formula. I know the trustees have asked
this minister and the previous minister to make some changes to reflect the
inequities within the funding formula as it currently exists.
I believe it was Mr. Marshall, the trustee, the longest
serving trustee currently on the board, has made reference many times to the
fact that the funding formula is patently unfair, and does not recognize the
inequities between the different divisions and does not take them into consideration. This is why they came forward with a proposal
to the minister, and I believe that the minister said, no, that the proposal
would not work. It was one of many
options, but he did not think it would work and he would not take it into
consideration.
* (2120)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have not closed
the door on that proposal. We are
studying it, but let me tell you we have been there before. The essence of the Marshall proposal or the
Transcona proposal is one that the government has been at before, and it is an
expenditure‑driven formula. It
says that if you spend lots you get lots.
And the very essence of the change model was no, we will not provide
support on the basis of how much you spend.
We will provide support on the basis of how many students are in the
classroom, on the classroom unit. So if
you decide to spend $2,000 per student more than the provincial average, good
for you, but you are going to ask your local citizens to pay for it. We will pay to a basic classroom unit, basic
classroom basis, not on the basis of how much you spend. The essence of the proposal put forward by
Transcona‑Springfield has asked the provincial government to again
support at the level at the division's expense.
Now there are other elements of the proposal that are worth studying and
we are trying to analyze them at this time.
Mr. Reid: What parts of the proposal is the minister
referencing when he says he is studying the aspects of that portion of the
overall proposal?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think Transcona‑Springfield
indicated there should be no categorical grants. There should be one general block grant. Many other divisions, including I am sure
Winnipeg School Division, will be totally opposed to that because there would
be incredible shifts in mill rate between school divisions. So we are studying the impact of that, and
also, I would point to again the greater reliance on equalization and the full
impact of what that would mean.
Mr. Reid: There was a concern that the trustees had
raised and I believe I raised it with the previous Minister of Education
relating to the transportation costs.
There has been some concern within the school division that since this
school division is comprised of, I think, 400 square miles, there is an urban
transportation component that is mandated by the Education department. There is also the rural education component
that is obviously necessary and mandatory, but it is my understanding that the
school division is not being compensated to reflect the number of students that
we have in the rural area. I believe it
is approximately 2,400 students in the rural area out of a total enrollment of
about 8,300 or 8,200.
Maybe the minister can comment on the formula that is being
used and whether or not there has been any adjustment to compensate the school
division for the inequities that they perceive to exist in the monies that are
being granted to offset the transportation costs and to reflect the rural‑urban
component.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will check the
specifics of the question, but they certainly are eligible. They are eligible for the rural funding
grant. That is very much
prescribed. It is easily understood, and
the rural students receive in a fashion no different than indeed if they were
anywhere else in rural Manitoba, and that is, $350 per transported pupil for
pupils enrolled in Grades K to 12 who do not reside in a city, town or
village. That is the policy that applies
throughout all of rural Manitoba. So
Transcona‑Springfield has, by our count, 1,960 students in the rural
category who are transported under this formula, so 1,960 times $350 per
transported pupil.
Mr. Reid: I guess then what I will have to do is I will
go back to the trustees and get some more clarification on this matter and find
out if they still have concerns on that, and then if they do, what I will do is
I will correspond with the minister on that aspect of it since the minister
indicates that he would prefer to have some correspondence dealing with some of
the problems directly. I have no
difficulty with that as long as the minister is willing to provide a fair and
reasonable time period for a return because there have been other departments,
I am not saying his department, but other departments that have been several
months delay in some responses.
Mr. Manness: I gave your colleague information the next
day.
Mr. Reid: I am sure it is much appreciated that she got
the information the next day.
An Honourable Member: Oh, I do not know. I have not heard any great thanks.
An Honourable Member: His word is his bond.
Mr. Reid: I believe I will hold him to that. That his word is his bond and that he would
attempt to provide the information the next day, since he has indicated that it
can be done.
To go back to the emergency funds, and I think I should
clarify this or get a clarification on this, if the school division runs
through the unallocated surplus monies that they have and they run out and they
run into an emergency, are we talking about funding available from within next
year's grant monies will be withdrawn and given to them in advance, or are we
talking about extra funding that would be provided to the school division?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no extra funding at
this point, and maybe possibly at any point with respect to the general
budgetary level, the $40‑some million.
What I said was, if there is an emergency and we can see,
for instance, that the surplus funds that we sense were in existence have not
been moved aside so that they could not be used in a manner that was trying to
escape their being directed towards the emergency, then obviously we look at
this on a case‑by‑case basis.
I mean, if the school has to be operated, it has got to be
operated, and if the emergency involves the physical plant somehow, obviously
the Public Schools Finance Board has some discretionary funds at their
disposal, or at least can shift funds around to make sure a school is
operational. A boiler is a case in
point.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I am not familiar with the policy relating to
school bus purchases: who owns the
buses, how they are allocated, what the responsibility of the divisions are
with respect to the operation maintenance, et cetera. It is my understanding that the division has
a number of older buses that are in use and has no newer vintage spare buses in
event of a breakdown, particularly in the colder months when the children would
be at greater risk.
Can the minister tell me what the policy is with respect to
the purchase, the operations and any policy relating to the school bus
operation?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know
whether the member's intentions are to deal with all of the issues here‑‑I
have staff, who are in the room, who could answer more specifically or provide
information to me‑‑or whether the member wants to exhaust all his
questioning. If he wants detailed questioning,
I will have to ask Mr. Hanson to come forward, but failing that, I can say that
general policy is that the government buys the school buses for the school
divisions to operate. That is certainly
in the rural context.
The ownership of the buses, of course, is always in
dispute. The department believes, and I
believe, that they are owned by the government of Manitoba, but certainly for
the exclusive use of the divisions.
Mr. Reid: Does the government then have a policy
relating to where the buses have to be operated? In the sense that the division for Transcona‑Springfield
is urban and rural, do you have a special designation that says that when you
supply buses you have to have or provide or operate buses in the rural area of
the newer vintage versus the older buses in the urban areas, or any other
policy designating on how and where these buses are operated, or is that left
strictly up to the school division and its transportation department to decide?
* (2130)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not tell
divisions how to use their buses. We
just provide a level of funding. In the
case of Transcona‑Springfield, which straddles urban and rural Manitoba,
I suppose it is more fortunate. They can
do what they want within the boundaries of their school division with these
buses that we have provided.
Mr. Reid: I believe those are all the questions I have
for now relating to this division. I
thank the minister for answering the questions.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just before you pass
the lines, I just had a couple more brief questions. The first is, the decertification of a
teacher, can the minister go through the actual process of doing that?
Mr. Manness: This is a complex process. The act gives the minister significant
discretionary power to remove a certificate almost at will when there is a
reason, but the practice of course has been much more complex than that. At
this point, and I will try to remember this from memory, if a charge that is
lodged comes to our understanding, whether it comes from Family Services,
whether it comes from the police, indeed it comes from within the school
system, that charge should be laid formally by some prosecutor, by the
Crown. That information is given to
me. I then refer that incident, what I
know about it, or any information around it, to the Certificate Review
Committee. That committee waits for the
courts to dispose of the matter, either to confirm the charge or to dispense
the issue.
The Certificate Review Committee then makes a
recommendation to me. I then, by
registered letter, inform the teacher, if indeed there is substance to the
charge, that certain facts have been found, and I ask the teacher to respond to
me on their intentions. This is all prescribed by time periods. In some cases, I have trouble even finding,
by registered letter, the individuals, and I will send out a second registered
letter. But if an individual does not
respond to me, then I strike their certificate.
I again send a letter to him where I think I can find him, a registered
letter again, indicating that their certificate is no longer in place. I guess the final remark is that if indeed
they are suspended through this process, they are expected to return their
certificate to me.
Mr. Lamoureux: The beginning of the process says that there
then have to be charges laid against the teacher in order to decertify?
Mr. Manness: Not necessarily. That has been the practice, but certainly the
powers of the act are much beyond that.
I mean, the minister can, for other reasons, alter or change or deny or
have removed certificates.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister can cite any certificates that have been removed from a teacher other
than a Crown laying the charges. Can he
cite any of them?
Mr. Manness: Well, up to now, basically, in our memory‑‑and
that would cover five or six years‑‑all of the decertifications
have been a result of charges laid not only in sexual abuse areas but in
fraudulent areas or dealing in drugs up to this point, although, one never
knows when tomorrow there might be some other reason that we begin to inquire.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, I can say that it is extremely few and
far between when I get allegations of incompetence of a teacher, if you
like. I have had discussions, as the
minister has had discussions, with in particular the partners that he refers
to, and there has always been, you know, some concern or at least some acknowledgement
that there are in fact concerns respecting the qualifications or capabilities
of some teachers. I want to emphasize
that I think it is extremely few and far between these teachers, because I
would not want to be taken out of context on this.
My question is: What
is the minister doing to acknowledge that is a particular problem, and what is
the minister doing to take some sort of action in particular when we talk about
the reform package or the blueprint? Is
the blueprint taking into account the certification process of teachers?
Mr. Manness: Yes, it will.
Mr. Lamoureux: Okay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the other comment, and it came out of the
questioning actually from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), we got into a
debate last night about privileged information and the Minister of Education
did take exception to the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) saying, well, why
will you not tell us the surplus that is in the different school
divisions. I was somewhat surprised to
hear the Minister of Education say, well, this is the surplus that is in
Transcona. If I were to ask the question
or maybe a question at a time, what is the surplus in Winnipeg School Division
No. 1? Would the minister tell me what
the surplus in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is?
Mr. Manness: Those were last year's figures that I
quoted. I do not know this year's
figures, and they were in the Free Press, public information. So there is no inconsistency.
Mr. Lamoureux: Would the minister then be prepared to
provide the surpluses of the 50‑plus school divisions for members even
though it is last year's?
Mr. Manness: Again, the response is the same, for all the
divisions, no, I would not. Again,
because I sense properly that that should come from‑‑all of the
divisions properly should come from the annual audited financial statements or,
again, the member might want to ask the Manitoba Association of School
Trustees. They probably have on file all
of the audited statements by the school divisions and they may want to‑‑and
I think the member knows the precedent very well, and they may want to provide
that information.
* (2140)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, whether one knows the
precedent of an organization or not, I think that the Minister of Education
(Mr. Manness) is very selective and that is the only reason why I am bringing
it up at this point in time in terms of the information that he is prepared to
release.
Whether it is ACCESS reports, whether it is discussions
with respect to the blueprint, the minister, or the financing or the surpluses,
that I would like to see some form of consistency coming from the Minister of
Education dealing with what sort of information he is making available for us
to be able to debate.
He is being very inconsistent when he just tells the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) that this is the surplus that was in Transcona, but I
will not tell you what all the other school divisions. Does that mean that Transcona is not one of
the privileged school divisions?‑‑so any information that they give
you, any information‑‑and the figure he said was wrong‑‑the
Minister of Education.
But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what is the Minister of
Education saying? That Transcona is not
a privileged school division, so any information they give us is not
privileged, so I can tell you. He is
very, very selective on the information that he has given and I think that this
is something which he needs to review.
The minister himself, if he reflects on what it is that he
has said with respect to privileged information, I think that he might decide
or see that it is in fact inconsistent.
To provide some of the information that has been requested not only with
respect to this, but other issues, I believe would allow for a better line of
questioning. Maybe we can better understand
in terms of why it is the minister made some of the decisions that he has
made. We might not necessarily agree
with it, but at least we will get a better understanding in terms of why.
With that, I am quite prepared to pass this particular
line.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: (a) Schools Finance (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $802,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $399,500‑‑pass.
(b) Schools Administration (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $1,050,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $418,300‑‑pass.
(c) Schools Information System (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $277,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $716,300‑‑pass.
(d) Schools Grants (1) Operating Grants $550,245,700‑pass;
(2) Phase‑In Support Grants $1,463,900‑pass; (3) General Support
Grants $18,598,100‑‑pass.
(e) Other Grants $1,806,200‑‑pass.
(f) Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund $47,238,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 16.5:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$623,016,800 for Education and Training, Support to Schools, for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Item 6, Support to Post‑Secondary Institutions (a)
Universities (1) Universities Grants Commission (a) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $264,700.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask
about the Universities Grants Commission and the process that it follows and
has followed for a number of years in determining allocations to universities.
I wonder if the minister could take us through the steps
that the commission goes through over the course of a year, and what I am
particularly interested in is the requests from universities, again, commonly
over a number of years, for earlier indication of their funding. I believe also the Roblin commission
recommended that efforts be made to deal with university funding at the same
time that the public schools get an indication of their funding in January. I wonder if the minister has had time to look
at that recommendation and to reflect upon the activities of the UGC in
general, to see if there are any possibilities of moving towards that system.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, at this time I
would like to introduce Leo LeTourneau.
Leo is the executive director of the Universities Grants Commission.
The first question was dealing with process. The UGC budget process consists of a number
of phases. First of all, there is a
submission of detailed budget proposals by universities to the Universities
Grants Commission. Secondly, that is
analyzed by UGC staff. Thirdly, formal
hearings are conducted by the Universities Grants Commission enabling universities
to present and discuss their budgets' priorities and issues. Fourthly, final analysis of budgets and
formulation of Universities Grants Commission recommendations.
These recommendations are, of course, forwarded to myself
as the minister responsible, and ultimately then an announcement is made by the
ministry as to the level of support globally, and then, of course, the
Universities Grants Commission goes into a process of making allocation
decisions within that global funding.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is the process.
The member also asked the question with respect to earlier
announcement. This is a difficult
decision because there is no doubt in mine today legislatively‑‑as
the member knows, the public school system, it is mandated somewhere that an
announcement be made by the middle of January, and I know the university
community would like the same type of treatment. The reality is, having been through a
significant number of budgets, that many of the areas of discretionary spending
other than the support to the public schools, have to, by necessity, be made in
the same context at the same time.
What the member is asking is for more than early
information, or certainly the universities are asking for more than that. They are basically asking that the provincial
budget be completed by the middle of January, and that just is not
possible. We do not receive final notice
from Ottawa as to the level of transfers until well into February, and only at
that time can the government make final budgetary decisions, and usually that
does not happen until the end of February.
We tried this year to provide earlier indication‑‑I think we
did‑‑as to the level of funding, and we will try to even move it
forward, if possible, next year.
* (2150)
Ms. Friesen: Still on funding, did the UGC conduct any
study of the impact of the clawback last year on university funding? Since this is the basic body that deals
between the government and the universities on funding and allocation of
funding, what was the UGC's responsibility in that area?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, Mr. LeTourneau
was not in position then, as he was actively involved in the Roblin review, but
from memory, I remember it was the $11 million, a number that gained some
notoriety. We requested that as regards
that money, in the sense that it had not flowed, maybe was even unallocated or
certainly was in a discretionary sense and did not need to flow, a portion of
it was withheld. I dare say that
probably an analysis was not done, but, more importantly, it may very well have
been surplus funding to the announcements that had been made previously. If there is greater detail required, I will
try to provide it.
Ms. Friesen: I am interested in two aspects of this. One is the process. The government allocates global funding for
universities to the UGC, which then decides, on the basis of its information on
the priorities of each university, the allocation of that funding. Yet midway through the year‑‑I
believe it was in February‑‑the government, not the UGC, decided
that part of that money was not going to flow.
Now, how was it decided, and how was the allocation of that minus amount
allocated to each of these institutions?
On what basis did the UGC do it, or was it done directly by the
government? In that case, where is, to
use the minister's term, the purity of the system? If on the one hand the government allocates
to UGC, then surely the UGC should be involved in the allocation of the minus
amounts, what the minister calls surplus, but which I believe the universities
had counted on in their budget, had been assured of when the UGC had made the
initial allocations.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member
puts the question very clearly. My
memory is starting to come back that throughout the whole department we were‑‑when
I was the Minister of Finance, as a matter of fact, we provided a target to the
whole Department of Education of some $17 million, of which UGC's portion was
$2 million. It is my understanding that
UGC does not always allocate the total global funding. At times, you do keep some back in reserve
for, again, emergencies. It is cash‑flowed
on a monthly basis, and it does not always exhaust itself at any point in
time. That is indeed, then, the money
that we withheld. I think, Mr. Thompson
reminds me, it was probably more in the realm of $2 million, the impact on the
flow to universities, and that can be handled quite easily within the cash‑flow
requirements of a $220 million global budget.
Ms. Friesen: I just want to confirm that. The minister believes that it was a $2
million reduction across the system?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we can try to
confirm that yet as soon as we can, but from memory that was the impact to this
branch or division of Education. It
seems to me globally across all of Education it was somewhere around $17
million.
Ms. Friesen: Then I come back to the second question, of
the process. The UGC initially allocates
the money to universities. Surely, it
should have been the UGC that allocated the reduction of those amounts. What part did the UGC play in the allocation
of those reductions?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the UGC would
have been asked to retain and not cash‑flow that level, and I imagine it
would have been an amount consistent on a weighted basis across all three
universities. I do not think there would
have been one university that picked up more than its prorated share.
Ms. Friesen: That is what I am trying to get at. Did the UGC meet on this? Did the UGC decide that the universities
would take this reduction on a pro‑rata basis, or did they decide as the
UGC is mandated to do on the basis of the needs presented by each of the
universities?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I cannot
answer that question. What we are
talking about is in November, we are talking November '92. We are talking not November '93 now; we are
talking November '92. We are going back
18 months ago, and I cannot remember.
The staff, if Mr. LeTourneau had been there at the time, he
could remember, but he was involved in the Roblin commission, and Mr. Goluch at
that time was responsible for those decisions, and he is not with us tonight.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister undertake to inquire of the
appropriate staff what happened in that case and to provide a written response?
Mr. Manness: Yes, gladly.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, does the
minister anticipate that there will be any clawbacks in this fiscal year or is
the global amount that we are looking at the actual amount that the
universities will receive?
Mr. Manness: We have not quite closed off '93‑94,
but that is not my decision. That is a
decision of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). The Minister of Finance ultimately decides,
given the unallocated expenditures or surpluses that may exist in accounts
through government. He ultimately
decides whether or not that should be left to carry over into the new year or,
indeed, whether it will be committed to the lapse factor.
The member is fully aware that on a $5.5 billion budget a
$70 million lapse factor is built in, or at least it was in the years when I
was the minister. Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, that is to take into account that not every dollar in government
is spent, and if the Minister of Finance dictates that this unallocated money,
if there is a small portion there that should not be spent, then he will call
upon it to come back.
Ms. Friesen: The minister keeps assuming that these are
unallocated surpluses, but from the perspective of the universities, these were
monies that had been assigned to them, which had been included in their budget,
which they had anticipated on a monthly basis, in much the same way that the
minister also anticipates EPF funding from Ottawa. When that is reduced, that is regarded as a
reduction. That is exactly how it was
presented to the universities.
Money, which they had been allocated at the beginning of
the fiscal year, which, yes, flows on a monthly basis, but then which did not
flow so that budgets were caught short, and people who had tried to plan on an
annual basis, given an assurance from the government of the kind of money that
would be forthcoming, now found that they did not have it. So what I am asking for is an assurance from
the government that this time the money that we pass in the budgets to
universities will be spent as we are passing it. Are they going to be spent or will there be a
clawback again, and at which point is the minister anticipating that kind of
decision might be made?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, when the
members passed this vote, what they were saying is up to that amount is to be
spent. They are not saying that every
dollar is to be spent because nowhere in government can you spend every dollar.
In the years when indeed every dollar might not flow
because prudently it has not been totally allocated, what is being taken into
account is that there are emergencies that too arise, unexpected circumstances
that arise, that cause presidents at universities to approach government for
emergency funding. If there is to be a
source for that, that is housed within the UGC.
I do not hear the member opposite questioning government
when, indeed, there was a call for additional funds for some reason partway
through, and the UGC has to come back to the government for supplementary
funding beyond the vote, which the members will provide here tonight.
* (2200)
It works both ways.
Prudent management dictates that there should not be a complete
allocation of the total amount, that some fraction maybe of a percent should be
held back for greater discretionary powers during times of emergency.
Ms. Friesen: So then as a rule of thumb the universities
should not anticipate that they will receive the entire amount which is listed
in the Estimates tonight. Is that the
case? Is that the message they should
learn from this?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are
arguing by degree. Is the member saying
100 percent allocated always? No. But I would make the argument that 99 percent
and a fraction is allocated.
Ms. Friesen: Is that the general principle then that the
universities should take from this evening's discussion, that 99 percent of what
is listed here in the Estimates will be allocated to universities, and that the
other percentage is discretionary?
Mr. Manness: Yes, that is no different than any line of
government when we tell a department that so much is allocated to you. That does not mean that you are going to be
allowed to spend that much money. When
we provide funding to the Health Services Commission by way of grant, that does
not mean that every dollar is spent.
That means that as much as possible and in almost all cases 99 percent
is spent.
But, when supplementary funding is required in support of
legal aid and all of the other issues, then the government of the day has to
find that money. So there is nothing
new, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. This
is not a new response.
Ms. Friesen: It is new to me, and I think it will be new
to people who make up university budgets, that a prudent university budget
manager now would anticipate that they are only going to receive 99 percent of
what they have been promised, and that they should anticipate the possibility‑‑I
do not know what kind of a level of possibility the minister would like to
apply to this‑‑but they should understand that at least 1 percent
of their budget is not necessarily going to flow to them.
Mr. Manness: The member is saying at least 1 percent. I never said that. There is no formula. But, more importantly than anything, the
universities deal with the Universities Grants Commission, and once the
Universities Grants Commission make an allocation they make a commitment to
level, to fund a global amount to each university, that is done, that is
honoured.
That is the basis on which universities, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, do their funding, not by way of the global number that I
represent, that I bring forward by way of Estimates, but by the commitment made
by letter from the Universities Grants Commission, which specifies a specific sum. That is the basis on which universities plan.
Ms. Friesen: That is exactly my point. That is the basis on which they have planned
in the past, but when this clawback came towards the end of their budget year,
it made it very difficult for individual faculties, schools and universities
to, first of all, make up that amount, and, second of all, to understand or at
least to accept that there was any‑‑what is the word I am looking
for‑‑but so they could count on any number that the UGC gave them
in the future.
My question has been twofold. Is the minister committed to, in fact,
allowing all the money to flow through the UGC this year? Does the UGC have a role in determining how
those clawbacks have been made? Did it
have a role in that? And, the number 99
percent was the minister's, not mine. I
have been trying to look for information on this, and that was the formula he
gave me. Now, perhaps it was a‑‑
Mr. Manness: I did not give a formula.
Ms. Friesen: The minister says he did not give a formula. Those were the numbers he put on the table.
Mr. Manness: That was no formula.
Ms. Friesen: Well, if he does not call it a formula, I do
not know what he wants to call it; a relationship between two sets of numbers,
a relationship between two sets of budgets that the universities were
given. I am asking for an assurance
that, first of all, no clawbacks will be there this year.
Second of all, that if there are to be clawbacks again, if
the minister is going to suggest that is likely to happen with 1 percent of the
budget, 2 percent of the budget, .05 percent of the budget, whatever number he
wants to use, that the UGC, and not the minister will be making that
reduction. I am looking for an
indication of what the process has been and will be.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the process
will not change from anything I have just dictated. It is as it is. The member says this year. I do not even know what year she is talking
about. Is she talking about '93‑94
or '94‑95? In terms of '93‑94,
there was no reduction. There was no
reduction. Is she talking in terms of
'94‑95? We are just beginning that
year.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) ultimately in the
fall will determine whether or not there might be a reduction, and at that
time, if the pressures are so great, the commitment of cash flow, under normal
circumstances may have to be changed.
There is no formula to it, absolutely none.
Ms. Friesen: It is my understanding that in the last
fiscal year, there was a clawback to Universities. It is difficult with the minister's staff
sitting here that the minister is not able to verify which year it was. My understanding is it was this past fiscal year. I can understand that one particular
individual was not involved with the UGC at that point, and I look forward to
the minister's confirmation of which year in fact that clawback took place, but
since we cannot provide the specific detail tonight, perhaps the minister will
undertake to provide it in the future.
Mr. Manness: The member should try to ascertain the
veracity of her facts. I said that I was
the Minister of Finance, and if we are talking about the same year, we are
talking about the fall of '92, which was part of the '92‑93 fiscal
year. That is long gone.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that became a public issue
in November 1992. So for '93‑94,
the books have just closed. The
allocation, as promised to the Universities, flowed. There was no impact on the flow in terms of
'93‑94, so no clawback, to use the member's terms, in '93‑94.
Now we are into '94‑95, the new year, the ones we are
discussing the Estimates for. Is the
member saying, are you going to promise there will not be a clawback? That will be a decision of the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and if that were to occur, that would happen much
later in the fiscal year.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do indeed
regret that I do not have the year in front of me, but I do remind the minister
that he has four, five, six, seven, eight members of his staff in this room and
that he is unable to tell us which year.
Mr. Manness: I said it was November '92. How clearer can I make it? I ordered the clawback, to use the member's
term. I was the Minister of
Finance. I am responsible for it. I know when it happened‑‑November
'92.
Ms. Friesen: To conclude the minister's statement then, he
ordered the clawback, and it was not allocated by the Universities Grants
Commission.
Mr. Manness: It was not ordered? Well, we gave Education a target, $17
million; from memory, $17 million. This
is highly improper. We are talking about
'92‑93. Again, the member doubts
my word.
The reason I remember it so well, I can remember being in
conference and being at a political convention and having many reporters coming
up. That is why I remember it so well‑‑November
'92.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, at that time, the target
given Education was $17 million, and internally, as administration looked at
all of these areas that we were looking at here, have been reviewing over the
last three weeks, an allocation, subjective, was presented, provided, to
Universities Grants that they should contribute to the cause $2 million, and
that was clawed back, using the member's terms, from the Universities. They were not provided that funding in keeping
with the commitment made to them the spring before.
Indeed, if the circumstances were such that the shortfall
in revenue from Ottawa again was the $230 million that the member's Leader
continues to crow about when he talks about an $870 million deficit, it may
very well be required by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) that once
again he call upon departments in mid‑term not to expend the maximum
level that was supported at the table.
I remind the member when passage was given to support a
level of expenditure, that is the maximum.
There is nothing that decrees that every one of those dollars has to be
spent. That is foolish public
policy. It is a maximum that is granted
by this Legislature by the process that we are going through tonight.
Ms. Friesen: I will follow through with my question. Did the Universities Grants Commission meet
on that, and was it the Universities Grants Commission which determined how
that was applied to each university?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will try
and review the record of that. Certainly
nobody from the Universities Grants Commission is in attendance tonight that
can answer that question.
* (2210)
Ms. Friesen: I look forward to the answer on that one.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to look at the
remuneration of commission members under the Universities Grants
Commission. I am looking particularly on
Schedule 2, page 83 of the Universities Grants Commission report for '92‑93
and dealing with the Roblin commission.
This is the one that was just tabled in the House. There are two lines there dealing with
salaries. One is the remuneration of
commission members, and I wonder if the minister has a breakdown of that.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we do have
that. The commission, the per diems paid
over a period of 18 months totalled $30,249, and then there were expenditures
associated with hotel, mileage, parking and meetings on top of that, bringing
the grand total in support of all of the activities of the commissioners to
$40,364.
Ms. Friesen: I understand that some commissioners did not
accept a daily rate, so how many commissioners does this apply to?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the per diems
applied to two commissioners, but all of the other roughly $10,000
expenditures, of course, is in support of all of the commissioners' activities.
Ms. Friesen: Did all of the commissioners sit at all of
the meetings? For example, is it
reasonable to assume that this $30,000 should be divided equally between two or
were commissioners involved in a different rate of remuneration?‑‑not
remuneration.
Mr. Manness: The executive director of the commission
indicates to me, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, generally all the commissioners
were in attendance. There were occasions
towards the end of a hearing period where one commissioner, who would be a
different person, at times would have to exit the meeting.
Ms. Friesen: So that division into two for two people
would be a very rough approximation? It
would not necessarily be a precise one?
Mr. Manness: No, it would not, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. I would not be able to
reflect on any division with any certainty at this point.
Ms. Friesen: The second line on that same page 83 that I
wanted to ask about was the Salaries, Contracts and Employee Benefits, which
are listed at $105,662. Does the
minister have a more detailed breakdown of that?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the difficulty we
have here is the commission sat in two different fiscal years, so I have
globals for 18 months. What I do not
have is a breakout that totalled $105,000, but I have totals that are
comparable in measuring the same areas, and they would be that the total paid
to outside contracts would be a total of $66,605.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there were total staff salaries to
an analyst covering 18 months of $54,000, to a secretary totalling $46,500,
and, of course, the executive director's remuneration over that period of time
came to $69,910.
So I have tried to give the globals over the two fiscal
years for all of the other costs, outside of the commissioners, for the
commission.
Ms. Friesen: So that total of $66,000 for the outside
contracts, does that cover four outside contracts or the two major ones, the
Walker study and the Industrial Linkage study?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there were several,
totalling as many as eight or 10, 11, but approximately $44,000 of that total
was directed to, as the member references, the Linkage study, Threshold
Technologies Company, and the Walker study.
Ms. Friesen: So those two studies in particular, together,
collectively, $44,000. Thank you.
I want to pursue with the minister some issues arising out
of the Roblin commission. Is this the
line which he is interested in doing it?
Well, first of all, maybe the minister should perhaps give us some sense
of his response to the Roblin commission, and perhaps a timetable for when he
might be making a formal response to it.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was hoping to make
a formal response at the beginning of June.
I sense I will not be able to make a formal response now because of a
setback today until the middle of June at the earliest, but certainly we are
well positioned to meet that deadline.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister indicate what kind of
response he is thinking of making? Will
it be a tabled paper? Will it be a
ministerial statement in the House? Is
it a process that will involve other public meetings or public
discussions? When he says response, what
does he have in mind?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the process I
will follow is once the government has agreed upon certain courses of action,
we will share that with the universities prior to a public announcement. I probably will not bring it to the House,
but, in courtesy to the member, we will make sure that she has that information
before the House. So that is the process
of release that we are anticipating.
Ms. Friesen: The minister speaks of going directly to the
universities. What is the role of the
Universities Grants Commission in this process?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, formally none.
Ms. Friesen: Two of the major recommendations of the
Roblin commission refer to changes in process of government, the creation of a
cabinet committee and a post‑secondary section of the department with its
own deputy, which would appear to by‑pass the need for a universities
grants commission. Has the minister got
any plans for the UGC? Will his response
to the Roblin report take into account the role of the UGC and its future?
Mr. Manness: Well, we were, I guess, waiting with some
degree of bated breath as to whether the Roblin commission would deem to make
recommendation with respect to the process that is presently in place under the
Universities Grants Commission.
* (2220)
But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, once the Roblin commission
gave greater focus to a cabinet committee and/or a council, we are having to, I
guess, do a major rethink how we want this instrument and this organ of
government to act. We can go one or two
ways. Right now we are inclined to
possibly‑‑because of linkages between other posts, between the
colleges and universities, I think we are more inclined at this point to try to
put together a hybrid of those two activities showing the community at large
how important it is that there be linkages.
Ms. Friesen: When the minister says a hybrid of the two, I
assumed he was referring to the cabinet committee and the council recommended,
but I was actually looking for some discussion of where the Universities Grants
Commission was likely to fit in the future.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when I said the
hybrid of the two, I was not explicit.
By that I mean hybrid of two secretariats, that being the Grants
Commission and the colleges. So our
thinking is not going to be, as we mull through the various options, restrictive
or exhaustive purely putting into separate places university and colleges. I mean, we are trying to take them both into
context with respect to the options we present to ourselves.
Ms. Friesen: It sounds to me as though what the minister
is looking for is essentially an executive arm for the same function that the
Roblin commission is proposing for the cabinet committee on post‑secondary
education.
Mr. Manness: It is probably not wise to speculate at this
point. Once the announcement is made, I
am expecting there will be some greater certainty around this issue.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there were a number
of other recommendations in the Roblin commission, but one in particular I
think certainly gave great cause for reflection, and that was that it indicated
that the provincial government has not set a post‑secondary agenda to
motivate discussion of priorities in programs or in research projects. It is a fairly blanket criticism of the role
of provincial government, and I am prepared to say provincial governments in
this case, in the direction of universities.
When the minister looks at his response, is he going to be
looking at a way for the provincial government to set that post‑secondary
agenda?
Mr. Manness: Well, most definitely, but, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I do not have to tell the member governments everywhere have been
pretty timid to impose, some would say directions, some would say other areas
upon university. I mean, that is the
nature of the beast at this point in time.
Yet universities are as well aware, hopefully, as anybody that, when the
government of the day lays out a framework for economic growth which sets
aside, within all of the sectors of our wealth creation, those which should be
favoured with respect to provincial programming and, indeed, provincial focus,
one would think that universities would also understand where the leadership of
the province was trying to take the province and would want to fit into that.
Obviously, the challenge will be then as to whether or not
universities are prepared to assume their leadership role. Realizing that we as provinces cannot do all
things for all people, and as we cannot hope to stimulate activity in all
sectors and that there are decisions that are going to have to be made, they
are obviously going to have to be part of the choices that are required.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, perhaps two things I
want to reflect on from what the minister just said, and, that is, that I think
his underlying assumption there, and perhaps even a specific one, was that
there should be specialization within the university system of Manitoba. It cannot be all things to all people; it
cannot be general. I think that was what
he was saying.
So, first of all, is that a reasonable assumption to take
from what he is saying? Is that the
direction that, quote, the leadership of this province thinks that universities
should be going?
My second question on that is, who decides, how do you
decide what areas of specialization, and who should specialize in them?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will not go much
further in this area because then I will be scooping my own announcement. Certainly, we will draw some expectations
from the university community to try, within their own spheres of influence,
and make those decisions, but beyond that ultimately government is
responsible. Anyways, that is enough
said on that issue.
Ms. Friesen: Let me give the minister an example of
decisions, major economic decisions, in my view, which are being made by
universities, and I wonder what his response would be.
There have been over, the past few years and continuing to
be into the future, decisions made by universities on three‑ and four‑year
degrees. Now, every time you move from a
three‑year degree to a four‑year degree, to requiring that, you are
actually making a major economic decision for the province. Who should be making that decision?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I am mindful
of the competitive factor, competitive element.
We are not an island to our own and, indeed, other competing
institutions and other jurisdictions make decisions, and one has to be mindful
and decide whether or not there is importance in matching decisions that are
taken.
Still, the question around length of degrees and which
faculties ultimately should continue to exist, if all, that will be a joint
community decision; the community as a whole will decide. I am hoping that universities will be the
first to try and come around that question, but, indeed, if they cannot, then
obviously the government is going to have to make those decisions.
It is no different than what is happening in education
reform. I mean, a lot of people said,
government, stay out of it; you are the cause of the problem. We the educators can do it. Ultimately, at the end of the day, not very
much has been done, and the government of the day, whoever it is, has to take
an action. I sense that may be the same‑‑that
may be the case also with respect to university choices.
Ms. Friesen: One of the recommendations of the Roblin
commission is for a system‑wide co‑operation. They used, as an example, teaching services,
that support for teaching services be developed on a system‑wide basis;
and they gave the example of one of the teaching services at one of the
universities, which could be more broadly applied.
This, obviously, is the other side of the coin. You go from one area where there is
specialization, the push for specialization between universities, and the other
side of that coin is you look at areas where there might be some shared
services.
Could the minister indicate again, how will those decisions
be made, how should they be made, on which services should be shared, and how
that should be done, and over what length of time, and where does, for example,
the minister's control over funding come into this kind of decision making?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the member is
trying to draw responses out of me. We
recognized the recommendation that attempts to deal with services provided to
the professoriate, all of it, of course, directed towards enhancing quality,
but I, too, think the universities maybe should be the first group that try to
deal with that as an internal issue.
Ms. Friesen: I think the difficulty so far has been, in
fact, that it is not internal, it is institutional, and that there are clearly
institutional interests in each of these areas.
* (2230)
I know the minister thinks I am trying to draw him out‑‑and,
yes, to some extent, I am‑‑but I am also trying to address issues
of principle in the Roblin report that are very general and that may not be
specific to whatever it is he wants to say in the middle of June. Obviously, the areas are specialization, common
services, the role of the Universities Grants Commission and the kind of future
directions that the government is looking at in process, and in the nature of
decision making about a very important part of the provincial economy, and an
area which has, I think, very strategic roles to play in a number of areas of
the Manitoba economy.
So my question really was dealing with shared services‑‑and
I do not mean just shared services for teachers, obviously, and the shared
services in libraries‑‑but shared services in a number of areas,
and shared programs. The Roblin
commission talks about shared programs; it talks about common responsibilities
for graduate schools. Again, I am looking
to the minister for some indication of his response to those sorts of principles. Are those the kinds of things which he will
be addressing in his report? How does he
envisage those kinds of decisions being made?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot answer the
last question, but I can answer the first question. Yes, I see a tremendous requirement for the
sharing of resources amongst our institutions, particularly the university
institutions. I see it as their only
salvation, to some extent. That will be
the challenge that we will put to them.
I sense that today people who have the common interest of
seeing these venerable but very important institutions continue to serve as
they have in the past, continue to serve in an orderly fashion, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, that the same rationalization, the same hard decisions that are
happening in every entity today in the public and, indeed, the private sector,
are going to have to occur even in a greater fashion. I know it has happened. I know it has happened to a degree already,
but I sense it has happened mainly on the margins.
It has happened in the area of some of the administrative
expenditures, and that is all important.
That is good, and that is to be promoted and applauded, but it is going
to take much more than that. It is going
to take choices, and at this point I think the challenge should be put out to
the university community and to the community at large to come to some
decision. I am hoping that the turf
protection and the self‑interest can be set aside long enough for the
well‑being of our universities. I
believe it can happen.
Ms. Friesen: The minister mentions the role of the
community in making this decision. One
of the areas where the Roblin commission, I thought, was the weakest was, in
fact, in having any ideas or innovative suggestions in how the community can
participate in those decisions.
I have compared it when I have spoken to the very direct
proposals, specific proposals that were made in the Saskatchewan review, and I
wonder if the minister has any comments upon that. Does he have any reflections upon how the
community at large can become involved in the decisions about the future of the
universities?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I am about
to relate probably does not sound like an awful lot, but, again, and I am sure
the commission in understanding the incredible academic freedom that has been
held and by our universities sensed that public accountability and public input
to this process should probably occur at the board level, No. 1; No. 2, the
universities, and to some extent I understand the University of Winnipeg
particularly is doing this, is having an open house and trying to on their own
reach out to the community and have that input come forward.
I do not think at this point it is the government's mandate
to do that. That was the purpose of the
commission. I think we are all searching
for ways that we can more meaningfully bring forward input from the
community. Certainly, the government,
whether it does it publicly or does it privately will obviously try to bring
more information to any decision that it may ultimately have to render, but at
this point the government senses the universities have a vital role to lead.
I mean, it is so easy for governments to move in and
provide solutions which, of course, everybody can attack. It is a lot more difficult for individuals to
try and find their own solutions to their own problems, and this maybe should
be the first challenge.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think it was one of
the disappointments of the people who read the Roblin report, at least the
people whom I spoke to, that the commission did not have anything more specific
to offer on that. The point that it
made, that universities should make themselves transparent, should make
themselves more understood, I think, was a good one, but that was step
one. The offering of some suggestions,
an indication of what had worked in other jurisdictions, what might be tried,
what might be seen, in fact, as having reached that goal of transparency or
accountability, what level of accountability did this public commission
anticipate?
I think the Roblin commission had a real opportunity there
that was missed. I hope the minister in
his reflections on that might perhaps deal with that. Open houses, by the way, have been held
regularly, I believe, by all universities.
If the University of Winnipeg is going beyond that to look at a specific
input from the public that perhaps goes in a different direction, and, again,
is another step, I think, that is useful.
But in each case each institution I think in doing so is
dealing with it only on an institutional basis.
It is not dealing with a university‑wide system. It is not dealing with the needs of the
public or the needs of Manitobans for its universities in general.
Again, I think you are quite likely to get into an
institutional framework again rather than to try and get to the overall
perspective of where you want to go with post‑secondary degree education.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is not that I
personally do not know where I want to go.
That is not the issue. The issue
is because of the magnitude of the institution and the history of the
institution, and the academic freedom enjoyed by the institution, the government
is going to very, very carefully and sensitively move along in a process.
I know exactly where I would like to see universities go,
but, in this case, we are going to let the community help steer me. I could develop a blueprint for a university
change and choices in short order, but I am not saying it would be accepted very
far or very widely, but it is not important.
This is an issue that I really think the community as a whole, and I
agree with the member, should be brought in and we have to be challenged to
find ways of doing that.
The member did not scoff at my suggestion of open
houses. When I said open house, I know
that open house has been as old as‑‑immemorial at universities, but
I sense that what the University of Winnipeg was doing was not just doing it in
the tradition of faculties, but it was doing it in the sense of having people
coming in and really delve into the same issue and provide comment, not to tour
the facility and feel warm about doing so.
Ms. Friesen: One of the additional recommendations, or at
least one of the other areas that the Roblin commission dealt with, was the
area of research. That has led to, I
think, a great deal of unease at universities in the manner of its phrasing,
and I wonder if the minister had anything he wanted to put on record about
that.
I think the Roblin commission seemed to be saying, first of
all, that teaching was to be more important than research, and, secondly, that
it was only to be Manitoba research which would be considered important.
* (2240)
Now, my sense is that people have read too much into those
kinds of comments, but I would like to give the minister the opportunity to put
some comments on record about that, and the role of research in Manitoba
universities.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess I took
a different interpretation from that particular passage. I read it as meaning there were no absolutes,
but with a general statement that universities, if they want to be in sync with
a general policy of leadership as brought forward by the government of the day
and, in this case, want to focus and try and integrate research with those
areas that have been earmarked and are targeted by the government as receiving
higher priority rather than less, then some certain portion of the research
activity should be directed towards those areas that have been made known to be
preferred areas, priority areas of the economy as laid out by the Premier in
the document on the Framework for Economic Growth. That is what I took that passage to mean.
Ms. Friesen: I think much of the concern about that‑‑well,
there are two areas of concern. One
obviously is that there is a considerable body of opinion at universities which
would believe that governments come and go, that those frameworks change, and
that universities and research and post‑secondary education, in
particular, is a much bigger animal to move and to move it in shifts of four
and five years is, in fact, to distort some of the purposes of the
institution. So those would be some of
the concerns that I would perhaps just lay before the minister, of those kinds
of responses to the direct link between economic priorities and university
education.
I think the second area is of disappointment, and I think
some of the reactions to this particular section of the report have been that
many people were very disappointed that Roblin did not take specific account of
the existing Manitoba research that was done.
It simply said that more should be done, but there seemed to be no recognition
of the areas in fact where a considerable amount of research on Manitoba and on
Manitoba issues and Manitoba future and linkages with Manitoba industries were
already developed. I do not know why
Roblin did not indicate that in his report.
It would have been a useful kind of benchmark I think for the end of the
20th Century to have essentially indicated how our universities were dealing
with those kinds of priorities.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you see this is where
we place our trust in a former premier who understands government extremely
well, who probably as a premier made the most significant contribution to
education across the scope than any other premier in history. Nobody has to defend Premier Roblin when it
comes to his commitment to education, but that is why we had him lead the
commission because nobody understands better than this person that the
university, to the extent it believes it is above the government, or beyond
wherever the government is, then is saying it is beyond the people, because the
government is nothing more than the people.
There it becomes a danger.
The member can say, well, there is a shortcoming, and
governments come and go, and plans change, but I sense that I have not seen
much focusing on government economic plans over the course of the last 20 years
in this province. Some would say that is
a shortcoming, and so, when our government lays out a framework for economic
growth and picks the areas that we have to concentrate our efforts, something that
has not been done in this province basically for 20 years, then I say the
university community should take note of that.
Because I do not care who the next government is going to be, although I
do care in the sense that it will be us, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the reality is
those areas are not going to change.
Those areas are going to be what we ride as winners into the next
century.
When the member says there are good linkages with the
private sector or the wealth‑creating area today, that is not true. There is nothing further from the truth.
[interjection] Agriculture, the connections‑‑and agriculture was
referenced in a researched way, and that is one of the bright shining lights
today, but it is nothing, it is nothing, compared to what it was 15 or 20 years
ago‑‑I say that as a graduate of that system‑‑the
outreach. So, if that is the shining
light, and I say then what about the other professional faculties, how are
they? Indeed when we apply‑‑when
the commission went to the EITC, the Economic Innovation and Technology
Council, and took the best business brains within the province and asked them
as to what degree of linkages are there today as compared to the past and how
relevant, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the commission received‑‑there
was no equivocation with respect to the statement. The linkages are not in place. The university is not serving the community
like it did a time ago.
The member can say, well, what about health? I am proud, I am sure we are all proud of the
research that is done and being committed in the area of health, but that in
itself cannot sustain the arguments around how it is the universities should be
reaching out in a broader fashion to the wealth‑creating sectors of our
society. So more has to be done, and I
disagree strongly with the member when she says that the university today is
well. It is trying. It is trying in some respects. There are individuals who are trying hard,
and there are individuals that have some success, but as a blanket statement,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the statement cannot be made.
There are too many, in my view, researchers who are not
tied to the Manitoba economy. Yet, of
course, one knows that $220 million of taxpayer money goes into support of the
institution. Most of it, of course, on
the academic side, but still I am not trying to cast blame anywhere. I am just saying we have a problem. Let us try and resolve it.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I wonder if the minister
would like to elaborate on the theme of too many researchers are not tied to
the Manitoba economy because it is exactly those kinds of blanket statements
that cause great unease at universities.
Does the minister perhaps have some way of elaborating on that? What would be enough? Is it 100 percent? Is it 80 percent?
I mean, obviously, it is silly to talk in those kinds of
numbers, but those kinds of blanket statements, I am simply reflecting to the
minister the kind of discussions which I hear and that those are cause for
great concern and are cause for concern for Manitoba university status amongst
other universities as well. I mean,
there is an international world here that we are talking about in post‑secondary
education.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know blanket
statements are unfair, and if I could withdraw the one I made, I would, but
when we talk to the business community and we ask them, well, why are you not
directing research support to our universities, and that is a general
statement, or why is it not that there is a linkage in place? I mean, surely there are resources, there are
research opportunities, that will provide greater opportunities to you. I must confess today there are many, many,
and I cannot define how many, but the number of linkages today are not in
keeping with what used to be certainly in the '60s and '70s as between the
business community and the world of academe.
I am troubled by that.
I am not casting blame, but I guess I am asking why. I am not putting all the blame at the
university, and I am not laying all the blame of that on the university.
The member can talk about head offices being
elsewhere. Well, that is probably a
dimension of it. I would not argue
against that, but, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then we turn to our university. Then, if they see this, I would say it is up
to them to then move into support of the young entrepreneurial climate that we
do have still.
* (2250)
I can take the member into my constituency. I can take her in the space of one day to 40
small businesses, employing anywhere from 20 to 80 to 180 people, all small,
but which today are representative of the real force of economic wealth in this
province. I will ask them, well, what
relationship do you have with the university?
Well, they look at me in a most perplexed way, and, of course, a lot of
them themselves are not trained, but I say, well, has anybody from the
university ever come out and through extension opportunities made known what
resources or what support may be there in a research sense? Nobody.
I am saying, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this has been an
oversight. Yes, head offices have moved
out, but that says the big. That means
the big. That is the national. So it is time to promote now again, starting
at the small, and let the small become big.
Doing that, they will employ people.
Yes, and maybe in time, they will move out also, but it continues. This is evolutionary. It breaks down and starts again.
My view is over the last 10 years; I have not seen where
the universities have reached out again to the small and, some would say, the
inconsequential and, some would say, not very sexy, but the reality is we need
the rebirth and that linkages. The
government cannot do much to foster that.
In my view, that has to be started by the universities, because there
was a time when that happened and the outreach happened from the universities
first. It is not a chicken and egg
situation to me. To me it is the
universities' responsibility to reach out.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Urban Affairs): Just for
clarification, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am trying to understand what the
member for Wolseley is saying when she is talking about head offices. I am wondering if she could clarify. Does she mean that business head offices are
required here for the university to do well, and, if so, then what is her party
doing to help business big offices stay here?
Ms. Friesen: I will help the minister understand what it
was I was trying to suggest with that.
The Minister of Education was suggesting there was a time in the 1960s
when the university had greater outreach to small businesses in the
agricultural sector in particular I assume he is talking about or‑‑
Mr. Manness: Manufacturing.
Ms. Friesen: Manufacturing, okay. He was wondering what the difference was
between the 1960s and the 1990s, and there are a number of differences. One of them is that Manitoba, and Winnipeg in
particular, has lost a number of head offices.
One of the opportunities that you have in head offices is, of course,
that is where the decisions are made about support for research, the
discretionary money that large companies do have for support, for the
arts. The arts, I think, has also
suffered in the same way. At least until
the last couple of years I would say there has been some changes, but generally
speaking, when decisions are made outside of the province, the ability for the
universities of Manitoba to benefit from corporate donations, corporate
support, corporate attachment to certain kinds of research is less. When the head offices are in Toronto,
Montreal and Vancouver, that is where the money has tended to go.
The universities in Manitoba, I think, have first of all
been behind in soliciting private donations.
They started later than other provinces, and, secondly, they are at a
disadvantage because the head offices are not here in Manitoba. That was the point I was making. It is one of the differences, as the minister
indicated.
There are other differences between the '60s and '90s as
well, obviously in the international economic situation and in the way in which
there has been a particular conservative market‑driven ideology about
educational institutions. All of those,
I think, have fed into the kind of situation that the Roblin report has
portrayed.
Mrs. McIntosh: The other half of that recognizing that
importance was [inaudible]
Ms. Friesen: Well, I am not interested in getting into a
discussion with the minister about party policy. We are here to discuss the Roblin commission
and I would be happy if the minister had comments on that.
Mrs. McIntosh: It is obvious that you do not want to discuss
it.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just comment
by saying that the greater focus here is applied versus pure research. I guess the question is some pure research is
being done. A lot of it is being committed
to journals, and, obviously, we have to believe there is a payback of that, but
it is probably long term in many cases.
I do not sense the willingness to become involved in applied research to
provide some immediate benefits to our business community. This is not an agriculture issue. This is a business support issue. So if I have some criticism, it is with
respect to that.
As far as head offices leaving, you know, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I cannot think of many outside of the financial service
sector. That is where most of the head
office loss has been, within the financial sphere.
Ms. Friesen: Again, what I am trying to do for the
minister is to reflect to him some of the responses to the Roblin commission
and to indicate the disappointments that many people in the universities and
post‑secondary facilities had with some of the‑‑not perhaps
so much the recommendations, although some of that is there, but the way in
which perhaps it did not take the opportunity to comment upon areas where the
universities felt that they had been doing an important job with diminishing
resources.
One of those was in the area of recognizing what Manitoba
research had been done, was being done, continued to be done, may or may not be
applied to business or agriculture or industrial areas, but certainly there is
a great deal of many types of research which relate to the strategic plan of
this particular government and which also relate to furthering knowledge about
Manitoba.
But I think, again, another aspect of research is that the
universities believe, and I believe quite rightly, that research brings in
money to Manitoba. The minister tends to
see it, or should I say the Roblin report tended to treat it as an area of
unfulfilled obligation, first of all; second of all, as a kind of drain upon
the economy, whereas I think the universities have tried to make the case over
and over again that the research grants that are brought in internationally and
nationally, from the national granting aegis, particularly in engineering,
science and medicine, are enormous.
Those are new dollars coming into the Manitoba economy
which would not be here without the research activities of individuals and
groups and laboratories at the universities, and, again, I am looking for some
reflection from the minister on that role of the universities as, in fact,
wealth generators in themselves for the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Manness: This is where the member has me on the horns
of a dilemma because, you see, a lot of the money she references‑‑and
I understand $9 million coming into engineering research, $10 million coming
into health research‑‑is important to the province and important to
every institution in every other province that receives a significant portion
also.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the situation is not an awful lot
different than the infrastructure program that we are dealing with. What is the source of the money? Most of it is federal money. Most of it is borrowed. Most of it is payable by ourselves.
To the extent that it is international money coming in,
that is a real net gain. That is like
tourism dollars. That is like an
American tourist coming here and spending dollars. That is real benefit. Oh, I am sorry, I should not have used the
word "American."
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the funding in the sense that it is
federal sourced and worse than that, it is federal borrowed, it is our
money. It is no different from the
infrastructure program that we are all supporting. At least we are paying for our share.
But to take it out of our own pockets and then turn it over
to any institution or to any good cause, then there better be a pretty fairly
immediate payback or at least a guaranteed payback. I think that is all the commission was trying
to say. Be mindful of the sources. Recognize, yes, that research has benefit,
but recognize that if it is borrowed money from whatever source, then it may
not have the same benefit.
But also recognize that we have an economy, we have a
plant, we have a generator of wealth that needs support and that everybody, I
do not care if they are in a publicly funded institution, but everybody better
get behind the wheel. I do not think
today there is a mindset in enough places‑‑there is in some‑‑but
in enough sections of the universities yet that accepts that point of view, and
the member may not.
I certainly strongly believe it. I believe the university has a crucial,
critical role to play, particularly now, to begin to refocus and support the
plant that wants to produce the wealth.
So that we can redistribute to the betterment of all requires quite a
mind shift at this institution to which we provide all of this academic
freedom.
* (2300)
Society everywhere is going through these difficult times,
how to deal with these institutions. I
am glad the member has not focused on funding, because it is a much bigger
issue than funding.
Ms. Friesen: I am trying to draw to the minister's
attention the role of the universities in bringing money into Manitoba that
would not otherwise come to Manitoba.
Yes, the minister is right; it is a form of infrastructure matter,
absolutely. But one of the difficulties
and one of the apprehensions of people who foresee that argument, that too many
researchers are not tied to the Manitoba economy, see the other side of that
argument that, if that is the only and blanket direction in which the
government wants the universities to go, that could be counterproductive in
that that is not going to bring in the national granting agencies' money in all
cases. In some cases, it will. So, again, I am just trying to reflect to the
minister some of the concerns that people have had when they have read those
kinds of statements.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will make a very
brief point. I took that to mean, focus
on whether or not there should be a greater balance. That is the way I read it. It was not the blanket statement that all
research be directed in support. It was
just, recognize the times we are in, and it calls into question whether there
should be some greater balance.
Ms. Friesen: The Roblin commission also made some unusual
comments, unusual in the context of recent reviews of university education
across the country, some unusual comments on student fees, the application of
differential rates to different faculties.
A common argument has been, particularly since the Smith report, that
universities should aim to have student fees set at a rate whereby the student
fee pays approximately 20 percent to 25 percent of the operating costs of the
university. That has been usually‑‑although
the second part of it is not always put in parallel, but it has always been
accompanied in the Smith report by recommendations for a greater increase of
ACCESS‑type grants and of student bursary funding or of different
approaches to income contingent repayment.
However, the Roblin commission went in a different direction
and talked about differential funding across faculties. There are certainly proposals within one of
the universities right now to move in that direction as part, in fact, of their
continuing review of universities. So I
am looking for the minister's response to that particular argument. Is that something that is going to be part of
his review or his response in mid‑June?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, we are wrestling
with this particular recommendation, and we will give ourselves some time, I
think, to look at this whole issue. We
see this as requiring some fair amount of time because, as the member says, the
proposal is different. I am not troubled
by that on the surface, but I guess I do not want‑‑although in
principle it is easy to accept the fact that individuals who are practising
dentistry should be expected to pay more of the costs associated with their
time and study, but that, then, would say that the people who could enter that
faculty then would necessarily come from a higher economic class. So we are going to give ourselves proper time
to study the ramifications of the recommendation.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am gathering from
the minister's comments that he believes, that his assumption is, that this is
a province‑wide type of decision or it is something which requires the
input of the community and/or the government in some way or other. I wondered if the minister was aware that
such discussions were underway at one of the universities, and how would he
view one university moving in that direction, if that should not be the
direction which they go?
Mr. Manness: We are well aware of the discussions that are
taking place, but it is an academic exercise right now with the caps and
tuitions that we have in place. I do not
think I should say anything more on the issue.
Ms. Friesen: Well, perhaps one final comment on that is
the Roblin commission called for a freeze on university fees while these
deliberations were in process. Would the
minister have any comment upon that?
Mr. Manness: We have obviously violated it this year
because we have allowed for a 5 percent increase, and I find out, by way of
some administrative process, a little bit more than that because of additional
fees charged to students.
So I still sense that we are keeping with the spirit of the
recommendation, and I honestly believe that before‑‑I have always
said generally that until institutions, whether they are health or whether
indeed they are educational, before they reach to the user in a big fashion,
there still has to be some rationalization done internally. I honestly believe that.
I know some universities claim they have already gone a
long way to that end. I am saying that,
in spite of your best efforts, there is more to do, and I would think that only
after the government of the day senses that enough of the questions around the
issues we have been discussing earlier tonight have been answered, and, indeed,
change implemented at that time, would they be accepting of a significant
increase in tuition fees.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as a final note on
fees, I would draw to the minister's attention that the Roblin commission uses
or applies University of Manitoba figures on tuition and program cost to all
institutions, and there are great differences among the three
institutions. I assume that they have
brought this to the minister's attention.
I thought I would just put it on the record.
I wanted to ask the minister about the linkages between
colleges and universities, which is obviously an area that the Roblin
commission paid great attention to, and I wondered if the minister had dealt
with the UGC on this. This is an area
that under existing conditions, under existing institutions, the minister would
have, I think, some influence to suggest areas of linkages without waiting for
the changes in structure in the department or in post‑secondary education
generally. So is the minister planning
to follow any of the Roblin commission recommendations in that area through
existing institutions?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the answer I provided
earlier probably would appropriately answer this question, too. There is no doubt that, when we put the
challenge out to universities, with that will go the challenge as to how they
better link with community colleges because they are deemed to be senior and
they therefore will be deemed to take the lead.
There are some good working relationships that exist now
between universities and colleges, but we will want to see them rapidly and
readily expanded. To the extent that
that happens on its own in keeping with the reality and common sense of the
day, the government does not need to be involved. To the extent that it does not occur because
of significant turf protection or indeed, again, institutions, both university
and college, wanting to be everything to all people, then obviously the
government will become more actively involved in that process and will become a
little bit dictatorial.
Ms. Friesen: One of the recommendations in this area from
the Roblin commission was the transformation‑‑well, perhaps not
transformation, but the opportunity for Keewatin to offer a general studies
university degree. Has the minister
gotten any response to that or recommendations on that?
* (2310)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will be responding
to that. I ask the member to again
wait. I still, though, see a significant
role for Keewatin Community College because, as I have said publicly, I do not
want to see the proliferation of institutions, and even the efforts of outreach
by southern institutions in the North, I want to see greater co‑ordination
before everybody rushing into the frontier to do their thing.
Ms. Friesen: On distance education, that is another area
that the Roblin commission put a great deal of emphasis upon, and particularly
the commission worried about the level of competition and the level of what it
saw as duplication and overlap in parts of Manitoba. I wondered, is the minister planning to
respond on that in mid‑June, or will this be a totally separate
initiative?
Again, is this something that can be done under existing
institutions? It was something which I
think both the government and the Roblin commission wants to see move very
quickly. So is the minister considering
moving on under existing institutions in that area?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, distance ed is emerging
to be such a large issue on its own that we will have to look at it in its own
light, and the government, too, before summer will be responding on how
distance ed as a thrust across all of our educational institutions will try and
be integrated in a fashion that does not lead to overlap and duplication and
everybody rushing around to stake their claim.
It is certainly tied into what Mr. Roblin has had to
say. It ties in, of course, to the ed
reform package, and it ties into the infrastructure program that we are trying
to deal with, with the federal government.
I mean, it just ties in everywhere.
Ultimately, when you look as to who should have the lead in
it, the area of education obviously has to be the greatest, most immediate
application. There is no question there,
and who is responsible for education under the Constitution of our country, of
course, is the province. We certainly
feel that we are well advanced, but we still have to continue to push hard,
and, again, we would expect an announcement by mid‑summer.
Ms. Friesen: Will this take account of the comments and
the opportunities that were posed in the western provinces' consortium on
distance education? There are a number
of areas of interest there for the province of Manitoba. Or, again, are we looking at simply a
Manitoba initiative based on Roblin, based on the K to 12 changes?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this whole area is
like a river running wild. You do not
know where the greatest or the fastest moving arm is. I mean, the Premiers refer to interprovincial
working relationships, and certainly, we are trying to cultivate those.
You have, obviously, education and the application within
the public school system, and, of course, by extension the post‑secondary
areas of education. You have health
wanting to adopt the new technology. You
have library services. Beyond that, you
have a desire by government to see some integrated model reaching purely into
the rural areas that will provide services in a whole host of areas.
So it comes at one in a thousand different ways, and what
we are trying to do is give it a consistent approach, give it an umbrella
approach, still recognizing that in the first instance for the foreseeable
years, certainly the rest of this decade, education will be the big user and
the area of application that will have the greatest to gain.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister envisage a time in the
immediate future when full university programs will be offered by distance
education?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would say pretty
soon. I do not know whether that will
happen in terms of '94‑95, but I am willing to bet that by '96, there
will be a significant portion of the calendar, both university and colleges,
where it lends itself, where it will be offered by way of distance education.
Ms. Friesen: This is out of sequence. I had meant to ask this earlier when we were
talking about areas of co‑operation between universities, and that was
the issue of the Internet which has recently been altered, I gather, by the
Universities Grants Commission.
I wonder if the minister could give us just a summary of
the changes in the Internet program? I
understand that it was an area of funding which had been shared by the three
universities and that now it has been altered.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to the extent that
there was a model in place where the universities were sharing and working
together, we sensed the wisdom in funding that, but as soon as that model broke
down, we were not going to provide support to overlap and duplication and
replicating of those systems throughout.
Ms. Friesen: What is the minister's view of why that broke
down?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it broke down
because of technology itself, and it broke down because the old, big mainframe,
which had a certain itinerant cost associated with it, on the economic argument
was beaten by the new generation of PCs that, of course, allowed institutions
to do it on their own at a lesser cost.
Ms. Friesen: That is certainly the argument that I hear
from the University of Manitoba, but I understand from the smaller institutions
that they have‑‑so the University of Manitoba sees that
technologically it is an advance for them that they have the opportunity to
have a lot of desktop computers and systems throughout the university in
different networks, but the smaller universities might feel that they have lost
something, and that they do not have the same opportunities as the larger
university to tie in to the individual applications of technology.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we sense
is that the smaller universities indeed willingly wanted to leave because they
were able to develop their own effective systems, which I am led to believe are
producing quite well and are becoming models in their own right. So that is what I am led to believe.
Ms. Friesen: So, from the minister's perspective then,
this is in fact a step forward. It is
not a loss of co‑operation or a loss of effectiveness of sharing of
resources.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in this case, I
guess it is that technology can lead to even greater efficiencies even though
there is no longer co‑operation.
It does not happen very often, but I gather that is the point in this
case.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about the overall sense of
universities in the province and the relationship to demographics. Does the Universities Grants Commission‑‑I
am remembering that is in fact the line we are on‑‑deal on an
annual basis or on a regular basis with the provincial demographics? How does it relate this in a policy sense,
that is, in determining the amount of funding for universities and for
particular programs, to the decisions it makes?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, demographics, in the
sense that I understand what they mean and hopefully that is in keeping with
the way the member uses the word, do not play a large role in the allocation
process. What plays a larger role, of
course, are the number of students globally within the university, and the
stability around the numbers within the faculties. Given that there have not been significant
changes, vis‑à‑vis one university versus the other, then there has
been no requirement for significant change in allocation, one year as compared
to the preceding year.
* (2320)
Ms. Friesen: Within that overall stability I think there
have been some shifts. One obvious one,
and it is in the UGC's own report, is the increase in part‑time
students. That is similar, of course, to
other provinces as well, although I think in Manitoba, certainly if we look at
the Maclean's survey, one of the areas that stands out is the number of
students who work, at Manitoba universities, and the incidence of part‑time
students, I think, is greater here than in some areas.
There are substantial issues, I think, of cost‑effectiveness
for universities as a whole. We have an
increasing number of people who are part‑time students who are taking
longer to finish their degrees. Has the
Universities Grants Commission looked at this and looked at the implications
for the system as a whole?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member's
point is well made. Obviously, through
reflection of the times and the pressures that exist, I am talking now the
increasing number of part‑time students and those who take longer to
complete a course of study, we will address this when I make comment with
respect to the Roblin commission. I do
not know how it is we take it into account as a variable in a funding
formula. I suppose there is always a
way.
We have another university claiming that they are already
covering us‑‑the University of Winnipeg, and I put this on the record‑‑of
course, would claim they are already by way of tuition covering 35
percent. The students are already
covering 35 percent of the cost of operation at the University of
Winnipeg. So there are changing factors
everywhere, and ultimately it is the weight one gives the variables that
determine how the formula will globally change the level of funding as between
the preceding year and the present year, university by university.
Ms. Friesen: My question was really an economic cost‑benefit,
not necessarily cost‑benefit but certainly an indication of what the
economic consequences are of this trend, and it is a trend. I think that has stabilized. It is a trend that is likely to increase. What are the implications in economic terms
for the overall university system?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I point out this is a
dynamic trend issue. I mean, up until
three years ago there was a significant increase in part‑time
students. The last three years the
experience has been the reverse, so if the member is saying, can you do an
economic analysis as to how society is gaining or losing taking into account
these trends, I will tell you that would take a pretty complex economic model
to begin to build that.
I do not know if the member spent a lot of time building
models. I did all my training in that,
and I do not know whether you could do it.
I do not know whether you could do anything more than do it as a nation,
if you could do it as a nation. There
only are two economic models that exist that try and measure well the economy,
and they rest with the Department of Finance in Ottawa and the Economic Council
of Canada.
Ms. Friesen: I was giving that as an example of the kind
of research that I was looking for, because this is the one area of government,
the Universities Grants Commission, which could look at those kinds of
issues. The part‑time one is an
obvious one. Another one is the so‑called
echo baby boom, which is anticipated will arrive or emerge in 1998 to
2006. Has the UGC looked at the
implications of that? Is that going to
be an issue in Manitoba, first of all, and have you looked at the implications
of that for the future of universities?
Mr. Manness: UGC has not looked at that, but certainly I
have challenged universities to look at that.
I have also challenged universities to indicate where they will be,
where will the campus be, 10 years from now as we reach out by distance
education, not only to rural parts maybe but even to within the home and the
living room and the study room within the city of Winnipeg. I mean, what is the campus model going to
look like moving into the next century?
So it is a much bigger issue than just part‑time students, and the
member, I assume, agrees with me.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, I was giving both of those as examples,
and again I am looking for an area of shared services here. Yes, each university could develop those
kinds of models. It could each define
its own region and its own mandate in different ways. But here we do have one area of government,
one particular department of government which does allocate funds on both a
short‑term and a long‑term basis, looks at university plans, looks
at university capital development, and I wondered if those kinds of
implications were part of their decisions.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in a perfect world,
that would probably be the case, but what the member is talking about in
building models, dealing with a million people to try to make them meaningfully
work, is an impossible task, and I dare say the nation as a whole would have
difficulty bringing forth meaningful results even if we were to look into the
university community across Canada. In a
perfect world, we would do it, but I am sorry, the resources are not there to
even begin to attempt to do that.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I actually am looking at a document
from Alberta which does propose to do that, Alberta Advanced Education, October
1989. It does pose those questions, at
least for public discussion and for discussion in the context of Alberta. If the minister believes that a better model
could be found on a national basis, yes, I am sure that is obviously a good
starting point. Has he brought this to
the Council of Ministers of Education?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I have indicated
before, most of the focus of the discussion at the Council of Ministers of
Education has been towards the public school system. Let me say, though, that with Alberta
experiencing a 21 percent decrease in funding over the next three years to its university
system, I will be watching carefully to see how far they move along the path to
building this model. I mean, this is a
tremendous Herculean task of trying to build a model that is competent to any
extent.
Ms. Friesen: One of the areas I think that has been
discussed, by not only Roblin but other university commissions and college
commissions across the country, has been the area of continuing education,
defined in many ways: as further
education, as lifelong learning, as market‑driven training. There are lots of definitions which are
used. Again, I am asking the minister,
is his response to the Roblin commission going to involve that aspect of
university education?
* (2330)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, lifelong learning I
think is important to us. I do not know
when the formal dimension of it‑‑we know when it begins. I guess to us it is important that we try to
develop more of a seamless web through the formal process of education. After that, for those who want to renew or
refresh or upgrade, it becomes a challenge then, not to spend more money on it
but taking the existing money that we have now in place, call for greater
system‑wide efficiencies throughout all the levels of formal learning and
obviously call upon the user to provide greater revenue and support for that
lifelong learning. There is no magic
around this. It is a general term, but I
think that to make it more meaningful, we have to put into place a system of learning
that is more efficient from the beginning, kindergarten right through.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being after 11:30, what is the will
of the committee? Committee rise.
FAMILY SERVICES
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Family Services. We are on item 3.(a) Rehabilitation,
Community Living and Day Care, and if memory serves me correctly, I believe the
minister was about to respond to the honourable member for Burrows's
question. Does the honourable member for
Burrows wish to repeat this question?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): For the
interest of all concerned and for the record, then, in order to give a full and
factual answer, I would like to have the question repeated if that is possible.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I think first the minister should introduce
her hard‑working staff.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think too the staff that
are here tonight were here last evening.
That is Roxy Freedman, Deputy Minister, and Martin Billinkoff, ADM of
Management Services. Tannis Mindell is
the ADM of Community Living, Rehab and Day Care, and Kim Sharman is Executive
Director of Community Living.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I think when we left off
we were talking about group homes, and the minister had indicated that the new
funding was only available to new clients, so I was asking what the current
providers of group homes and other services were going to do, given that some
of them had contacted me saying that the funding was inadequate for staffing
and even for things like utilities.
I guess I used two examples, one was a group home in
Portage‑‑and I am sorry, I do not have the name of the group home,
the organization‑‑and the other was Brandon Community Options,
which had indicated to me that they had put in a request for funding for night
staff. They have night staff, but they
apparently do not have funding to pay for them.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, there are some group homes
throughout the province that are currently requesting awake night staff
resources. Some do have, and within the
new budget allocation, there will be some dollars for awake night staff, but
the decisions have not been made at this point on which facilities might get
them.
Brandon Community Options is one that has asked. I believe they have seven residences for the
mentally handicapped. Some of their
residences do have awake night staff, and others do not, and those are the ones
that are requesting. I do not know if we
will be able to commit to all of those requests.
Mr. Martindale: When you are making this decision, will you divide
up the money amongst all of the facilities, or will you just try to fund those
that have put in a request? How will you
make a decision on this?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, we will look at all of the
needs, the types of residents who are in the group homes, and will make a
decision based on that needs assessment.
There may be, as a result of new residences coming on
stream, a need, depending on the level of care, level of supervision that is
needed, you know, some support in some of those residences. We will have to assess what new facilities we
are going to put in place and take a look at the level of care required right
throughout the old and the new and then make the decisions accordingly.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if the problem
that she got involved in in her constituency is licensed by the Residential
Care Licensing branch, the foster home?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, it is Residential Care
Licensing that does license foster homes.
It is a foster home in my community, and it is licensed under
Residential Care. It is not in this
area.
Mr. Martindale: I was wondering what has happened since the
stories in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 27.
Has the minister had a chance to meet with both sides, and have their
concerns been dealt with?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, we had a community meeting at a local
elementary school where residents of the community were invited, with a
facilitator and with experts from the child welfare system to provide
information and to answer questions. We
had departmental staff there, too.
I was there and was able to listen to the questions that
were asked and answers that were given, and I think towards the end of the
meeting‑‑and when you have an issue in a community‑‑I
am sure from time to time all of us have had those issues. I know some of the opposition have had issues
in their communities surrounding group homes, and staff have come out and
provided information.
I know the issue has settled down, and there seems to be a
fairly co‑operative approach within the community. I believe there are probably some people who
are maybe not satisfied, but I think the majority of the residents in our
community are satisfied with the answers and the information they were given.
It was an opportunity to provide some information, some
education to our community around what the role of foster homes is, what the
differences between foster homes and group homes are, and I think even as a
result of the meeting, there was at least one inquiry wondering how they might
be able to become foster parents. So I
think that could be one very positive resolution of the whole process.
Mr. Martindale: I am glad to hear that, according to the
minister, there was a satisfactory resolution of the problems there.
Does Work and Social Opportunities come under this part of
your department?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: Apparently, there seemed to be a number of
groups that do quite well, and the only publicity they get is good publicity,
and I think Sturgeon Creek Enterprises would be an example of that. I do not get phone calls from their board
members or staff or parents or participants, but that is not true with WASO. I am still getting phone calls from staff and
parents.
* (1940)
I know that the minister has investigated because I wrote
to the minister, and I got a reply from the minister or her predecessor, no,
from this minister, and even though the minister has said that she has
investigated, and I know that the department is monitoring Waso very closely,
and apparently, there has been an increase of at least one staffperson, there
still seems to be problems.
I would like to ask the minister, first of all, what does
she think the problem is there? Is it a
board‑staff problem? Is it a
management problem? Is it a problem with
the executive director, and what is her department doing about it?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think what I have to
indicate is that all of the agencies we fund in this area are run by volunteer
boards. There are many volunteers
throughout our community that do make a major commitment to providing time and
expertise and, hopefully, direction in areas that they have special interest. Waso is no exception. There is a volunteer board, and I think they
are extremely committed to trying to work together with the department to
facilitate a positive resolution. We
will and have been and will continue to work with them.
I guess from time to time, there are staff‑management
problems, management‑board problems, and we try to work through those and
ensure the services that are provided to the community and to those who are
vulnerable in our community are the best we can possibly offer, but from time
to time there are issues surrounding board‑staff relationships that need
some additional support. We try to, in
the department, provide the support to solve the problems.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I agree with the minister to the extent
these organizations are in the hands of volunteer board members and that we
appreciate the work that these volunteers do.
I happen to know one of the board members. I guess that is okay, as long as the
organizations are functioning well, fulfilling their mandate and following
whatever guidelines are issued from this department, but when there is a
problem, I think the department can no longer have a hands‑off stance or
attitude. They need to become involved
internally in the organization to resolve the problems.
You have indicated, I think, that more support has been
provided. I wonder if the minister can
expand and tell us what kind of support has been provided.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the department has been
working vigorously with Waso. They have
staff in there on almost a daily basis to monitor and ensure that things are
going accordingly. They have met with
the parent advisory body. They have met
with the board on many occasions, and they are working to try to find a
resolution.
I guess the issue here is, do you shut down Waso and not
allow an opportunity for these people to have some meaningful activity or do we
try to work through the problems and ensure that things are going smoothly and
satisfactorily and try to get some of the glitches out of the situation. I hesitate at this point to say that we
should walk in and take the keys away and take over. I think it is incumbent upon us as a
department to try to work through the problems and resolve them wherever
possible. So that is what we are doing,
and it is on a daily basis.
Mr. Martindale: I was not suggesting that the minister take
over the organization. I was suggesting,
though, that the accusations that are being made are serious and need to be
resolved to the public's satisfaction and to the minister's.
One of the more specific concerns that has been raised is
the level of staffing, particularly over the noon hour, and I am wondering if
the staff ratio has been increased during that time.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, they have hired another staffperson, and
we are monitoring to ensure that the right staff‑client ratios are in
place at all times.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to move on to the Vulnerable
Persons Commissioner's Office, and ask the minister if there is a reason for
the fact that there is no budget money allocated. I believe the minister, in correspondence to
me, indicated that she hopes to hire the commissioner by the fall of 1994, and
I assume that there would be some salary expense for the commissioner and for
other staff. I wonder if the minister
can explain why there is no money in the budget?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the amount in the budget
is for operating costs. What we will be
doing for staffing is reallocating staffing resources from within the
department, so we will be recruiting and hiring someone for the
commissioner. It will be into a vacant
staff position that has been reallocated within.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister indicate the salary range
of the Vulnerable Persons Commissioner?
Mrs. Mitchelson: That has just been submitted to the Civil
Service Commission for classification, based on the job description that has
been developed.
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister can indicate the
number of staff years? I presume
managerial would be one and that would refer to the vulnerable commissioner,
but how many professional/technical, administrative staff positions would there
be?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, we plan to have four staff
when the office is up and running, fully operational, the commissioner, two
program analysts and one administrative support.
Mr. Martindale: And the minister plans to reallocate SYs from
within the department to fill all of these positions?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: Is that because there are vacancies in the
department and so the budget money is available?
Mrs. Mitchelson: From time to time there are vacancies. There have been decisions made in this budget
process for some staff reductions, and we have managed to accommodate that with
very little problem. We will be looking
at areas where we can reallocate from to the vulnerable commissioner. It will be doable.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to correct something I said
earlier. The minister's letter of April
6 actually says that she is hoping the recruitment process will begin in early
fiscal year '94‑95. Could the
minister tell us what goals she has for the hiring time line for getting the
commissioner hired and the staff hired and the office up and running?
Mrs. Mitchelson: As soon as the position is classified by the
Civil Service Commission we will be bulletining that position and going through
that process. I would like to see it
happen by late summer or early fall because we are looking at proclamation of
the legislation in the fall sometime, and we would like the commissioner hired
before that happens.
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Madam Chairperson, I heard the minister use
the word "bulletining." So it
is intended that it will be an internal competition, not going outside the
department but there will be a recruitment process.
* (1950)
Mrs. Mitchelson: There will be a recruitment process, and I
would believe it probably will be open outside of the Civil Service also. There will be qualifications set down in the
job description, and I am sure we will go to an open competition on this one.
Madam Chairperson: 3.(a) Administration (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $678,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $232,300‑‑pass.
3.(b) Vulnerable Persons Commissioner's Office $257,000‑‑pass.
3.(c) Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation
Programs (1) Adult Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,458,600‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $337,500‑‑pass; (c) Financial Assistance and
External Agencies $41,882,800‑‑pass.
3.(c)(2) Children's Special Services (a) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $247,200.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, this is one part of the
department that I am not very familiar with.
I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about Children's
Special Services.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, under Children's Special
Services you will find funding for St. Amant Centre, for the Society for
Manitobans with Disabilities and for children with mental and physical
disabilities in their own homes and the support services that are required to
keep them in home or provide respite.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister update us on the two‑year
pilot project? There is a description of
this in one of the newsletters from the St. Amant Centre, and I think there
were some questions about it last year.
I believe originally there were a certain number of
individuals who were supposed to benefit from this program, but I think the actual
number was cut in half. Perhaps the
minister could verify that, and then bring us up to date on the two‑year
pilot project.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, it was originally
announced as up to 25, and we do have 10 people who are in the pilot project
now. We have just finished the first
year, and it has been extremely successful for those 10 who have been
enrolled. I have had the opportunity to
meet and discuss with them what a positive experience it is to have a circle of
friends around you that are your support network and can help you make
decisions to have service provision.
We are presently looking at whether we will have the
ability to enhance that program or not.
There has been no final decision on that.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if these
individuals were previously in an institution like the St. Amant Centre before
they were given the opportunity to take part in the family‑based care
option?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Out of the 10, four were in MDC, two were in
St. Amant Centre and four were in the community.
Mr. Martindale: I presume at the end of the two‑year
period there will be an evaluation, and then the minister will decide whether
to continue with the current number of 10 or to expand to 25 or make it
available to more people in the community.
I wonder if the minister could tell us what sort of criteria will be
used in evaluating this pilot project.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, there was an ongoing
evaluative system built right into the project as it started, so we are
monitoring on an ongoing basis. We
should be able to have a final evaluation very quickly, once the pilot is
finished, and, yes, then a decision will have to be made on expansion of the
program, whether it is working, whether it has been a positive experience and
whether it is something we want to continue or enhance or expand upon.
Mr. Martindale: I think the minister has already indicated
that it is a positive experience for these individuals, so I have a number of
questions based on that. First of all,
is this pilot project cheaper than having these individuals in institutions
such as the Manitoba Developmental Centre and St. Amant Centre?
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is one of the things we will have to
look at, and that is part of the evaluation process. At the end of the two‑year pilot, we
will have to assess what the costs would have been had they been maintained.
I guess there is no absolute cost that can be determined
right at this point. I guess we would
have to evaluate circumstances once the two years are finished and see whether
we felt it was cost‑effective and positive.
Mr. Martindale: Being cost‑effective should not be the
only criteria, and it sounds like it will not be, but if it is a positive
experience for these individuals and their families, it would seem to make
sense to continue it on a permanent basis or even expand it and make it
available to more people.
I suppose the minister is going to say it is too soon to
tell because the two years are not up, but are there people who are pushing for
this in the community, like the parents and support groups and St. Amant Centre
and Manitoba Developmental Centre, as well?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, there certainly is advocacy on behalf of
this kind of program where people can be their own decision makers with the
support of their friends, that circle of people who do surround them. I think we all had an opportunity to meet
with‑‑what is the health initiative? The Independent Living Resource Centre has a
pilot program for self‑managed help, and I know that I had an opportunity
to meet with them in the Legislature.
They were here some time last fall, I guess. I believe even my honourable friend was there
and spent some time with them. It
appears to be a very positive experience.
What they are saying is that they have the ability to
manage, to hire and to fire and to have the flexibility built into the programming
that is not always available when you are looking at home care services and
having to accept the worker you are given.
Even if there is an incompatibility, sometimes there is not the ability
to change as quickly, but when you have the opportunity to manage your own
care, I think it is a very positive experience.
You know, it is one of the things we have piloted. I think we have been on the leading edge in
Manitoba as far as piloting these kinds of programs. We will continue to monitor, and if at all
possible, if we find that it is working well, indeed we will have to think
seriously about expansion on both sides.
* (2000)
Mr. Martindale: When will the two years be up?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It will be another full year at least before
the two years are up.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I look forward to asking questions
about it again next year in Estimates, if there are Estimates next year at this
time.
I would like to go back to one other area. It has to do with an organization called
Career Connections Incorporated in Brandon, formerly known ARM Industries
Inc. They seem to be having some
financial problems, and my colleague the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) wrote to the minister on March 2.
I am wondering if the minister can tell us what the current
status is for this organization. Do they
feel they still have financial problems, or is the minister able to give them
more money in this financial year?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Staff have been meeting with them to try to
resolve their problems, and they are in the process of trying to come to a
resolution.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, I, too, have some
questions around the pilot project. Were
the evaluation criteria established prior to the commencement of the pilot
project?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, they were.
Ms. McCormick: Were . . . evaluations being conducted within
your department or by outsiders who are . . . .
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, there will be an internal and external
evaluation, and these are the kinds of questions that will be asked for
evaluative purposes. Have we done the
right thing? How well did we
perform? Did we design our approach
properly? Did we implement
properly? Did we get the expected
results? Did we get unexpected
results? These are positive or
negative. What are the financial
implications of the project and is there a better way of solving the
problem? So those are all the things
that will be asked.
Ms. McCormick: I am interpreting then that it is both a
program evaluation and also a service evaluation, that there will be an
evaluation of the suitability of the service to the individual clients who were
selected into it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I can say yes to that question and indicate
that the issues of evaluation are project rationale and relevance,
implementation, effectiveness, cost‑effectiveness, project alternatives,
so a fairly comprehensive evaluative process to ensure that we have made the
right decisions and that there is not an even better way of trying to provide
services here.
Ms. McCormick: The time line for the commencement of the
evaluation, given that the project is of two‑years duration, will the
evaluation occur early enough in the final year of the project so as not to
disrupt service if it is indeed to continue or not to create undue anxiety in
terms of the recipients of the service?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The evaluation is ongoing right throughout
the pilot, so it has started. It started
as the first person was taken in and as each person comes on stream. That evaluation process starts for that
person and it will be ongoing right through the whole term of the project.
Ms. McCormick: So the client aspect of the evaluation is
ongoing. At what point will this data
compiled through the service profiles and the client evaluation be further
evaluated in the form of a program evaluation?
When would the program evaluation commence?
Mrs. Mitchelson: All I can say is that it is a very
comprehensive evaluation process. It is
ongoing; it is being monitored by the management committee on an ongoing basis;
and it is very extensive. It is one of
the best evaluative processes that has been put in place.
Ms. McCormick: I can interpret, then, from the minister's
confidence in both the evaluation processes and the findings to date that there
are unlikely to be any surprises which would cause her to want to discontinue
service, and if there were to be an interruption of the program, at what point
would those decisions be communicated to the families of the people who are the
recipients?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think it is a little too
early to tell at this point in the pilot process. I would anticipate or from what I am hearing,
those who are involved are very pleased to date, but I think we have‑‑this
is one of those projects, and I think we have talked at great length in this
room around how we are going to have to measure outcomes on a very regular
basis for any new programs that are implemented right throughout government,
and this has already started. I guess we
had the foresight a year or so ago to put in place an evaluative process right
at the start of the project, and it will be ongoing. Maybe this will be one of the test cases for
the kinds of evaluations that need to be done to measure outcomes into the
future.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, my only concern here, and
I do not intend to badger you, but is that, for example, when you are dealing
with people who do have difficulty making change and for whom changes in their
living arrangements can be quite stressful and for the families who support and
surround them, and also, for example, from my experience with the Kali Shiva
program where you cannot really take new people in because you have to have a
commitment of time‑‑I guess all I am looking for is some assurance
that there will not be an immediate service disruption or interruption in the
permanency planning for these individuals.
With that assurance, I am willing to pass the matter by.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we can give that assurance that we
are not going to intentionally disrupt service and cut people off service
without an alternative in place. So, if
it proves not to be successful, I guess it would be a process of weaning them
off this kind of a program or project and implementing something new. I think that the most important thing here is
that we treat people with dignity and with respect and every opportunity we
have to ensure that they are kept up to speed on whether things are working
well, whether things needs to be changed and whether there might be an end and
a new beginning.
* (2010)
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(c)(2) Children's Special Services (a)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $247,200‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $83,300‑‑pass.
(c) Financial Assistance and External Agencies.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to find out if this is the place
where we get the list of funding to external agencies, or does that come later?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, this only covers the
grants to one branch, one area within the department. It is not a comprehensive list. We can get that list tomorrow.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(c)(2)(c) Financial Assistance and
External Agencies $21,292,700‑‑pass.
Mr. Martindale: On line 3.(d), could the minister tell us if
the number of residents at the Manitoba Developmental Centre is relatively the
same this year over last year or are the numbers continuing to decline?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it has been relatively stable. There has been a minor decrease, I
guess: at the beginning of the year 1993‑94,
559; at year‑end, 548.
Mr. Martindale: What is the current plan for residents at the
Manitoba Developmental Centre? Is there
going to be an ongoing need for a residential facility like this, or will the
department continue to try and move people out where appropriate?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I would say that it is my
belief anyway that there will always be a need for some type of a residential
facility or always be a need for an MDC.
We have downsized greatly, but there are some with disabilities that are
just so severe that I think it is prohibitive and not common sense, I suppose,
to think that everyone has to be in the communities. So I think we need a full range of services
from the very minor care needs to those that are extremely severe, and I would
think, in my opinion anyway, that there will always be a need.
Ms. McCormick: Can you tell me if the intake to MDC is
primarily from the community, or is it from St. Amant, for example, people who
are growing beyond the age range appropriate for St. Amant?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, most of the people that
come in do come in from the community, not from St. Amant. Some of them are instances where they have
been discharged out to the community and are returned, not able to cope in the
community. In other instances, it is
some in care that are very severely mentally disabled.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, what kind of data does the
department gather with respect to the planning for the future of the Manitoba
Developmental Centre? I would imagine
there is an inventory of people who have high needs kept somewhere. I am interested in knowing whether or not the
intake to Manitoba Developmental Centre from the community is indicative of a
breakdown in the kind of support, things which had sustained people in the
community. I know in the community I
grew up in, quite often children would be raised in their home settings until
the point where the elderly parents could not deal with them any longer, and
that was the point at which they were often moved out into the Portage
facility.
I am wondering if, in fact, the move to community‑based,
supportive Community Living Programs over the long haul is seen to eventually
have the result of cutting down the demand for spaces in the Manitoba
Developmental Centre.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think you know maybe
over the long period of time we would see some decrease or downsizing, I do not
think in the short term or in the immediate future. One of the reasons we have an increase in the
budget line here is that we do have more needs, and we are trying to provide
more community residences for individuals so they can live in the community
with the support systems around them.
You know, we are in a bit of a dilemma, and we are not
going to see lower numbers. We are going
to see higher numbers of need because, with increased medical technology, we
are keeping people alive longer now.
Where some people with mental disabilities would have died several years
before, they are living longer now, and the same at the other end, children
that would have died at birth or shortly after are living much longer
lives. So we are seeing an increasing number
and an increasing demand for services at both ends.
So I do not think in the short term we are going to see a
major decrease. There will be a need for
a considerable time to come, but we are putting more and more money into the
community side of things. Those people
that you talked about in your community that in the past might have been
admitted to MDC when their parents got too old to care for them, we are
hopefully going to be able to accommodate some of those in the community
residences, but the numbers are not going to decrease. I think we are going to see increasing
numbers.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, I am interpreting then
that the increase in Community Support is a duplicate cost for a period of time
because of the other factors that you are indicating. Is there no compensable offset, for example,
for prevention activities? You know, we
know so much now about the importance of good prenatal care and its role in
preventing disabilities and defects, or in the medical technique. You know, there were times when children were
born with hydrocephaly, which can now be shunted and managed so their
disability is not as profound.
I think I am finding this troubling because I was always
one who bought into the prevention end and the community support end as a way
of eventually doing away with, or at least drastically downsizing, the
requirements for institutional care.
* (2020)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I certainly think that is
what we would like to see ultimately. I
am not sure reality will bear that out.
We have an increasing incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome, which does
cause problems, we know, sometimes very severe problems, from minor to severe,
so we are seeing increased incidents there.
Governments at all levels‑‑we have, along with
the federal government, tried to look at ways of doing some research, and there
are ways, I suppose, that we could try to educate the public about the dangers
of drinking to excess during pregnancy.
I am not so sure that we have accomplished that yet and that we are
making any significant difference, so there is an issue there. I am not sure that we are going to see a
major change in the immediate future. It
is going to be a longer process and an educational process.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, yes, it was my intention
to raise some of those issues when we get to the appropriation for the Child
and Family Support and the child abuse initiatives. I was wondering, then, just as a final
question: With respect to the diagnostic
capability we now have in terms of determining the etiology, the beginnings of
some of these difficulties, is there information which can be gleaned from the
intake into the Manitoba Data centre, which would give any indication of where
our prevention dollars might be best spent?
Is there information that is available through this or other sources to
determine where, for example, some of these conditions could be prevented?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The data or the research that we do have does
indicate that we still have not peaked in Manitoba, that we are still seeing
increased incidences. There is an
expectation that we may peak by the year 1999, but we still are
increasing. There is a larger number of
children with Down's syndrome. We talked
about fetal alcohol syndrome and substance abuse. So those are increasing. They are still on the incline. We talked a little earlier about people
living longer. I know that there are
diagnostic tests that can be done to try to determine and do some early
intervention in those instances.
You know, I guess when I talked about our pilot projects, I
indicated it goes much beyond Welfare to Work because we have a large number of
adolescent mothers at younger and younger ages that are having babies and
keeping their babies. I think we are
going to have to work very closely together with the Department of Health, the
Department of Education, the federal government, to look at early intervention,
early child development, and also work‑‑one of my priorities will
be to see whether we cannot implement something to delay adolescent pregnancy,
prevent adolescent pregnancy, and deal with the issues around some of the
things that women do to themselves during pregnancy that can cause very serious
problems for our next generation. So we
will work at it.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(d) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $22,843,900‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $2,843,300‑‑pass.
3.(e) Child Day Care.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I think we are going to be
here for a long time on Child Day Care for a very good reason. This is my file of correspondence that I have
received from child care directors, board members, parents, et cetera. I am sure that this minister and the Child
Day Care office probably have 10 files that are this thick. We have both received considerable
correspondence from people in the child care community.
I would like to be one to give credit where credit is
due. I know that there were some
problems last year that this minister fixed, and so I would like to give the
minister an opportunity to put that in the record because there were a lot of
problems around preauthorizing subsidy.
I think the minister changed that system, and I think the child care
community appreciated that. So I would
like to give the minister an opportunity to tell us what the problem was and
how she fixed it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have said that daycare
was the first issue that I was confronted with after being appointed as the
Minister of Family Services. It appeared
that as a result of the preaudit, and I think that all of us would agree that
we should only be providing subsidy to those who need subsidy, there were some
new measures put in last year.
What happened as a result, though, was that there were some
backlogs and some delays and a lot of centres were experiencing that they did
not have the cash flow to meet their payments as a result of the preaudit
process. What happened, I guess, was
that from time to time an application for subsidy would come in, and it would
be incomplete. When the preaudit was
done, it would be sent back out again because there was a piece of paper
missing, and there appeared to be some problems.
There were some concerns, too, that at the end of the
summer into the early fall as the school year starts, I guess that is the
busiest time anyway for enrollment, and there was some concern‑‑not
enrollment, but, I guess, assessment of applications. Anyway, I met immediately with the child care
community and with staff and listened to some of staff's concerns about what
they were experiencing in the office and listened to the community about what
kinds of problems they were experiencing.
I think we were able to very quickly move from a preaudit
to a postaudit system whereby we could get the applications in, provide the
support, and then if after the fact they were ineligible, then we would deal
with the issue. I think that satisfied
the daycare community, and it also relieved some of the backlog and some of the
workload for staff involved.
We also brought some casual workers into the Day Care
office so that we could clear up the backlog.
I think we worked fairly expeditiously.
It took a little while, but I think we are on track now. We have also sort of staggered the assessment
process so that it does not all seem to happen at the same time of the
year. There are different billing dates
or assessment dates that we have been able to implement that should resolve
some of those problems into the future.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, the minister is correct;
the child care community certainly did appreciate that change that was made.
I would like to ask the minister what she thinks the
results of last year's budget decisions are and how they affected child care
centres and family daycare providers. I
would like to start with capping the number of spaces at 9,600‑‑no,
I should say cases, 9,600 cases. What
does the minister think‑‑and she should certainly be aware of what
the two communities think‑‑are the resulting problems of this
decision last year?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have had several
meetings with the Child Care Association, Early Childhood Educators now, just
as a result of their last annual meeting.
They have expressed concerns regarding the cases‑and‑spaces
issue, that there is one case allowed to be in one space now, and it has
created some hardship in some cases.
* (2030)
I guess what I have to say is that we are in the forefront
as a province in support of child care and the number of licensed spaces that
we have and the number of subsidized spaces or cases, whatever you want to call
them, and that our salaries are the second highest across the country. The salaries for directors are the highest
across the country. I am not saying that they are necessarily as high as they
could or should be, but what I am saying is, at this point in time, we feel
that we have a fairly good system in place compared to a lot of other
provinces.
When I look at Saskatchewan next door to us, we have, I
think, a total budget‑‑and I do not know whether it has increased
in the last year‑‑of around $14 million for a province
approximately the same size as Manitoba, and we have budget authority for $47
million, so our support for child care in Manitoba is a record that we can be
very proud of.
I know there are still some issues, and the child care
community, the centres, raise or bring to my attention that they would like to
see more subsidized spaces. They would
like to see a change in the policy on the case into space issue, and I have
never promised that I would be able to change it. I have indicated that we will continue to
monitor the situation. We will work with
child care centres. If they have spaces
that are subsidized that they are not using, if they want to share them or give
them to another daycare centre, we will accommodate that.
On the family daycare side, we have been able to reallocate
spaces. As certain family daycares close
and others open, we are able to reallocate subsidized spaces to them. I do not think I have ever committed more
than I can deliver. I understand the
issues and the concerns, but I do want to indicate that we have a budgetary
allocation. It is a fairly major one,
significant as compared to other provinces across the country. We will continue to work, to monitor, to
meet, and if there are some issues or some decisions that we need to make to
change things within the budgetary allocation, we will attempt to do that. We may, through some of the pilot projects,
look at some innovative new ways of providing child care.
I indicated, I think, yesterday, and I will say again, that
I believe there is a role for early childhood educators to play, not only in
the daycare setting but right throughout.
As we look to early intervention, early child development, I believe
there is a role for them to play in that area, too. We will pursue that and open the dialogue
around. As a matter of fact, I have with
individual daycare directors, or early childhood educators, let me put it that
way, I have met individually with them.
I have had good, open and frank discussion, and if there is
an opportunity to look at different ways of doing things‑‑another
area that they indicate and I know for a fact is a problem, is the flexibility
in the hours of child care. I guess
family daycare homes do provide a little more flexibility, in some instances,
for shift workers or weekend workers in centres, but there are not too many
centres now that do provide‑‑well, some do provide evening, but not
very many 24‑hour care or seven‑day‑a‑week care.
There is the odd centre.
I know that one in Portage we have met with has more flexible hours to
try to accommodate shift workers and part‑time workers, but there is an
issue there because, as I indicated, as we look to where the jobs might be into
the future and if we are looking at the call centres, which seems to be fairly
major activity in the province of Manitoba, we are not necessarily going to see
eight‑hour‑a‑day, five‑day‑a‑week
employment opportunities. They will very
often be shift work and weekend work.
Mr. Martindale: The result of this government's decision to
limit the number of cases to 9,600 is that child care centres cannot share
their spaces like they used to. When
they lose children, they cannot replace them because of the cap of 9,600, and
some centres having waiting lists for their subsidized spaces. So this has had quite an impact on child care
centres. I would like to ask the
minister if she is prepared to reconsider this decision and at least make a
change from 9,600 cases to 9,600 spaces, which, the child care community tells
me, would be a positive change.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, at this point in time, we
are going to‑‑I think I have indicated in the past, we still have
the 9,600 spaces that will allow for 9,600 cases at this point, and that will
not change in the near future. We do
know that there are centres that have subsidized spaces that are not filled,
and if there are arrangements that can be made, there are some centres that
have indicated they could use more subsidized spaces if there is an ability for
two centres to work together.
In some of the centres there have been subsidized spaces
that have been vacant for a considerable length of time. Maybe there might be a willingness for them
to share some of those spaces with a centre that might need and might be able
to utilize the subsidized spaces. So
there is that opportunity there. We do
know that all 9,600 subsidized spaces are not filled and have not been filled
completely.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister what she
thinks the effect has been of raising the parent fee from, I believe, $1.40 a
day to $2.40 a day. What effect has this
had on child care centres and on family daycare providers?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, with last year's decision,
of course, we did make a conscious decision, a policy decision to ask those
that are fully subsidized or subsidized within the system to make a financial
contribution of $1.40 a day. You know,
we have so many dollars within the daycare budget. We have, as I indicated, $47 million
budgeted, or close to, for Child Day Care; and, if we increase that budget
number considerably, again I ask the question, where do we take those dollars
from, from somewhere else, or do we ask for a small contribution from those
that are receiving subsidy for a commitment to support for their children?
Mr. Martindale: I can tell the minister the effect of raising
the parent fee from a dollar a day to $2.40 a day. It had a devastating effect, particularly on
child care centres in the inner city where many children were withdrawn because
they could not afford it. The result was
that some centres have laid off staff.
Some centres, regrettably, have rolled back wages. Some centres have vacant spaces. It has had a devastating effect on child care
centres because many, many parents cannot afford to pay $2.40 a day,
particularly if they have more than one child in a child care centre.
* (2040)
For child care centres to roll back their wages when early
childhood educators are, I think, the lowest paid profession in this country is
extremely regrettable. This is a
community who for years have been waging a fair‑wages campaign and are
trying to get some recognition and some salary enhancement for what is a very
valuable job and occupation and function in our society of providing child care
to children. I am sure that the boards
who made those decisions made those decisions very regrettably. No doubt they made those decisions because
they felt they were forced to. They had
no other choice. So the individual early
childhood educators are making a sacrifice that they really should not have to
make.
The minister says, where would I get the money? Well this budget has $23 million in grants
and tax concessions and giveaways to corporations. That is where our party would take the money
from.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Not that
corporate welfare bum stuff.
Mr. Martindale: The minister from Pembina (Mr. Orchard) says,
corporate welfare bums, and yes, that is where we would find the money.
Mr. Orchard: Come on, that is mid‑sixties . . .
rhetoric. Come on.
Mr. Martindale: Well, things have not changed since the '60s
for corporations. Things are only
getting better for corporations when it comes to some levels of government.
Could the minister tell us what the effect was of reducing
the number of weeks of child care for job searching from eight weeks to two
weeks?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I am extremely troubled
from time to time when I hear members of the opposition talking about some
allocation within a government department somewhere, and I am sure that every
critic uses that same dollar allocation over and over and over again when they
talk about finding solutions and where they might find money to provide
additional support.
I think I have heard comments in my own department alone
from the opposition critics that might indicate that they would spend more
money in most areas if they had the opportunity, and we would love to, too, but
we have made a conscious decision as a government that we are going to try to
manage and balance things in a fair manner that would provide opportunity for
increases where we believe there is most vulnerability. Those areas I have said in my department are
the child welfare side and on serving those with mental disability, so those
have been the priority areas that have received increased funding.
We were able to maintain funding on the child care side of
the department at last year's level. I
know that, when I first met with the child care community after I was appointed
as minister, there was extreme concern that there would be reductions, major
reductions this year in child care. I am
pleased to say that we were able to maintain funding in still very difficult
economic times.
We have had major increases in this area, and my honourable
friend talks about a worthy wages campaign, and we met the child care
community, as did both other caucuses regarding that issue. It was one of my colleagues who asked the
direct question, where should the money come from? Do you want us to tax people more, or do you
want us to ask parents to pay more? Or
where would you like us to get the money from?
There was not an answer, and that colleague of mine who
asked that question has a daughter that works in the child care community. He believes that she is a very hard worker
and a very committed and a very dedicated person, and that probably she should
be earning more money, but the direct question came again, where are we going
to get more money to pay her more money?
Are we going to raise taxes, or are we going to charge parents more? Where else do you get that money from? There is no easy answer to that.
I have met with the child care community, and I asked that
same question. Can we raise the parent
fee? The answer is no. Can we change the standards? The answer is no. We are not prepared to raise taxes, so, I
mean, what are the options and what are the alternatives?
I have to say, there are a lot of very committed people who
work in our child care community. Early
childhood educators play a very important role in our community. You know, there may be expansion of a role
for them to play as we look at early intervention, early child development, and
what leadership role they might play in helping us to provide that kind of a
program or that kind of a service, but, you know, no easy answers, no easy
solutions.
We do know that it is a fairly costly venture to maintain
children in our child care system today and that parent fees have been
raised. I do not think we are at a point
where we want to raise parent fees any more than we have at this point, and we
are prepared, we made a commitment in this year's budget, to maintain the
status quo. I believe that when you look
at the record of other provinces across the country, we fare fairly well when
it comes to support for child care.
Mr. Martindale: The result of reducing the number of weeks of
child care for job searching is that many post‑secondary students pulled
their children out of child care, were unable to find employment, and, of
course, when they did go back to school or did find a job, it was very
difficult for them to re‑enroll their children in child care because of
the capping of 9,600 cases.
* (2050)
Unfortunately, all of these problems are interrelated. When there are fewer students, for example,
or people searching for work who have children in a centre and other parents
have withdrawn their children because of the increase in parent fees, once
again, you have vacancies, you have staff layoffs, wage rollbacks. Regrettably, all of these problems are
interrelated.
The minister says that this was a status quo budget, but
that is not really true. There is
$300,000 less in this budget line this year than last year because there has
been an attempt to save money by changing the attendance requirements. I wonder if the minister could explain the
rationale for this decision.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I am not sure if there was
a question at the end of those comments.
Mr. Martindale: Yes, I will repeat my question. I asked the minister what the rationale was
for reducing the budget by $300,000, and that is the amount of money the
government hopes to save by changing the attendance requirements.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have tried to explain
that, when I was asked those questions in Question Period, to my honourable
friend.
Maybe I will take a little more time right now to attempt
to explain that we feel that the number of absent days allowed in the past was
I believe 25 percent of the total number of days.
When we looked at ways where we believe we want to find
more efficient and effective ways of providing service, you know, we looked at
this area and thought, is there something lesser that we could provide? I think we are down to 15 percent now with
the decision we have made, and that still allows for 39 absent days in a
subsidized year.
I think I have equated that to four weeks of holidays plus
19 sick days, and the taxpayers of Manitoba will still provide support and
subsidy for any child in the subsidized system who is out of child care for 39
days in the subsidized year. I think
that is adequate and I think that is fair.
I think you would find that most Manitobans, most Manitoba taxpayers,
would find that this is fair. I know
that not many of us even have the opportunity for four weeks of holidays.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson,
Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
We have indicated also that, on an individual basis, if
there was an issue around a communicable disease where children for extenuating
circumstances had to be absent more, we would take those individual cases into
consideration, but I think that 39 days is fair and adequate. We will certainly monitor the situation and
see how it goes.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Chairperson, before I begin with
my questioning, I just want to note the significance of the moment, which I am
sure is not lost on the deputy minister who was the first director of the
provincial Child Day Care program. At
the time when this program was introduced, I was the director of the centre
that was profoundly impacted by the change, so we have been nemeses for some
time, and I want just to note the moment.
Thank you.
I want to begin by testing out the current sort of
perception of the provincial Child Day Care program. What I am picking up from the discussion and
from the justification for some of these adjustments that occurred in the 1993‑94
budget year is that we seem not to have resolved what we view as the use of a
Day Care program to our community and to our province.
When child care began in this province, it began as a
welfare alternative. It was something
that was made available for the children of single parents, funded through a
program called Special Dependent Care, which was clearly a way of encouraging
women off welfare and into employment.
In 1973 and '74, when we went through the beginning of the
provincial Child Day Care program, we moved to an approach which broadened the
target market, if you will, of daycare services beyond simply those women who
were alternatively going to be raising their children on welfare. The net effect was to in fact legitimize
daycare as a social utility, as in fact something which permitted women to participate
in the labour market and to make their contribution.
Now I think we are at another time in which we cannot quite
figure out what we want. The welfare
alternative approach seems to be coming back, as it is recognized that we want
to do everything we can to get single mothers back to work, and we recognize
the legitimacy of child care supports as essential to doing that. You cannot park babies the way you can park
cars and expect that they will still be there at end of the day. However, we are no closer to a goal of even
making daycare a luxury of the working poor with the adjustments up of the
nonsubsidized amounts from $1 to $1.40.
I was wondering, just as a beginning question, if you could
identify through the department resources what is now the vacancy rate being
experienced in the centres and in the family daycare spaces, given that we do
not have an availability of space which is anywhere near the age‑eligible
number of children who, in theory, should be accessing the programs.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am told that the
vacancies fluctuate from month to month, and it varies from centre to centre,
that we do not capture information necessarily on all spaces or all centres
depending on whether they are subsidized or‑‑am I making sense?
An Honourable Member: Try again.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have it. If they are unfunded we do not have
information on what spaces are full or not full, but I guess the short answer
is that it does fluctuate from centre to centre and it fluctuates from month to
month. We do not have that information
at this point in time that would tell us what the vacancy rate is presently.
* (2100)
Ms. McCormick: So what I am understanding is that you have
no way of telling among those centres and family daycare homes who participate
in the provincial family daycare program, what even the monthly census of
occupied spaces is, only those that are in subsidized spaces.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, I think I may have it. You will have to excuse me, but I was not
understanding funded versus nonfunded.
My understanding is that we have funded centres which get a grant and a
subsidy, and we have nonfunded centres that just get subsidy, but they do not
get grant funding. In the nonfunded
centres, apparently we do not have information on the‑‑those that
are funded, we have not got a compilation of the average vacancy rate
here. We can attempt to get that for
you, but it does fluctuate. Does that
make sense? Am I getting‑‑
Ms. McCormick: Can the minister give me an indication of what
has been the net effect of the reduction of the number of licensed spaces? Can you tell me what was the number of
licensed spaces at the peak time prior to the 4 percent reduction in spaces,
and what in fact is the number of licensed spaces now?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in 1985‑86
there were just over 14,200‑‑well, I will give you the exact
number, 14,227 licensed spaces and that has increased. I guess the highest was in 1992‑93 at
19,115; '93‑94 it is 18,988 licensed spaces.
Ms. McCormick: So I understand then, that at the height
there were in excess of 19,000 spaces, and the current licensed spaces within
the census of the provincial Child Day Care program, is the 14,000 number or
the 18,000 number?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The last number for 1993‑94 was 18,988.
Ms. McCormick: So there are now currently 18,988 licensed
spaces in the provincial Child Day Care program at this time.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Chairperson, given the population
data, the demographic data that is available, can you tell me what would be the
percentage service rate to the number of age eligible children with mothers in
the workforce? Is there any attempt to
gather the data to determine what this represents in terms of the potential
demand for daycare?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we are just checking
for the latest Stats Canada report and we will provide that as soon as I can
find that information.
Ms. McCormick: Now I want to turn to the cases and spaces
capping. This I think, of all of the
decisions‑‑well, I would say along with the raising of the
unsubsidized amount‑‑has had the most profound effect on the
viability of many child care operations, both family daycares and the centres.
My understanding is that what this has had the net effect
of doing is removing the flexibility for centres being able to meet the
specific needs of families and communities.
For example, if you have a space and you have a family who needs a half
day in the morning and another family who needs a half day in the afternoon,
you, as a centre or a provider, have to choose whether you are prepared to
serve the one child as a case and take up a space, which means you are
sacrificing a half day of revenue, or whether you are simply going to say no to
both parents and look for one child to fill one space.
Of all of the centres, particularly the centre in Portage
la Prairie, which had a wonderful reputation for being very in touch with its
community needs, we are now understanding that the Westend Child Care Centre in
Portage la Prairie is suffering and has a very high vacancy rate from the
inability to be‑‑because of the flexibility that simply is not
there anymore.
Has there been any kind of analysis done with respect to
vacancy rates and to the consequence of the cases and spaces impact on the
occupancy rate of centres and therefore the financial viability of some of
these centres?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am told that today
about 5.1 percent of the cases are being utilized by part‑time children
in centres and homes. Prior to the cap
of 9,600 last year that was implemented, approximately 6.5 percent of the
caseloads were utilized by part‑time children. So there has been a little change, and there
still are those spaces that are being used by part‑time cases.
* (2110)
I do want to indicate to you that, as we move ahead into
attempting to deal with some of the issues surrounding single mothers and
trying to get them off of welfare and into the workforce, we recognize and
realize, as we talked about earlier, that there might not be the ability for
full‑time employment or even full‑time training, and there might be
a need for some form of additional part‑time service.
So I think in the context of looking at the pilot projects
and seeing what number of single mothers we can realistically move off of
welfare and into the workforce or into training opportunities, then we are
going to have to see what we can do to accommodate those children.
Ms. McCormick: I think that the viability and the future of
the child care system in Manitoba is going to depend on our returning to a time
when we allow centres some flexibility in terms of whom they accept. Your overhead costs continue regardless of
whether you have children there. If you
have an epidemic of chicken pox or whatever and it wipes out your child
population, your staff still come to work in the morning, and what we have, I
think, is a very telling problem or three things that are causing a great deal
of grief to the child care community. If
one or more of these things could be fixed, I think it would go a long way to
regaining some of the stability in the child care community.
Obviously, the cases and spaces is one very important one,
because centres need the flexibility to serve their community, and when you
take an artificial approach like capping, you are not going on need or demand,
you are simply going on somebody's external constraints, on dollars available, and
it takes child care out of the opportunity to be flexible to meeting the needs
of families and communities.
The second thing is the unsubsidized portion. Moving from $1.40 to $2.40 had the net effect
of precluding many parents from being able to use the service to the point
where now the child care system has priced itself out of the range of
affordability for many working poor people, and that, I think, is going to
continue to have a profound effect.
The third thing is the bureaucratic barriers. You talked about the subsidy application
process. The woman who works for me is a
single parent with four children, and since I have employed her as my
constituency assistant in December, I think we have filled in three subsidy
application forms, and as her employer, I am very willing to do it, but I
question whether the system really has to be so cumbersome and so awkward. Every time, because she works half time for
me and half time for somebody else, one of us adjusts her salary, it forces her
back through the process of reapplying for her subsidy, and even when it is
approved, it is only approved for a short period of time.
So what I am getting to is could you consider re‑examining
each or all of these three things, as a way of taking the pressure off the
child care community and stabilizing it.
There are enough difficulties now.
I think if I had my pick, it might be the cases and spaces thing that I
would give my first priority too, simply because the greatest amount of new
employment being created in our communities right now is in the service
industry, and much of this is part time and shift work. In fact, the system is now oriented to
discriminating against those parents.
The best kid for a daycare centre to get is a full‑time, fully
paying parent.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I was interested in
the comments just made by my honourable friend, and I have indicated that, you
know, as we move through looking at pilot projects, and we talked about the
types of jobs that might be available in full‑time employment that might
not be available, we might have to assess the cases and spaces issue. What the resolution to that would be at this
point, I could not tell you, but I am cognizant of the issue, and it has been
raised as a concern to me.
The one around the artificial cap, I rather question those
comments. You know, we have in our
system today twice as many subsidized spaces as we had when we came to
government, a major increase, because that was a very conscious decision of
ours to allow for flexibility within the system so that parents could take that
subsidy and use it in the place of their choice, and that did cause a major
increase. We saw numbers grow very
dramatically very quickly.
You know, I question, if there was no cap, do we just let
the cost of our system for child care spiral considerably? We have increased, almost doubled or over
doubled the amount of dollars that we spend as a provincial allocation on child
care. How much can we afford to increase
that? How can we let it continue? Where do we find the money from, if we are
going to allow that to happen?
There comes a point in time when there is a certain dollar
allocation we can spend, and do we, as we said, increase the daycare budget by
increasing taxes for Manitobans? Do we
charge parents more? I am being told
that parents at the present time cannot pay more, but there is always that
option.
I guess I would like to know or hear comments from my
honourable friend on where she might think we should find the dollars, if we
are not prepared in our budget allocation to spend any more dollars on child
care, because we are not going to raise taxes any more, and we are attempting
to maintain the status quo, which I might remind my honourable friend is
considerably more than a lot of other provinces spend on child care. I mean, is there something wrong with the
system?
I have talked to the community, and I have asked the direct
questions, indicating first and up front that we are not prepared to raise
taxes anymore. Where do we find the
dollars from? Do we change the standards
that presently exist? The answer to that
is no from the community. Do we charge
higher parent fees? That answer is
no. So I guess my question, you know,
the question I asked the community, the question I might ask my honourable
friend is, where does the money come from if we are going to look at more
spaces and more cases? I know you have
not personally raised the issue of higher wages, but I know the critic from the
NDP party did, so I guess I would just like to have my honourable friend
comment on that issue and see where her policy might be.
* (2120)
Ms. McCormick: I think that the answer will come partly from
the information you are going to get. We
focus on the cost of doing it as opposed to the cost of not doing it, and we
have talked earlier on about how we can do things that change the life
experience of people and can alter the cost to society of our failure.
You talked in your opening statement, and I talked about
some of the conditions which occur because we do not spend the money early
enough, and we do not spend it in the right way. It never seems to bother us that we fund a
public transportation system, a bunch of buses that run around the city
empty. That does not ever concern us,
and yet we have a take‑up rate in our province for child care which in my
estimation says that there is one funded space for every four or five children
that need it.
Now what happens to those kids who do not get care in a
quality environment? They wind up being
the children who are damaged, who are abused, who are neglected. Granted, we have made great gains in this
province, and it is to our credit, both as advocates and as legislators. I will not apologize for the gains that we
have made, and I do not hear you apologizing for them either.
But when I was going door to door in my campaign, I
encountered a woman who wanted to talk to me about the fact that her children
had been apprehended by Child and Family Services, and the reason she gave me
was that she was alleged to have abused them.
I looked and the woman was literally surrounded by little children. So I said to her, well, I am pleased to see
that you have got your kids back. Oh,
those are not my children; those are the children I babysit.
Now, those kids have got to go somewhere, and if we are
going to ask women to become taxpayers, which is really what we are, we are
taxpayers, we who raise children and who require child care‑‑we are
not tax receivers only, and I think that is the dimension that gets lost in
this discussion.
So I think that we do pay a very heavy price for not doing
it right, and so long as we are going to have the debate about where is the
money coming from, we have to put in the other side of the equation and that
is: What is the cost of not doing
it? What is the cost of forcing families
into unstable care arrangements? What is
the cost to the family? What is the cost
to the children?
I know that you have given me the opportunity, and I am
grateful for it, to give you my insights.
It is nice to be able to say something without being compelled to ask a
question at the end of it, but I do think we have to look at some of these
other alternatives.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Is there a willingness to take a five‑minute
break?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Agreed.
The committee recessed at 9:24 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 9:33 p.m.
(Madam Chairperson in
the Chair)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please
resume. We are discussing 3.(e) Child
Day Care.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I was very interested in
the comments that were made just a few moments ago by my honourable friend
about subsidy for the transportation system in the city of Winnipeg. I got a sense, somehow, that she might not be
extremely supportive of subsidy for the transit system in Winnipeg and that
maybe a refocus or a repriority or a shift to additional dollars into the daycare
system might be an option or alternative that she would be supportive of. I would just ask whether she might want to
comment on that.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, my intention in my remark
was illustrative rather than definitive.
I think that we begin discussion about how much it costs us to serve one
in four of the age‑eligible children whose mothers work outside the home
and complain that it is too much. Then,
we go on to wonder, where are the three and four children, who are not being
served, getting their care? Whose
responsibility is it to ensure the quality of that care? Obviously, it comes back to a presumption
that it is parental responsibility, but I am just saying that we make all kinds
of irrational decisions all the time which have, in fact, far less significant
consequence.
If we had a public school system, for example, which
accepted, which tolerated that we would only educate one in four children, then
we would be losing considerable ground.
Instead, we have not kept pace with changing times. Madam Chairperson, 63 percent or 68 percent,
depending on whose numbers you believe, of mothers of children under the age of
school entry are employed outside the home.
That is a fact. There are no
other mothers there picking up the slack.
That is a fact, too, that we have a solution, a child daycare program
which may have been relevant to its early days in the 1960s but it is not
relevant anymore. I am suggesting that
we may have some irrelevancies in other places.
We forget. You know, we talk
about the poor taxpayer who has to pick up the tab for the care of other
people's children, forgetting that the very reason that those people require
care is because they are taxpayers.
Women are paying a double price. They are still doing much of the domestic
work and the child care work, and they are making contribution to the gross
national product and making contribution through their employment, and they are
paying taxes. It defies logic that we would
say, yes, you have to do that, and yes, you and your children have to pay the
price for the privilege of being a taxpayer.
So again, I know this is the game we play in the
House. You get somebody on the record
saying yes, the member for Osborne thinks we should cut back the public transportation
system. Well, I think the member for
Osborne would like to examine every expenditure we make to determine whether or
not we are in fact achieving something useful from it.
Of all the things we can achieve something useful from, I
honestly believe, and this is where we started with this debate process, that a
positive early childhood experience for the young children we bring into the
world is probably going to give us our biggest payback. The long‑term research is clear, that
if you have a positive early childhood experience, it correlates positively
with finishing high school, not becoming a statistic of an unwed mother, not
winding up in criminal activity, and not winding up in jail. Wow.
What else could we‑‑all of the boot camps, all of the
pregnancy prevention activities or pregnancy delay or whatever the new word we
are giving to it, all of those initiatives are failing us. We do know that what does work we refuse to fund
adequately to meet a significant population.
You know, I think that I want to go on the record that I am
sensitive to the position you are in. I
remember the dilemma that the Minister of Family Services, who was one of the
best advocates that child care ever had under the NDP government‑‑Muriel
Smith was a very committed advocate, but she had to fight the good fight within
her caucus. I think we need to have this
discussion. We need to get it out, and
we need to quit protecting the taxpayers from the reality of not doing it,
because the taxpayer is going to pay more in the long run.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have difficulty getting
my teeth and my tongue around the toffee, but I want to thank my honourable
friend for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for sharing his birthday gifts with us.
I do want to indicate that I still think there is a
responsibility, when you make a determination to parent a child, that there is
a responsibility to provide adequate support and nurturing and care and love. If, in fact, there is a decision made, and in
many instances there has to be a decision made, that two people in one family
will work to be able to generate enough income to live in today's society, that
there are some decisions that need to be made and some choices that need to be
made around what kind of care will be provided for your child.
I know that I was extremely fortunate as a mother and,
before this life, only a part‑time working mother, to have the most
wonderful mother in the whole world who would look after my children at the
drop of a hat, keep them sometimes from week to week, and when I got into this
business‑‑you can understand why not many women with young families
enter the political arena, because when I ran the first time for election, my
son was four years old.
* (2140)
When you talk about a working commitment, I spent five
weeks on the campaign trail, morning, noon and night, and saw my son only on
Sundays when I went over to my mother's to get a home‑cooked meal. She managed to nurture and support and to
love my son and care for him like no one else could. She was a woman with only a Grade 8 education
also, did not have the opportunity to work and yet a very intelligent woman who
had much to contribute. So I was
fortunate in that respect.
Unfortunately, she died just two weeks before the NDP
government fell, and we were into another election, and I will tell you that I
miss terribly that support system, that network I had surrounding me during
that election campaign. I only began to
realize how important it was to have someone there for you when you needed
them, that you could depend on and trust.
I still think there is opportunity out there in the community for that
kind of activity, and I do know that I have been able to find substitutes, in
some instances not quite as good. No one
can ever replace that kind of commitment based on a real love commitment and a
family situation, but there are choices that people have to make. I have said many times before, too, that it
is very difficult.
There is not a child care system in the whole world that
would accommodate the needs of a politician, especially a minister in the
portfolio that I had previously for five years, where I could have been busy
seven days a week, morning, noon and night, attending functions and activities,
with the number of invitations I received on a regular basis.
It has been a very difficult time, and I can certainly
understand the need for good child care and the need to feel that your children
are safe and secure when you are busy working and do not have the ability to be
there all of the time. I have been
fortunate enough to find people who can come into my home, who have been able
to substitute in many instances, and my children have, to date, survived and
grown and been nurtured.
I think there are those choices and options that people do
make outside of the child care system, from time to time, that are very good
arrangements, and there are very good and caring people out there that can
provide that support. As I said, there,
in some instances, is not the flexibility within the system to have the hours
available through a formalized child care system that accommodate the hours
that are needed for a person to work.
Reality is today that we are going to see more and more
women in the workforce, as time goes by, and there is going to be a need. It is not a need that is unique to
Manitoba. As I have indicated before, we
spend a fair amount more in Manitoba than a lot of other provinces do per capita
on child care. If there is the sense
that there is something missing in Manitoba, and the question has come up, can
we afford not to do it? That is a very
valid question, but if we are experiencing, or those questions are being asked
here in Manitoba, I question what is happening in other provinces. Obviously, they have determined that, at
least to this point in time, there is a lesser priority for child care funding.
I guess my comments would come around the last federal
election campaign and the red book, that did indicate there would be a national
child care strategy. As I said, the
issue is not unique to Manitoba. It is
an issue that surfaces right across the country, and I would like to hear both
opposition parties' comments on what they believe the federal government's role
should be in a national child care strategy.
Have you discussed that with some of your colleagues in Ottawa and asked
the questions of where that is at and whether there is a plan in place to
develop a national policy that might benefit all Canadians?
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, yes, in fact, we have
begun to talk about what could be. It is
really intriguing to me, because this has the double advantage, one, of being a
massive job creation strategy. When you
think about the number of children who are not currently served, we do not have
enough child care workers or early childhood educators in this country to even
begin to put into place the number of service units that would be necessary to
meet the demand across this country. So
I recognize that my patience is going to have to be tempered with some
developmental strategies in terms of getting the system able to move to the
social utility point, which I see it coming.
But I think that the federal government has had the foresight to
recognize that it has the advantage of being a massive job creator and,
secondly, that it has the advantage of being a massive problem solver, that we
have the advantage of creating useful jobs.
We tend to focus on job creation in areas that do not
necessarily produce anything useful for our society. I mean, we have contracts; we are talking
about bringing in telemarketers, you know, hiring people so they can phone us
up at dinnertime and badger us to buy stuff we do not want or give to causes we
have never heard of. One has to question
whether there is any utility from those kinds of activities. But to provide developmental and supportive
care to children and to take the stress off families may in fact have a very
powerful long‑term effect to the betterment of our society.
So these are the kinds of conversations that we have been
having, but we have to recognize that constitutionally daycare, along with
other services, does rest primarily with the provinces. So whatever is done at the federal level has
to be done either as a usurping or as a complement to or in co‑operation
with, and that is, I think, the ideal, the latter, the co‑operation
strategy with the provinces. But I am
very excited about this, and I do think that it has the potential to be a win‑win
situation.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think I would agree that
the federal government would have to work with the provinces around this
issue. Just with some of the other comments
and discussion that we have had through the Estimates process here in the last
couple of days, you know, we have talked about major social safety net
reform. The federal government has
embarked upon a plan, a new way of doing business. It seems to me that early child development,
nurturing and care for children, is something that maybe should be looked at in
the whole overall context of social safety net reform and what implications
there might be to our whole social safety net as a result of early nurturing,
early stimulation, early child development.
It is a component that should not be left out.
* (2150)
So you have given me some ideas on how I might approach our
next federal‑provincial meeting and comments that I might make to suggest
that we maybe have the federal government's vision put forward on what role
there might be for early childhood educators in the whole process, because I
think what we are seeing is that we are having to spend a lot of money on the
social side of government as a result of some of the things that have been
missed in the past that we have not done, and we are dealing with problems
today as a result of not enough up‑front early intervention. So I think that we could probably develop
some of our comments at the next federal‑provincial meeting around that
issue.
Ms. McCormick: I think this is probably one of the better
discussions that we have had in this Chamber since I have been elected, and I
really am‑‑I was having a bad day yesterday, but today I have
decided that I maybe like this business after all.
I would like to just put on the record that in fact other
jurisdictions, other countries do it. In
France, which has the same maternal employment rate as Canada, approximately 56
percent of women are in the labour force.
Their availability of space rate is 95 percent of funded spaces
available for children between the ages of three and six and for infants it is
20 percent.
I think what we should be doing, in addition to having a
discussion about whether or not we want to move in the direction of a
universally available system, is we ought to also think about the other side of
it. If it is, in our wisdom, not to be a
really universally available system, then what kinds of things can we do to
create the climate in which mothers of young children truly have a choice? If we do decide that we want kids to get good
care, then I am presuming we should allow for the option for that care to come
from the mother for as long as possible or as long as she chooses to be the primary
caregiver.
At the same time as we are looking at the availability of
community‑based child care resources, I think we also have to put
emphasis on providing those kinds of supports for women who choose to stay
home. I am presuming we are not going to
go in the direction of saying that women should always go out and work. I think the other thing we are going to be
looking for is some of the choices that make that possible, whether it is
through either guaranteed annual income scheme or some kind of tax relief for
parents who do stay home to nurture the children, or whatever.
As we have been focusing on one side of the discussion
tonight, I just would like it to be there.
For many young mothers it is absolutely the best thing that they go out
and get jobs and work; for others it may not be the best thing. We always have to retain that option for them
to be able to care and nurture their own children.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess there is an issue here then around
child tax credits and how we deal with those or how the federal government
would deal with support for those mothers who choose to stay at home and look
after their children. I believe that is
an issue they are going to be looking at, and I would hope they come to some
resolution or some policy direction in that area.
But I think the comments that have been put on the record
tonight are valuable comments. I
question whether the comment made about "can we afford not to" should
only be applicable to the provincial government and not the federal
government. I think at both levels of
government we have to think that if it is the right thing to do, let us look at
it in partnership and see whether we cannot put in place or provide a system
that will better serve the needs of children and in families right across the
country.
I guess, just one other comment I would like to make before
I close is that, you know, we talk about a parent having the right or
possibility of the choice to be able to stay at home if they should so choose
or to go out to work. I still think it
is very imperative that we still allow parents to make the choice, that if they
do want to work, they can choose the type of care for their children that they
believe is in their children's best interests and best serves their needs.
I think we have to put it into context also and still allow
parents to make those ultimate decisions on how they want their children to be
cared for and in what kind of a system.
Ms. McCormick: Just as a final comment, I agree with that
entirely. My only concern though is that
it be an informed choice and not a default choice, that, in fact, the choice
not be made from an economic perspective of, what can I afford. Unfortunately, that is the way parents are
choosing now. I might like to put my kid
in a daycare centre but at $2.40 a day, and I have three kids, it is just not
going to be possible. If we are going to
empower parents to make good decisions, then we have to put in the supports which
make a range of decisions possible rather than limiting the range simply from
an economic perspective.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to read into the record some of
the content of a very small sample of letters that I have received in the last
year and also to ask some questions based on these letters, because they raise
very legitimate concerns about the problems that have resulted from this
government's budget cuts.
The first one I would like to quote from is from the Day
Nursery Centre and specifically the Gretta Brown Unit, which is in the north
end, in Point Douglas.
The writer says: Of
the 46 children attending, 29 are special needs children. These children have been identified as
needing special assistance by public health nurses or family services workers,
as are the special needs children at other daycare centres. These special programs are an important part
of a school readiness program. Over 70
percent of the children come from single‑parent families, many of whose
moms are in schooling programs. Ninety
percent of our children are from low‑income families or families on
social assistance. The extra $1.40 per
day, $48 per billing period per child, will make it impossible for many of our
parents to keep their children in the daycare program. Student moms will also have to leave school
to be at home with their children. Many
of the mothers are particularly lacking in parenting skills, making the
children even more at risk than they are presently, with little hope of
achieving even normal potential. What
seems so little, $1.40 per day, can make a vast difference in the lives of
these children. The long‑range
implications for our community and society are very poor.
I have two questions rising out of this to begin with. Some child care centres have contacted me,
saying that they are having difficulty getting special needs categorization or
funding for special needs children, and I am wondering if there has been any
change in policy in that area.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The policy has not changed. We have set up a review committee to review
each special needs case, but the policy has not changed.
Mr. Martindale: The other question that arises is: Why has this government increased the parent
fees for children in child care which, in the case of parents at the Gretta
Brown Unit, is causing them to withdraw from school to stay home with their
children. I know it was last year's
budget decision but this minister might have reversed it.
When we have a minister who talks extensively, as she has
in these Estimates, about the need for child care in order to help single
parents get back into schooling and employment training programs and the paid
workforce‑‑in fact, earlier in these Estimates the minister talked
about the need for child care as part of the single parent project‑‑it
seems to me that the same goal could have been achieved, or could be achieved,
by simply changing the rules in the child care system, in child care centres
and family daycare homes and allow more parents to enroll their children in
child care so they can go back to school or continue in school, or take
upgrading programs of one kind or another, or, indeed, enter the paid
workforce.
Why is the minister and her government making regressive
decisions in one area, namely in child care, and then announcing what is
supposedly a new policy, new program and a pilot project part of which is
intended to achieve the same goals that could be achieved through the existing
child care system?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Madam Chairperson, I guess one of the
reasons for doing or embarking upon pilot projects is to test out new ways of
doing things. We have some budgetary
decisions that have been made and they will continue, but I will say that along
with the pilot projects may come a new focus and a new way of delivering
service. We will test it on a pilot
basis and if it seems to be working appropriately, then that might be the
change or the focus we might want to implement across the board.
* (2200)
I mean we talk about having the child care system be the
sole responsibility for being able to train or develop our children, and I
think we are missing something.
I would just like to speak briefly about a sense that I
have that there is an important job for us to do to teach parents in some
instances how to parent also. That comes
along with‑‑you know eight hours in a child care setting is very
positive. It is a very positive
experience, but if there are 16 other hours in the day where a child is not
being parented, I think we have to take a look at how we work with the mother
and the child.
So often I hear when we look at our adolescent moms, the 13‑,
14‑, 15‑year‑olds who are becoming pregnant and keeping their
babies, I hear the comment made by public health nurses who have a concern that
we have babies having babies, that for some reason or other they tend to become
pregnant because they feel they need something to love and to nurture, not
really understanding there is a responsibility that goes along too.
I can understand if they come from an abusive situation or
if they are in a situation where they have needs themselves, but at an
adolescent age I do not think they have the ability to reason through what
responsibility goes along with parenting that child. To take that child out of a circumstance or a
situation and put them into a child care centre for eight hours of the day and
then put them back into a situation when we have not done any work with that
young mother, to try to teach her how to parent and to nurture and to love that
child, I do not think we are going as far as we should be going.
There are some real issues and real concerns for me. You are going to have another generation of
children growing up who have never been parented, and I think that is what we
are seeing with some of our 13‑ and 14‑year‑olds. They have never been parented. They do not even understand what it is to be
parented, and they are parenting, and that is going to be passed on from
generation to generation. So I have some
real concerns that we are not going far enough, that our programs are not
working in a holistic way with the family unit and that family unit is the
young mother and her baby.
We can focus on the mothers or try to get some part‑time
support for that child, but I do not think we are looking at the big
picture. I do not think we are looking
at how to fix the problem and ensure that mother knows how to parent her child
and will do that. So there are some real
issues here that we need to look at and new ways that we have to focus our
energies and our resources into the future.
Mr. Martindale: I agree with the minister's concern about
adolescent parents. I just hope that in
looking for new ways to do things, the minister does not act on her suggestion
during these Estimates that single parents might look after other people's
children half a day and go to school half a day. Then what you are doing is you are setting up
unlicensed child care when there is already an excellent system in place of
licensed child care.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I wonder if I just might ask a question for
clarification, because I indicated before there was certainly a role for early
childhood educators to play, and would there be an opportunity or have members
of the opposition thought about an opportunity where an early childhood
educator could supervise the situation where mothers learned how parent,
learned how to look after their own child and learned how to look after each
other's children on a part‑time basis while there were training
opportunities or on the job training.
I would ask for comments on that, and see whether there is
an expanded role for early childhood educators with a different focus and a new
way of doing things with the opportunity then not only to look after that child
and teach that child, but to work with the mother and the child.
Mr. Martindale: Yes, we are both prepared to comment on
that. I would say yes if the plan would
be to use early childhood educators who have their qualifications from Red
River College or elsewhere. If the
minister wants to send them into private homes to teach parents how to parent,
I think that would be fine if they are qualified early childhood educators.
Another possibility would be parent‑child
centres. There used to be five of them
in the inner city, and this government withdrew their funding. If the minister would like to use that kind
of system again, it would be agreeable.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Just for clarification, Madam Chairperson,
that was a program that was supported under the Core Area Initiative. That is always one of the concerns that
governments have, is that when three levels of government do support a program
and then that program is cancelled and no longer available, whose
responsibility is it to pick up the funding.
Very often in the past it has fallen on the provincial government's
shoulders. The questions always come and
the criticism always comes that it is provincial government cutbacks when in
fact the provincial government is being expected, if a program is to continue
on, to pick up two‑thirds of the cost of a program that it was not
funding in the past.
So those are issues that are very difficult issues to deal
with. We have to be very careful when we
enter into tripartite or bilateral agreements that when programs come to the
end of their term that there is not the expectation that one level of
government might necessarily pick up the funding that other levels of
government have provided under that kind of a program. So that is an issue.
I was just going to ask that question. You said, do we want to send early childhood
educators into homes? I might ask
whether, you know, it might be the local church basement that we could gather
some single mothers together with their children. The facilities are there. I think that is something we have to pursue,
something we have to look at, and if it looks like it might be workable, maybe
it could be a very positive solution.
Ms. McCormick: I want to pick up on several threads, Madam
Chairperson. One is the sort of view of
history of those parent‑child centres.
Actually, I was on the board of the former Children's Aid Society when
it was taken over and devolved into the community‑based agencies. My recollection was that the parent‑child
centres were started on our prevention money from the province, then taken over
by the Core Area Initiative, and I was on the Core Area Initiative programs and
services and was the chair of the program appropriation which funded them
subsequently, but I do recall a bit of a dilemma we had because we were not
supposed to be funding existing programs.
We were supposed to be funding things that were being set up newly. My belief is that at least two, if not more,
of those centres had already existed, but that is‑‑again, we all
have our own view of history.
With respect to the comments around the models which are
available, during the seven years I was the director of the daycare centre at
Health Sciences Centre, we in fact had a parent aid program which still exists
today, and it was modelled on exactly the thing you are describing, except it
was an intervention for parents who had already demonstrated that they could
not deal with their children, and these children were identified as abused.
The whole thing was built on not only giving the child the
positive experience of the daycare environment but giving the parent the
experience as well, and we had situations in which women were allowed to have
their children returned to them conditionally in that they participated in the
daycare program on a regular basis. It
was a matter of nurturing the child and nurturing the parent who in turn could
learn to nurture her child. It was a
model which was successful at its beginning and continues to work today.
* (2210)
There are some other models which I think are worthy of
consideration. One is the Finnish model
which I think in the translation is called the three‑family model, and it
is an ideal alternative where families with common child care needs band
together. You eliminate the need for the
facility because it is a home‑based program, but in fact, the
professional child care worker, and depending if the numbers warrant it, with
assistance from an aide, work both with the parents and the children.
It is cost‑effective, very personal, very flexible,
and has the real advantage of providing relevant personal supportive care to
children and by extension to their parents.
Again, this does not exist in isolation.
There has to be some kind of accountability for the quality of the
environment and some kind of supervision and support, but I would really
encourage, if you are looking for models, to look at this model.
In fact, at the end of my daycare career‑‑when
I left daycare, I chose not to keep my youngest son in the program because it
was tough being a parent in the program and not the director where I had been
for seven years. So myself and two of my
friends set up a model like this in my home, and we, again, perhaps would have
said that we did not need the parenting direction, that we were competent
parents. Nevertheless, it did prove to
be a very useful approach.
Now what we have to do is be very careful to look at how we
would integrate this into the Manitoba Child Day Care program to cover the
consideration of licensing and of supervision and of liability and those kinds
of things, but I would be very pleased to share both the experience and my
knowledge of this model with you as you are looking for alternatives.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I would like to continue
quoting from some of these very poignant letters that have been received. The next one was actually addressed to the
MLA for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), and it is from the director of the Freight
House Day Nursery.
She says: I am
writing with regards to the recent decision by our provincial government‑‑and
this was written in May of 1993‑‑to reduce daycare subsidy fee
assistance payments to a minimum of $16 per day and reduce seek employment
subsidy allowable from eight weeks to two weeks. Parents have been burdened with paying $2.40
per day per child enrolled, which is already proving very difficult to
collect. As well, two weeks to find a
job seems very unreasonable in this day and age. Both of these decisions will have a
tremendous negative impact on our daycare centre, its continued operation,
financial stability and the employment futures of 12 staff. Freight House Day Nursery Inc. has been
operating in the community for 20 years, servicing 50 preschoolers at a time.
And the director says:
I have been directing the facility for 16 years, and this is the first
time I have been really concerned about the possibility of laying off and
terminating staff positions and the very real fear of closing the centre
entirely. The inner city and its people
have very unique needs, one of which is access to quality child care that is
fully subsidized. Parents and social
welfare agencies have always counted on us to be there. We have helped many families work, find
employment and go to school. We have
helped many agencies with care for children who have been abused or require
social and developmental stimulation.
Many families have come off the welfare rolls and/or established a
positive family life because we have been there to help. What will happen to inner city kids and
families in the future with no access to daycare is anybody's guess, but I
predict the social and financial cost will be much greater than a daycare subsidy. My families are 98 percent single‑parent
families, working, going to school or with us for special social need
reasons. To ask them to pay $48 per
child every four weeks is a tremendous hardship. Most are just scraping by as it is. That $48 takes away money that should remain
in a family's hands to feed and clothe their children. Government needs to realize that all daycare
centres play a vital role in keeping the community healthy and its citizens
productive, not just the centres who are used by working families.
I think the Executive Director, Joanne Robinson, at the
Freight House Day Nursery Inc. speaks very eloquently not just for her inner‑city
child care centre but for many inner city child care centres, including the
ones in my constituency which I have visited.
I think what she is saying is that the parents, many of whom are single
parents, are much better off having their children in subsidized child care
because it is enabling them to either stay in the workforce or to go to
school. The alternative, when child care
is not affordable, is that these parents pull their children out of child care,
and many of them are just going to stay home on social assistance.
In fact, that raises a question that I have for the
minister. Does it actually cost the
Department of Family Services more to have a family staying at home on social
assistance than it does to have an individual going to school or in the
workforce and her department subsidizing child care?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, whether a welfare
recipient is at home or has their child in child care or is in a training
opportunity we have to pay the basic welfare costs anyway. If they are at home, of course, we are not
paying the child care subsidy, and if they are not in training or in employment
opportunities we are not paying the child care subsidy and we are not paying
the training costs. So what you are
saying is if they are at home, I suppose, it is costing us less money
ultimately, but I do not think that is a direction we want to see taken.
I can only go back to saying that we recognize and we
realize that the system that we have in place today is not working, and that we
need to look at new and innovative ways of providing supports to single mothers
and to their children and encouraging training opportunities, building of self‑esteem
and workplace opportunities. As a result
of that we are going to pilot some new ways of doing things, and if our pilot
projects are successful we can expand upon them, we can build upon them, we can
use them as new models for reform.
So when we look at the pilots we are going to take into
consideration all of the issues that have been raised, and we have, by the way,
done some consultation. We had child
daycare providers, early child and educators as a part of consultation process,
and they have indicated to us‑‑I have had some private
conversations with some of the child care directors on an individual basis and
I will be pursuing some of their comments, and we will see whether there are
things that can be done, recommendations that they do make that can become part
of a new way of doing things unto our pilot projects. If they work there is an opportunity for
expansion.
* (2220)
Mr. Martindale: Last year another problem that arose as a
result of the budget decisions of this government was that child care centres
were having very serious cash flow problems, in fact difficulty meeting their
payrolls. I am wondering if that problem
still exists or was that problem taken care of when the changes were made to
the preaudit.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I believe that problem in the most part was
taken care of as a result of us being able to assess the subsidy applications
on a more timely basis and do a postaudit instead of a preaudit. So that the money did start to flow. It took a few months to get the backlog
cleared up, but I believe it is for the most part under control.
Mr. Martindale: When I was on a constituency tour in
Thompson, I dropped in at the Teekinakan Day Care Centre, and I heard first‑hand
what the chair of their board also conveyed to me in a letter. I am sure that the minister has had
correspondence. In fact, I have a copy
of the correspondence to the director of the Child Day Care office. Rather than read it, I think I will just
summarize it, because I think I am familiar with the situation.
Due to budget changes, they experienced a big impact on the
infant side of their child care centre, and I guess, unfortunately for them,
they are located almost across the street from Keewatin Community College,
where there is also infant care, funded, I think, by a federal government
program and also with cheaper rates. So
the result has been that I believe they have closed their infant centre. I am wondering if the minister, first of all,
can confirm that they have closed their infant centre. I will start with that question.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Our information is that it has not closed.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us if they are still
experiencing financial problems in the infant side as a result of the parent
fees and being located close to another infant centre?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, although the centre across
the street from Teekinakan was receiving some funding from the federal
government under startup grants, it is no longer receiving that money, and it
does not get a grant from the Province of Manitoba, the one across the
street. Teekinakan is fully funded. It does get grants and subsidy. So there is not an inequity at this point in
time. As a matter of fact, the other
daycare across the street, because it does not get grant funding from the
provincial government, is receiving less than what Teekinakan is today. That has been communicated to them.
Mr. Martindale: Teekinakan Day Care Centre, in their letter,
says that more subsidized cases would probably reverse our consideration to
close.
Have they received more subsidized cases? They feel that is the solution to staying
open.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, my understanding is that
they are still open, and, as we look at and evaluate subsidized cases‑‑also,
I was up in Thompson, and my staff was up there through our consultation
process, and heard the issues around child care in Thompson.
Anyway, we look to developing a pilot project. I am sure that there will be one in the
Thompson area, that we will have to take into consideration some of the
concerns that were raised as a result of that consultation process.
Mr. Martindale: I am sure the residents of Thompson will be
pleased to hear that there will be a pilot project there.
Since the minister has repeatedly said or, at least, hinted
that child care will be a component of it, I hope that some of the child care
space or infant spaces at Teekinakan Day Care Centre will be filled up as a
result, because in their view that is the key to their financial
stability. They said that last year they
had a $7,000 deficit and they are projecting a $4,000 deficit this year.
It seems a real shame that child care centres have to do so
much fund raising. I think this is a
real drain on their board and on their staff and on their parents in terms of
volunteer time. I know they do it
because they are committed and they believe in quality child care and they want
to keep their centres open, but the problem is pointed out quite vividly in
this letter, where they are saying that their bingos are now losing money
because of VLTs.
So you know this is the government that is raking in
hundreds of millions of dollars from gambling in this province, but is
inadequately funding child care centres.
At the same time, child care centres are running bingos to raise money
to keep the doors open, and the bingo revenue is declining because of this
government's expansion of VLTs.
In fact, I went to another child care centre in Thompson
that told me that last year they had 13 bingos.
They had more than one bingo a month.
I do not think parents and staff and board members should be required to
put in that kind of volunteer time just to keep the doors open. I think this government should change its
priorities and should reallocate some of the windfall profits from gambling
expansion in Manitoba and redirect the money to child care.
Will this minister consider filling up some of these vacant
infant spaces at Teekinakan Day Care Centre, either by giving them more
subsidized cases or by filling the spaces through the pilot project daycare
component?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, as I indicated just a few
minutes ago, all of the issues that were raised in the Thompson area will be
taken into consideration as we develop a proposal to the federal government for
a pilot.
It is premature at this point in time to indicate exactly
what that pilot might look like, and what the extra support systems around
children and mothers will be, but we will take all of the issues, and the
issues that have been raised here tonight also‑‑I think they were
not new issues, issues certainly that we heard when we were up there
consulting. We will have to take a look
at all of them in the context of what we might see developed as a pilot
project.
Mr. Martindale: I have received considerable correspondence
from Lakeview Children's Centre, and I am sure the minister and her staff have
too. Could the minister tell us if they
are any closer to getting permanent funding than they have been in the
past? I think they are currently funded
under a federal pilot project, but they would like to be part of the provincial
system.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have met with Lakeview
and have had a long discussion and dialogue.
They are partially funded, and I guess the issue for them‑‑I
do not believe they receive any federal funding, but they are partially funded
with partial grants from our department.
I listened to their issues and their concerns, and they wanted me as the
new minister to be aware that this had been an issue and was an ongoing issue. I do not believe at this point in time that we
have been able to resolve that issue, but I am aware of their concerns and will
continue to keep them in mind.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask some questions about
Family Day Care because they have written to the minister and to myself. One concern that they have, and I share this
concern, is that they seem to be doing some of the work that might be done by
the Day Care office, and they are answering a lot of questions on behalf of
people and fulfilling kind of a government staffing role.
Now, when they had paid staff, I do not think they minded
doing this, but now that their grant is gone from this government and they have
no paid staff, it means that volunteers are answering all these questions. I am wondering if this minister has
considered restoring the grant to the Family Day Care Association of Manitoba.
* (2230)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, maybe my honourable friend
might table that correspondence. I do
not recall having received correspondence that he is talking about. He may just have to refresh my mind by
providing me with a copy of that correspondence.
Mr. Martindale: Yes, I will table it. It is actually a letter to me, rather than to
the minister, and it is dated May '93, so I would not expect the minister to
have it.
I will ask my questions first, I guess. One of their concerns was that family
providers were moving from one residence to another, some of them to homes that
they had recently purchased, and they were told that if they moved they could
lose their licence or spaces. I am
wondering if that actually happened to any individuals or not.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, licences are not
transferable as people move; that would have to happen in the case of the
family daycare home moving into another community. If they are moving in the same community and
there was still the same need, I do not think there would be any problem with
issuing a licence, but what they have to do is evaluate the need in the
community that they might move into to see whether there are adequate spaces
available or adequate licensed facilities available before making a
determination on granting a licence at a new location.
Mr. Martindale: This correspondence said that providers are
unable to increase the number of spaces as the children move out of a specific
age category. I presume that is because
of the policy of capping the number of cases.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the regulations for
licensing, I think, are fairly clear, and it does indicate that a home may have
so many infants at one time and so many preschoolers, and the regulations are
different for the numbers of infants or preschoolers. I am not sure exactly what you are asking.
Mr. Martindale: As the children grow up and go to school,
they may no longer be in a family daycare home and the space becomes
vacant. Then, apparently, there is a
problem with filling up that space. Is
that correct or not?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My understanding would be that if there was a
child that moved out of a space, indeed that space would still be there for a
new child.
Mr. Martindale: Some of the problems that family daycare
providers experience seem to be quite similar to child care centres. One of their concerns is that some parents
cannot afford the $2.40 a day, and the family daycare providers have difficulty
collecting this money. The result is
that if it goes uncollected, their income goes down. Is the minister aware of this problem?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The hour getting late, I am finding it a
little difficult to concentrate, but I believe that I did meet with the head of
the Family Day Care Association. I am
sure this was an issue that was brought to my attention. It is not unlike issues that‑‑I
know the Day Care office is certainly aware of this issue, this concern.
Mr. Martindale: I am prepared to table this document now.
I have a question or suggestion to make to the minister of
something the minister could do for the child care community, and I think it
would be fairly easy to do. Although I
do not know, on second thought, it might be difficult.
My suggestion is that the minister put a muzzle on the MLA
for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).
In a public forum the MLA for Portage la Prairie made some comments
which were duly reported in the Portage la Prairie Daily Graphic on Wednesday,
December 15, and caused great concern and consternation in the child care
community because of what he said. Basically,
the child care community had to wait from December 15 until April 20 or even
later to find out whether or not his predictions were going to come true.
I do not think that the things that he said were very
helpful at all. For example, he said, there
is also a chance the province will cut the number of subsidized positions by 3
percent to 5 percent this year to save costs.
He also said when people think they are underpaid and the employer
cannot pay more, they have a choice to change their line of work.
I am wondering if the minister believes that she speaks for
the department rather than members of the back bench, and that other government
members should be extremely careful about what they say, particularly about
budget decisions, which probably have not been finalized by December 15. Therefore, this minister might want to
reprove or censure other members of her government for speaking on her behalf
about things that obviously they were not very knowledgeable about.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I guess my honourable
friend opposite has the same disease that most of his party does in opposition,
and that is that they read the newspaper and believe everything they see in
it. I know that a lot of their research
is done from the daily newspaper, and those are the questions that we get asked
in Question Period. I would say that
very possibly the odd time the newspapers do not quite get things straight, and
I have noticed from time to time that my comments have been taken out of
context in the media, as I am sure most politicians might notice from time to
time.
I know for a fact that the member for Portage la Prairie
(Mr. Pallister) was discussing the issue around the worthy wage campaign in
Portage la Prairie. The comments that he
made were in the context of, again, as I indicated earlier, and the same
discussion we had around the caucus table with members of the daycare
community: if we were to increase wages,
where would the money come from? Would
it be in a reduction somewhere else in the daycare budget line? Would we charge parents more? Would there be fewer spaces?
The only way that we would find increased resources in the
daycare budget line would be to reduce some other part of the service. I think the comments or the questions, the
line of questioning that my honourable friend is coming from is‑‑I
mean, he should have attempted to ascertain the facts of whether the newspaper
article was accurate.
I will have to indicate to you that any daycare that did
raise that issue or concern, I communicated with and indicated exactly what had
happened at that meeting. So they did
not necessarily have to wait till April to find out whether what was in the
paper was truth or not. They did find
out, as a result of my communicating with them, much before that time, and
indicating that certainly my colleague from Portage had been misquoted, that in
fact it was our position and the position that we put forward to the Child Care
Association that, if in fact wages were to be increased, there would have to be
decreases from somewhere else or increased parent fees.
Our option could have been to reduce the number of spaces
by 3 percent to 5 percent and increased wages.
We did not determine as a government that that was a policy direction we
wanted to take.
* (2040)
Mr. Martindale: If the minister is saying that the MLA for
Portage (Mr. Pallister) was misquoted, I will leave it at that.
I know that the minister has had a lot of correspondence
and meetings with the Manitoba Child Care Association. One concern that I have about the
relationship between the minister and this organization is that there have been
quite a few studies and recommendations done by government and nongovernment
organizations about child care. Many of
these, the Manitoba Child Care Association has endorsed and has urged the
government to implement, but when budget decisions are made, particularly last
year and this year, it seems there has not been very much consultation, that
the kinds of things that they do talk about are not implemented and instead
there have been budget reductions. I am
wondering if that is a policy of this minister, and if so, whether she plans to
change that policy and have meaningful consultation with MCCA so that when
changes are made there is some advance consultation with their representatives
and the minister.
Just before I let the minister reply, I would like to say
that they did not ask me to raise this.
I am raising this on my own, so if they disagree, I am on my own hook, I
guess. But it is a concern that I have
because I know what these government and nongovernment reports are and what
they recommend, and I am aware through consultation with or through correspondence
from MCCA what kinds of things they want this government to implement.
Certainly in the last two budgets that has not
happened. The minister has gone in the
opposite direction. Now, there may be
things that they have discussed in private that I am not aware of that do
result in budget decisions, but I would like the minister to comment on her
policy on consulting with MCCA before budget decisions are implemented.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have had a lot of
meetings with the Child Care Association.
I have tried to keep the lines of communication open; I have called when
I have sensed that there might have been an issue that they have wanted to
discuss, just picked up the phone and called and attempted to talk to them and
clarify any circumstances or any issues that might not be clear. I have encouraged them to do the same
thing. When they have an issue that they
want to discuss, I am only a phone call away, and I do want to be there to
discuss any issues or concerns that they might have.
As far as meetings go, and I think my honourable friend was
at the Child Care Association's annual meeting where I did bring greetings and
opened the conference and‑‑
Mr. Martindale: They said very nice things about you.
Mrs. Mitchelson: They did, as a matter of fact, and I cannot‑‑I
would like to put on the record, not that I like to pat myself on the back, but
I think it speaks for the kind of dialogue and the kind of consultation we have
had when they indicated that government did not always do everything that they
asked government to do, but that, in fact, I was the minister that promised
only what I could deliver and delivered everything I promised. I think that was‑‑something like
that anyway, very close to those words.
I think that says that, yes, they have asked and they have
raised issues and they have raised concerns, but every time in a meeting when
they have raised issues, what I could commit to do, I did, and we followed
through. Some of them were not
necessarily monetary issues. The first
issue that I had to deal with was the backlog and the lack of ability for
centres to meet their payrolls. We dealt
with that as expeditiously as we possibly could, and we have made some changes
in that area that I think have been very positive and very beneficial. It was, I think, in our best interests as a
department and in our best interests in a more positive working relationship
with the Child Care Association.
Most of the things, I have been able to accommodate, and we
have asked for their input as we develop new forms for subsidy
application. We asked them to provide
suggestions. When we had a draft of the
form ready, we went back to them and asked them whether this was what they
perceived it should look like. There
were some minor changes that were made as a result of that second consultation
process, and I think what we have is a subsidy form that serves in the best
interests of the parent and the centres and the department as far as
expeditious assessment of those subsidy applications.
So we have worked very carefully, I think, but it was by
their request that we do a pamphlet, a very basic pamphlet, that could explain
to parents how to apply for subsidy.
That we said we could do and we would do, and we thought it was very
important that they have those pamphlets available to distribute to parents in
order to make the application process a little more user friendly.
So those are some of the kinds of things that we have been
able to do, and I have committed to do those things, and we have followed
through on them. Some of the issues
around increased funding, I am not able to accommodate within the budgetary
process, and I have indicated to them that those might not be a possibility,
have tried to commit to them to letting them know as soon as I possibly could
what the changes might be.
One of their major concerns was that there might be some
fairly major changes in policy or direction as a result of this budgetary
process. They had just sort of come to
grips with and got used to what had happened in the last budget process, and
they were concerned that there might be major changes again and they would have
to find new and different ways of doing things.
Fortunately, that did not have to happen, and we were able to maintain the
process that was in place.
So they are not absolutely happy, overjoyed, with all of
the decisions that government has made, but I think we have tried to develop a
positive working relationship where I can make change and where I can make that
change quickly to expedite the process and to have a better working
relationship. I plan to do that. There are issues that they will raise that I
will not be able to address, some of those being budgetary issues, salary
issues. We have been able to put our
position on the table and share the dialogue, and they certainly can express to me that they are
unhappy with those decisions. But they
do know that I have not promised to look at or consider something that I know
that there is no way we are going to be able to accommodate.
* (2250)
Mr. Martindale: I have what I hope is a final set of
questions in this area. It has to do
with money that is supposed to go for child care expenses from the federal
government, and I am wondering if the minister has ever raised any concerns
about this with her federal counterpart.
For example, I am told that Canada Employment provides money for
training for individuals and that part of that is for dependant care and that
approximately $2.5 million a year comes to Manitoba. Now this money is used at the discretion of
the trainees, so it is probably going for babysitting. It is probably going into the pockets of
individuals, many of whom probably do not declare it, so it is probably helping
the underground economy.
I think this $2.5 million could be going into the existing
child care system, a licensed system.
The money would then be accountable and taxable. I am wondering if the minister has information
on how much money comes to Manitoba for training that is given to trainees for
dependant care.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, it is my understanding
that through CEIC, training dollars are available and support systems are put
around the trainee by the federal government.
I guess the question that is asked is, how much? We are not really sure how much is earmarked
for child care from the federal government.
We could attempt to find that out, but we do not have that amount.
I guess the issue is, does that trainee then have the
choice to make the decision on how they want those dollars for support systems
utilized? I hear the comment about the
underground economy and those who are evading taxes; I do not think we would
have any way of knowing. I still believe
that there needs to be choice.
If you are in a training program, and it is more
convenient, and you can find a person that might come into your home rather
than having to take your child out, if that is a better circumstance or
situation for you, depending on your individual needs, I am not so sure that I
would want to advocate taking away choice and having parents be responsible for
decisions they make regarding support for their children.
Mr. Martindale: I am in favour of choice, but I think there
is also a number of public interest questions here, because two other choices
that people have are licensed daycare centres and licensed family daycare
providers. The difference is that the
children are going into care where the early childhood educators are qualified,
and I think that is an advantage.
Secondly, the money is accounted for and some of it will be taxable,
whereas with private babysitters we really do not have any accountability. We do not have licensed early childhood
educators, and we could be using the existing system.
I guess I just have one question. That is, would the minister be willing to
raise this with the federal Minister of CEIC and find out how much money is
coming to Manitoba that could be directed into our system?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I certainly can inquire
and ask the question about how much money is coming to Manitoba for child care
support, but I would have great difficulty‑‑you know, I go back to
my comments that I made about my mother.
She had a Grade 8 education, no form of child care training, but I do
know that there could not have been a better child care provider in the whole
world than my mother.
So I want to say that, yes, I do believe there are skills
and qualities that early childhood educators have that are very important, and
they have a very important role to play.
I still believe, though, that there should be some parental choice, and
parents should have the ability to choose what they believe is best for their
children. I would have to say today that
I believe that I made the best choice for my children at the time when I had
that opportunity to do so.
I honestly do believe, too, that there are a lot of people
who have child care providers come into their homes to look after their
children that certainly are claiming and those who are providing the care are
claiming the dollars that they earn. We
do know there is an underground economy.
I really hate to say this on the record, but I think I will. I am not so sure that it is in the child care
community that we have the biggest problem or the most major problem. I think that there are other trades or other
professions where we might see a much larger component of an underground
economy than we would see in the child care community.
Mr. Martindale: I appreciate the minister's position. I guess I do not totally agree with it. Probably there is less money involved here
because babysitters are so poorly paid.
The difference is that when individuals are hiring skilled tradespeople
and paying them much greater amounts of money, there is no way of knowing how
much money is changing hands and there are very few ways of controlling
it. The difference here is that the
money is coming from the federal government and there is a way to control
it. I think the minister should be
concerned about that.
I am wondering if the minister is aware of how much money
is expended through the federal department of defence or Canadian Armed Forces
personnel. Is the minister aware of how
much money is paid out to parents for child care arrangements?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, no, I am not aware of that
number.
Mr. Martindale: Would the minister be willing to find out, to
ask the federal minister for the Department of National Defence how much money,
and is the minister interested in finding out how much money is coming through
other federal departments?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think I could probably
undertake to write a letter to the Minister of Human Resources, federally, and
ask whether they have that kind of information available or whether they could
gather that information from different federal government departments and
provide us with it.
* (2300)
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, I am interested in asking a
question which follows on the member for Burrows inquiries with respect to the
subsidy application process. This
question actually melds my two favourite topics, one being child care and the
other being the maintenance enforcement system.
Can you describe to me the process whereby a parent would
declare their entitlement to maintenance through a court order as an income
item on your subsidy form? What would be
the mechanism for asking for a readjustment should that obligation not be
honoured by the defaulting parent? What
is the lag time between when the person would notify that the subsidy amount is
not coming through, and what would be the mechanism for adjusting the daycare
fee in recognition of the reduced family income? Would the adjustment be made retroactively so
that the parent was not assessed a higher fee in a month in which the
maintenance did not arrive?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, we have just developed a
new form. Rather than having a whole new
subsidy application have to be filled out, it is a notification of changes
during approval period. I guess it is
sort of hot off the press. It is not
distributed at this point in time, but we could certainly provide a copy of it
for you. So if that indeed did happen,
there would just be a very basic form to fill out and say on such and such a
date, such and such a month, I did not have that income because I did not receive
my maintenance payment, and we would take that into consideration.
Ms. McCormick: Would the consideration be prospective or
retrospective? If a fee was assessed in
a month based on the presumption of the maintenance arriving and the
maintenance did not arrive within the month and you were notified in the
following month, would the reduced subsidy amount kick in in the following
month or would there be some kind of credit retroactively?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think what we would do in
a case like that would be make an immediate adjustment as soon as we had the
information that led us to believe that there needed to be an adjustment.
Ms. McCormick: So the adjustment would be forward, but not
back.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Back to the effective date that the change
took place.
Ms. McCormick: That is very good news, because what I am
understanding is if the change took place and the family income and the
maintenance did not arrive then the amount that the parent would be entitled to
pay would be reduced in that month so that the centre would not be out the
money and the parent could then pay the adjusted rate for a previous month in
recognition that the maintenance did not arrive.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the centre would get the
money. We always pay on behalf of the
parent, so the centre would get the money.
Ms. McCormick: Then the centre would get the increased
amount in recognition that the subsidy level is now at a lower level?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
That is going to in fact strengthen our case in making the argument for
more activity in terms of maintenance enforcement because, in fact, defaulting
on maintenance winds up being a cost back on the taxpayers of Manitoba. So we have a stronger case to make for strong
action with respect to maintenance enforcement.
Ms. McCormick: Thank you for that information.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) is wondering if the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs.
Mitchelson) wants a five‑minute break.
This committee will reconvene at 11:12 p.m.
The committee recessed at 11:07 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 11:11 p.m.
Mr. Martindale: I missed one question. I have an Order‑in‑Council which
refers to appointees to the daycare staff qualifications review committee of
nine persons. I am wondering if the
minister can tell us how these individuals are selected and if experience in
child care in one way or another is a criterion?
Mrs. Mitchelson: They have to have some connection to the
daycare field.
Mr. Martindale: Does the minister consult the Manitoba Child
Care Association and the Family Day Care Association of Manitoba before making
these appointments?
Mrs. Mitchelson: A lot of them are reappointments and have
been on for quite a few years. I do not
believe in the last process, and I am not sure I can remember an Order‑in‑Council,
how many new people were appointed, that in fact there was consultation with
the Child Care Association or the Family Day Care Association. It was a sense of people in the communities
that had some daycare experience that were appointed.
Mr. Martindale: Would the minister consider consulting these
organizations in the future before making appointments?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think that there are
many people out there in our Manitoba community that do have some sense of what
child daycare is all about, and I think that probably the process that has been
followed in the past will be a process that is followed into the future. If we know of qualified people that we
believe have an ability to assess staff qualifications, we will continue to
make those appointments.
Madam Chairperson: (e) Child Day Care (1) Salaries $2,022,900‑‑pass.
(2) Other Expenditures $501,500‑‑pass.
(3) Financial Assistance and Grants $44,679,200‑‑pass.
Resolution 9.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$139,361,100 for Family Services, Rehabilitation, Community Living and Daycare
$139,361,100, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
9.4 Child and Family Services (a) Administration.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I would just like to ask
the minister for information, whether her staff for this area are here, and if
not‑‑[interjection] They are here, well, in that case, I guess we
will proceed for 15 more minutes.
Before I get into my questions here, I wonder if the
minister can tell us when she can table copies of the list of external
agencies' funding.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We can do that tomorrow.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I believe there were some
Orders‑in‑Council or maybe even special warrants in, I think, March
of this year regarding Child and Family Services. I would be interested in knowing if the
reason for these is that the government did not budget enough money for Child
and Family Services.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the reason for the special
warrant, in fact, was primarily a volume issue.
There were more children coming into care than we or the agency had
anticipated.
I guess we thought that at the beginning of the year the
numbers might taper off, and that obviously was not the case. So there were more children coming into
care. That is one of the reasons why we
have chosen to take it in focus this year and try to put supports in different
places, so that indeed we might experience a change based on a new vision and a
new way of doing business.
As a result of the need for increased resources in the last
fiscal year, we did some extensive work with Winnipeg Child and Family Services
agencies to see whether there were some ways that we believed, together, co‑operatively,
we could change the focus and change the way we do things so that in future we
might see a more positive success.
Mr. Martindale: I found the Orders‑in‑Council. One is dated March 9, 1994; the number is
156/1994. The amount is $362,300 payable
to Winnipeg Child and Family Services.
The other one is much larger; it is $3,454,500 to Winnipeg Child and
Family Services. That is No. 196/1994,
dated March 23, 1994. In the same Order‑in‑Council,
Child and Family Services of Central Manitoba, $62,900.
These were for Child and Family Services agencies, because
this department was underfunded. If I
understand the minister correctly, she said it was because more children came
into care. I wonder if the minister
could elaborate, if she or the department know why more children are coming
into care. Was it because your budget
predictions last year were not accurate, or are there reasons why more children
are being taken into care? Is there a
change in the situation in the community?
I wonder if the minister could fill us in on that.
* (2320)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, were there three different
Orders‑in‑Council that were referenced? [interjection] Two. One for the smaller amounts was for
secondment of staff to do training for the information system. The larger was for increased volume,
increased numbers.
I guess if you look back over our past and our history‑‑and
I have been out to visit with some of the areas in the city of Winnipeg. I have had the opportunity to go out on night
duty and see first‑hand the kind of work that is being done and talking
to those who are working within the system.
They refer back, and some of them are working in the new‑‑well,
it was regionalized and then we got it back into one agency.
Some of those who are working in the system were there when
the Children's Aid Society was in place.
They pointed out to me some of the problems that existed as a result of
the decentralization that occurred back in the mid‑'80s, I guess it
was. I cannot remember exactly what
year. What happened was that with the
new focus to decentralized services, there was an expectation that those who
were working within the system would become generalists.
I think the Children's Aid Society had an experience where
they had specialists within the system.
They had specialists for adoption services specifically. Anyway, these were comments that were made to
me by workers in the system, that social workers at that point in time working
within the system were asked to become all things to all people. They became very general, and there was not a
specialized focus.
As a result of that, adoption or permanent placement
received a lesser priority. They were
concerned that we had more permanent wards that were adoptable that were
sitting in foster situations as a result of them having to put that as a lower
priority because there were other protection issues that were of greater
significance and they had to concentrate their time and their effort in those
areas. There was some concern that maybe
the direction that was taken was not the right direction and that we needed to
refocus and regroup a little bit and look back to some of the things that had
worked under the amalgamated system of Children's Aid and look at a new way of
doing business.
Obviously with the decentralization we did not see any
decrease in the numbers. We have seen
increasing numbers on a year‑to‑year basis. That tells me that we can continue to put
more money into a system that is not working, because if the dollars that we
were putting in were working we should be seeing less cases come into care, not
more.
Anyway, we have worked very co‑operatively and
closely with Winnipeg Child and Family Services around some new and innovative
ways of doing business. I think I have
had the opportunity during Question Period to answer some questions and try to
shed some light on a new focus around family support, family preservation and
family responsibility. As a result of
that, we are hoping some of the money that has been freed up within the system
will be able to be used on some early intervention, some early child
development, as I say, a new focus that hopefully will see less children come
into care.
Under the previous system last year, children had to be
taken into care for the agencies to receive per diems. What we have today is an opportunity for the
dollars that were used to take those children into care still available to the
agencies to refocus around working within families, identifying risks maybe at
an earlier opportunity and seeing whether we cannot deal with them to maintain
the family unit and to reduce the costs of taking children into care.
That is one of the areas where we have made a major
shift. That was an area that the
agencies told us needed to be looked at.
I think we have tried to accommodate that. Hopefully some of the new direction that we
will take will see us working with families more intensively, working in
special ways and maybe bringing into focus again a special adoption unit that
will look at more permanency planning.
We do know that children who remain in foster care for
longer periods of time have more difficulty adjusting into a normal
circumstance or situation once they are adopted. If we can identify those who have no hope of
reconciliation and are adoptable, that do become permanent wards of the agency
or the province, if we can get them into an adoptive situation that is a more
permanent and stable circumstance earlier on, we will have more success with
those children as they become older.
Those are a couple of the areas that the agency will be
focusing on as a result of redirection.
I am sure there will be more questions that will come to mind, and we
will have full opportunity for dialogue around the whole change in the way we
see our child welfare agencies doing business in the province.
Madam Chairperson: What is the will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: 11:30.
Madam Chairperson: 11:30?
Call it 11:30.
As previously agreed, the hour being after 10 p.m.,
committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): The hour being after 10 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).