EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Good Morning. Would the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This morning this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 16.4(g)(1) on page 43 of the Estimates book.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Could the minister tell us how many employment development centres Manitoba intends to open, and where they will be?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): There are six centres, and we are opening a seventh one in Thompson.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister list where the existing six are?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes. Winnipeg, Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Gimli, The Pas, and Beausejour.

Ms. Friesen: There is reference in this section to both preparation for training and also for skills training itself, and I am interested in what elements of skill training this program will develop. I would say that from looking from the outside a much larger proportion of effort and time seems to be devoted to preparation of resumes, job hunting clubs, life skills work, none of which is inconsequential, but it is not introducing new skills, and it does not appear to be dealing with strategic economic sectors that, I think, the government hopes to deal with under this section. So I am looking for the evidence of that next step in this part of the program.

* (1120)

Mrs. McIntosh: There are approximately 900 who received Life Skills and Literacy, and 650 who receive Skills and Training.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us some further information on what skills people acquired as a result of training in this section of the department and how it relates to the strategic economic sectors?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we have people learning construction and office skills, furniture repair, painting, more lately in call centre training, electronics, health care services, home care and correctional officer. Those are some of the categories that are the types of skills and training that are being provided there.

Ms. Friesen: Could I follow up perhaps on two of those, the call centres and the home care? Could the minister give me an idea who has provided that training and how long the training was for?

Mrs. McIntosh: The call centre training is done at Assiniboine Community College and Red River Community College, and that is 16 weeks. The home care is done in three places: training on the job; at Red River Community College, the certificate, 20 weeks; Central Health Services and We Care.

Ms. Friesen: The last one on home care, when the minister says it is done in three different locations, does that mean that each trainee would receive a portion of that--training on the job, training from Red River or training from Central Health or We Care--or is it they would receive one of those?

Mrs. McIntosh: One of those.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us how much of the training was provided by Central Health and We Care home care?

Mrs. McIntosh: We do not have that information here, but staff advises that they can get it and provide it to you.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I would appreciate that. I am also not familiar with Central Health. Could the minister explain what that is or where it is?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is a private sector company providing that type of service.

Ms. Friesen: So the training is provided in part by community colleges and in part by private trainers of a variety of types. Could the minister tell me where in this line I would find the accounting for that. Does that come under Personnel Services? Is that where the contracts are for the trainers, or is it included in Social Assistance or some of those other lines?

Mrs. McIntosh: In the Supplementary Estimates you would find it under Social Assistance, and that page is 105.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I notice that pilot projects were provided for in this section as well. Could the minister tell us what pilot projects have been conducted or are still being conducted, and have we in general terms moved beyond the pilot project stage in this section of the department or is that continuing?

Mrs. McIntosh: Those references to pilots are to pilots that are in the process of being set up now under the Making Welfare Work program, pilots such as Taking Charge! and a project that will soon be announced on youth welfare, or helping people off youth welfare.

Ms. Friesen: Is there any connection with the federal government on any of these projects? What partnerships are there there?

Mrs. McIntosh: The Taking Charge! project is one that we are doing in collaboration with the federal government. We are currently discussing with the federal government the possibility of a joint venture on the youth, well, one that I mentioned earlier.

* (1130)

Ms. Friesen: Where do I find the federal contribution to this program?

Mrs. McIntosh: That would be under the revenue Estimates, so it would not be in here with the Estimates of expenditures.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us an approximate idea of what the federal contribution is?

Mrs. McIntosh: The money from the federal government, a total of $4.5 million, breaks down into $1.7 million for youth and $2.8 million for Taking Charge!

Ms. Friesen: Has Taking Charge! begun yet? The minister said youth welfare had not, but the Taking Charge! program?

Mrs. McIntosh: The two ministers, Minister Axworthy and Minister Mitchelson, have appointed the board members and the board has begun to meet there in the process of drafting out their training plan. They should have within the next four to six weeks some operations in progress.

Ms. Friesen: One last thing in this section, I noticed the considerable loss of staff positions. Could the minister explain why that has happened? It goes from 43 to 38 staff years.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, those are five staff years. Basically that was the closure of the New Careers program and those people have been redeployed to other areas.

Ms. Friesen: Just to confirm, all New Careers staff were reassigned? No one was let go?

Mrs. McIntosh: I believe one person has accepted a position outside of government with Northwest Child and Family Services, and the others have been redeployed within.

Ms. Friesen: I just wanted to go back one step. Could the minister tell us who is on the board? Do you have those names here of the Taking Charge!?

Mrs. McIntosh: The names of the people on the Taking Charge! board are Deta Cloutier who is the chair, Joanne Purvis, Ruth Gardiner, Peter Siemens, Leslie Spillett, Susan Swan, Linda Trigg, Bonnie Ash and Josie Hill.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 16.4 Training and Advanced Education (g) Employment Development Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,716,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $900,700--pass; (3) Training Support $5,024,900--pass; (4) Making Welfare Work $6,310,600--pass.

16.4 (h) Workforce 2000 and Youth Programs (1) Workforce 2000 (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,244,400.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, could we begin by looking over the last three years at the amounts that have been spent in each of the three areas of Workforce 2000? I am looking first of all at the small grants program that is up to $10,000. Maybe we should start there and take each one separately.

Mrs. McIntosh: I just would like to ask, we do not have a small grants program, and I wonder if the member could indicate what she is referring to.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I think the title that I have on the list provided from the minister is Training Incentives by Employer. These are the grants, I believe; the maximum grant in this part of the program is $10,000.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I would clarify for the member the reason they are called training incentives is because they are not grants. So I think we should be really careful in our terminology because we do not give out any money that has not already been spent. These are reimbursements for training incentives that are not given as a gift. They are not given until proof of training; all the invoices, all of the outcomes and so on have been presented, plus the bills showing paid. So it is not a grant. They do not get it unless all of the documents have been submitted and then it is reimbursed.

* (1140)

So they are reimbursements, not grants, and I think it is a significant difference. I think we should be correct in our terminology when we start talking about this because the word "grant" has been used a lot. The more it is used, the more it reinforces an incorrect perception in the minds of people. I am sure that the member would not want to do that any more than I would.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I have no problem using the word "reimbursement," and my use of the word "grant" certainly did not imply that there were no receipts and no accountability. Using the same terminology of training incentive reimbursement, we probably need some initials for that.

* (1150)

So we were looking at the last three years and how much overall in that program has been reimbursed to employers.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, training incentives--I will go by component--would be, in '93-94, $1,558,000; in '94-95, $823,000; and projected for '95-96, $1,290,000. Industry-wide initiatives: for '93-94, $1,294,000; for '94-95, $1,510,000; for '95-96, $1,800,000. Province-wide special courses: for '93-94, $81,000; for '94-95, $93,000; for '95-96, $100,000.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, in the shared cost programs that are there for the payroll tax or health and education levy rebate, has the minister got the totals for the training costs approved for the last three years? We recognize that those are not the amounts that are spent by government, but those are the training costs approved. It gives us the possibility of comparability.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the last refunds were for '93-94, and the refund paid back or reimbursed--the rebate was $3.5 million. The department had approved up to a total of $9 million, but only $3.5 million was actually paid out. The other $6 million will never be refunded.

(Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, is it possible to get the other comparable figures for '94-95 for that? If you do not have them here, I understand, but I am just looking for longer-term trends.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, for the 1994 period, we again have approved approximately $9 million but, of course, have not paid anything out yet because of the time that it is in the year, so I cannot provide you that. As I say, the year before we had approved up to $9 million and paid out three and a half.

Ms. Friesen: There are two elements to some of the stated objectives of Workforce 2000, and one is to train new workers. Could the minister tell us how many new jobs have been created as a result of the Workforce 2000 program?

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not have a complete listing but I can give you some. We have for the '94-95 year leading into '95-96: for DW Friesen in Altona--I will give you the job description as well--entry level graphic artists, six; the Manitoba Trucking Industry Education Advisory Committee, the long-haul transport drivers is the occupation, 270; Western Reman Ltd. and the job descriptions are locomotive and engine machinists, 13; New Britannia Mine at Snow Lake, miners, supervisors and administrators is the title of the occupation, 150 people; wage assistants to individual firms, one per company, 47. That is a total of 486.

Then in '95-96 an indication of some of the types of jobs we have: for the Manitoba Fashion Institute, entry level sewing machine operators is the job description, 100--and you heard the member this morning saying how much those jobs are needed or the training for those jobs--World Star Holdings Ltd. which is a retrieval network, 13; Manitoba Tourism Education which is for touring guides, 45. A subtotal there on those ones would be about 158.

There are about 644 in those examples that I have given you. It gives you an idea of the types of new jobs. Those are all new, as you indicated. They are brand new ones.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister indicate where the training money was for the trucking jobs and for New Britannia?

Mrs. McIntosh: That would show up under the industry-wide component for both of those.

Ms. Friesen: I assume the same for the Manitoba Fashion Institute.

Mrs. McIntosh: That is correct.

Ms. Friesen: As I look at that first program that we talked about, a reimbursement to individual employers, the '94-95 one shows quite a drop. I wonder if the minister could indicate--it goes from one million to 823 approximately, and again the minister anticipates that will increase again this year. It is going to have to increase considerably from the 823 baseline.

Is there an obvious explanation for why that amount has dropped and an explanation for why the minister anticipates that there can be an increase?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we have, as the member knows, altered the criteria for the small- and medium-sized businesses who are participants in Workforce 2000. We have a shift away from local to national and international, so we are putting an emphasis now on international and international activities, exports and so on. Our export activity is increasing dramatically in Manitoba, one of the best in the country. I think you hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) boasting about that on a constant basis.

We are looking at those who were in sort of local areas who are now moving to work together in clusters and are submitting applications in clusters. As we see that begin to happen and we target in, as we have on some of the emerging sectors, the new technologies and so on, we are seeing greater interest in those people coming forward, not as individual firms so much any more but as clusters of small firms or medium-sized firms.

Ms. Friesen: I was speaking specifically about the first program we talked about, the reimbursement to individual employers. Is the minister saying that there are clusters of employers who are coming together under that program to apply?

Mrs. McIntosh: What we are attempting to do is to find several employers who have a common need and then bring them together. Then the training can be provided on a more economical basis, and we know then we are getting a generic skill or a transferable skill which is another thing we are really looking for--generic transferable skills.

If we can get together, and we are encouraging it, several employers with a common need in an area where they have close proximity to each other--we have seen some success in building this kind of approach. Last year about 40 percent of our training that was done in this kind of grouping were moving it towards working in clusters.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I am still talking about the first program, the grants up to $10,000. I wonder if the minister could give me an example of what she is talking about because as I look at the information she provided, the information is based upon what is reimbursed to individual employers, and the clustering does not show in these records. Could we perhaps have an example?

Mrs. McIntosh: Just to give one example that may clarify how this works, in Ste. Anne they have just completed doing a small business entrepreneurship program with four individual companies. Each of the individual companies met all the criteria, et cetera, as an individual company, but one trainer was used. Instead of each of them doing it separately with four different trainers, they were able to do it with one trainer. Still, it was each of them as an individual company that took the initiative, signed up, filled out the forms and did everything, just they were able to do it more cheaply, more cost-effectively by providing one trainer for those four who each wanted the service.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, my colleague from Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) reminds me that is one the principles that was used in the New Careers program, was that clustering of groups in that way.

I wonder if there is a way of recording that in the annual lists that are provided. I will leave that with you. I do not know if there is or not.

Mrs. McIntosh: I will take that as a constructive suggestion, and we will look to see if we could do that.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about some individual grants, and they may be part of larger clusterings, I do not know. Air Manitoba received a grant for training by Flight Safety International. I wonder if the minister has any more information on that. It was for 40 hours for two participants.

* (1200)

Mrs. McIntosh: The listing there that you have is our total computer base listings, so if we needed to or if we wanted to get details on any one of those particular listings we would have to go to the office and pull the individual file. We do not have that here, but we can acquire it. It just means going to the paper file.

Ms. Friesen: Then perhaps I could list several individual ones that I would be interested in having further information on. Could the minister perhaps indicate what kind of information is available?

Mrs. McIntosh: We would have the type of training, who the trainer was, the number of people trained, the location of the training, the number of hours, the name of the company, the topic taught or topic covered, the training category, that type of information.

Ms. Friesen: The minister has already provided a good proportion of that. I think what is missing then and what would be required is the training location and the outcome of the training.

Mrs. McIntosh: I understand that the location is listed by the region as opposed to, like, just a little community of whatever, and on file--apparently that is not on the computer, but we do have information in the file. We do not have outcomes listed in the way I think that the member is referencing them, but they do follow. They have information on the programs, but I am not sure what you are meaning by outcomes there, but we will get what we have there for you.

Ms. Friesen: I would doubt that for all training that there is a listing of outcomes in the way that the minister's new curriculum proposes. What I am getting at is public money that has been paid for training, and what I want to know is what was learnt, who taught it, what was the certifiable--I am not sure if that is the right word--but certainly the certifiable qualification which enabled worker mobility that concluded the training.

Mrs. McIntosh: We will check the files then and bring you whatever is there.

Ms. Friesen: I now provide the minister with a list of the ones that we would like information on. Could I ask the minister about evaluation of this program? She mentioned, and I have raised in Question Period, the issue of new guidelines, or "altered criteria" was the term we used.

Is it possible for the minister to table aspects of those criteria? Are there ones which are different, and new criteria which are different from those which were used perhaps in the public forums two or three years ago?

I noticed, for example--the two major differences I see between this listing and earlier listings, one is that financial institutions are no longer on the list. Does that mean they are no longer eligible? It was certainly something that the previous Minister of Education had undertaken to look at. I am thinking of financial institutions not in the sense of credit unions, some of which I think might still be here, but I believe it was Midland Walwyn was the issue that I raised as an example of others.

The second thing that appears to me from this, and it may be simply because we have better or more precise information, there does seem to be more training being provided by the community colleges, so I am looking for--am I reading the right thing into this particular list? Have the guidelines altered in that way?

Mrs. McIntosh: I just indicate that the criteria are public and available everywhere. Hundreds of people have the criteria just simply because as employers wish to apply they have to abide by the criteria. If the member would like this sheet that I have nipped out of my staffperson's book, he is willing to let me table it if--he says he has got other copies just downstairs, so maybe if I just table it it might assist the member.

I will just quickly indicate that it does indicate the four areas that we are targeting: the national and international markets; the new technology or equipment; the priority sectors of economic growth; and the small business entrepreneurial development; and I believe I gave you an example of Ste. Anne just a moment ago on that.

It lists the eligibility assessment and the additional qualifiers and the eligible training costs at the bottom. On the back of this is just a little piece of information indicating some background on Workforce 2000, so I will leave that for the member.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for that submission, which the Clerk will copy and distribute.

Mrs. McIntosh: As examples, the member had asked and I had indicated some of the companies before that were new jobs. In terms of certification, she will maybe see some of these new jobs pop up again under certification: entry level graphic arts, D.W. Friesen, and the certification there is from Red River Community College; steel products manufacturing, Manitoba Rolling Mills, certification is from the University of Manitoba; object-oriented analysis, object-oriented programming and design, programming, the Electronics Industry Association, Health Care Products Association, certified by the University of Winnipeg; swine technology, Manitoba Pork, again certified by ACC.

Then we have several from the Manitoba Aerospace association: mechanical engineering technology, professional engineering option, CNCP programming, geometric dimensioning in precision sheet metal. Those are certified either by Red River Community College or the University of Manitoba.

The organic inspector, Organic Producers Association, ACC; telecommunicator 1 and 3, GWE, again certified by ACC; Novell network, various businesses under this one, certified by the University of Manitoba.

* (1210)

Industry certification, under the carpentry trades you have: energy retrofitting doors and hardware, survey layout, blueprint reading, again Red River Community College for those. Petroleum systems installation and removal, Petroleum Installation Association, Red River Community College is the certifying body. Quality standards, again various businesses, is certified by ISO9000; the good laboratory practice and good manufacturing practice, that is the Health Care Products Association, and it is an industry certification; the food-beverage server and the beverage service manager, front desk agents, bartenders, housekeeping and room attendants, certification by the Manitoba Tourism Education Council is the body there. As the member knows, this is the result of a western consortium working towards a certification of the tourism industry, and that will be certified.

Auto collision repair, Automotive Trades Association again is an industry certification. Twenty-four percent of the training was delivered by Manitoba colleges or universities, so it is a pretty good record of certification. I think that list may give the member some indication of the types of things that are being certified in Manitoba.

Ms. Friesen: I am glad to have that certification. It is certainly one of the things that we look for in workplace-based training.

I just wanted to clarify something about the sheet that the minister had tabled on the criteria for Workforce 2000. I had asked earlier about whether there were new guidelines, and I wanted to know whether this was a new sheet or whether this is exactly the same kind of information that was provided three or four years ago?

Mrs. McIntosh: This is identical to the one three years ago? I am surprised, because I have this as the new revised eligibility criteria effective August 1, 1944. The member says this is identical to the one the year before that.

Ms. Friesen: I think 1994, not '44--[interjection] Some days it seems like it. What I was clarifying was I said that there appeared to me to be, first of all, no financial institutions this year on the listing in this first reimbursement program that we are talking about. Secondly, it seemed to me that there was a far higher proportion of training being done by community colleges. Those were questions I had raised before. The minister had been looking at some examination of that. The previous minister did say that he was introducing new guidelines, and I wondered if these were they or whether this was still the same guidelines and criteria that existed from the beginning of the program.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, 1994 is indeed the right year and this sheet that she has been handed is the revised eligibility criteria. I am not aware that it is identical to the eligibility criteria that was before. I thought you said you looked at this and you could not see it any different from before.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I do not think I said that, but anyway that is not certainly what I meant. I was simply trying to clarify for the record. I can see it here, but I was looking simply for an indication as to how eligibility criteria had been changed. Yes, this is a different one and I will have to go back to the original and look at where the changes are.

Mr. Chair, I did want to ask about evaluation, questions I have asked before about how training is evaluated. In the past it has been relatively informal, quite frequently with the trainer providing some evaluation himself or herself and self-evaluation by participants, some spot phone calls from the department and occasional site visits. I am wondering if that has changed or whether the proportions are changing. It is something that we had brought up with the Auditor from time to time.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am sorry. I missed the last part of your statement.

* (1220)

Ms. Friesen: The issue of evaluation of Workforce 2000 programs, that is, evaluation of the training itself and what actually happened on the spot that we had brought up with the Auditor from time to time.

Mrs. McIntosh: What did the Auditor say?

Ms. Friesen: Well, we would probably have a disagreement about what the Auditor said so it is probably better if the minister reads it. My concern was for a new kind of auditing which I know the Auditor is interested in getting into, effectiveness auditing. The Auditor had no problem, obviously, with the financial aspects of the program, with the way in which the money was distributed or accounted for. That was not the issue. It is the issue of--and I have forgotten the term that they use for it. It is a particular kind of auditing for effectiveness.

Mrs. McIntosh: We had in 1994--I did say it correctly this time--the '94-95 activity participant evaluations, 80 percent; training monitors, 20 percent; and outcome evaluations, 22 percent. The 20 percent was, in terms of a number, 99. The 22 percent in terms of a number was 108. So that type of monitoring and evaluation went on.

Ms. Friesen: What kind of evaluation was carried out by the department, or which elements of that?

Mrs. McIntosh: All of them.

Ms. Friesen: Maybe we are at cross-purposes here. Participant evaluation I had understood to mean the filling of forms by participants on how effective they felt it to be. Are they then submitted to the department? [interjection] I understand. Okay.

Is there any aspect of this which is an independent--and it is probably again not the right word--but is there an autonomous evaluation of any of the programs by a member of the department, a staff member?

Mrs. McIntosh: There was a formal evaluation program in 1993, and there would be another one then done probably in '96-97.

Ms. Friesen: This would be an evaluation of the program as a whole, its goals, objectives and the way in which it was meeting them, and that was conducted, I think, in part by the department and then in part by the Auditor. I may be wrong on that, but I think that is what we are talking about.

Now, when I asked the management section of the department--I remember right at the beginning of Estimates--whether they were evaluating or auditing the Workforce 2000, they said no longer; that was now conducted by the Auditor. So when we are looking at that '96-97 one, we should be looking for something from the Auditor.

Mrs. McIntosh: Those would be done by the Labour Market Support Services branch.

Ms. Friesen: What I was getting at earlier with the question about autonomous evaluation was not so much the program itself but the actual grants and an evaluation of the effectiveness of grants in particular areas.

Are there selective evaluations, or is there a standardized telephone call that is made? What kind of procedure does the department follow?

Mrs. McIntosh: There are two methods. If it is industry-wide, then they have their external evaluations. Internally, we have a standard evaluation protocol that is followed for each of these.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister describe the standard evaluation protocol that is followed, or is there a paper on that which could be submitted, tabled?

Mrs. McIntosh: In terms of the participant evaluations, what they will be looking for will be a measure of the learner's reaction to and acceptance of the training, and in training monitors' onsite assessment of the extent to which the training plan is being delivered as contracted; in terms of outcome evaluations, a measure of the results of training as indicated by gains in knowledge, improved performance and organizational impact. Specific criteria for identification of project monitors or outcome evaluations include recommendation by the program review committee, projects which have a Workforce 2000 contribution, over 2,500 cluster training events, training projects involving a third-party relationship between the trainer and the employer and projects related to the introduction of new technology.

Ms. Friesen: Who conducts that outcome evaluation?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is primarily in-house.

Ms. Friesen: Does that mean in-house in the department or in-house by the trainer?

Mrs. McIntosh: That is in the department, and the individual who does this is a different individual working separately from the person who does the contracts, so they have that delineation set up.

Ms. Friesen: Just to go back to the earlier allocation, about 20 percent then of these reimbursements would be subject to an in-house evaluation in this way.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wanted to move to the second part of Workforce 2000, and that is the training costs approved to those companies which pay the health and education levy known as the payroll tax. What the minister has provided us with is an indication of the number of participants in each company who have received training, the training area, technical, human relations or basic education and the training costs approved, which are not synonymous with the amount of money that is rebated, but it does give an element of comparability.

I wanted to ask the minister if she could give me some indication--or is there something that she could table which outlines the difference between technical training, human relations and the basic education? In some of the industries, one could make some guesses at what the technical training is, and basic education, I think, probably is easily or well understood throughout the government. But the human relations one, which is the one I raised in Question Period, is more indeterminate. So I am looking for something in writing or something that the minister could explain to us what each of these means.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the basic: literacy, numeracy, communications, problem solving, technological skills, analytical skills. You will have the technology under technical: quality assurance, factory, automation, technical upgrading, computer skills. Under human resources, you will have managerial and supervisory skills, TQM, leadership, presentation and negotiation skills.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I was taking some notes while the minister spoke. Was TQM separate from leadership or does it mean leadership in TQM activities?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is separate from leadership.

* (1230)

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what is meant by presentation skills?

Mrs. McIntosh: As the member may know, many companies these days, if they are approaching a new client and attempting to put a message across, will make a presentation. Making these presentations has become quite an art form, so this is one of the areas in which training is welcomed. People learn how to make a proper presentation to a board of directors or to a client or to whomever is needed.

Ms. Friesen: One of the areas, I think, of interest in this particular section--I am looking at what I call sort of the second section of Workforce 2000--is the particular companies which have human relations and which are normally known as fast food companies, whether it is Chicken Delight or whether it is--what were some of the other ones? I think A & W was there, McDonald's food companies. There are a number of them. Not all of them were receiving rebates as human relations, but I think the majority were.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what elements of the human relations section have been taught in those, or is it different for each one?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, each company, of course, applies individually so each plan would be different, and I do not know how many are in. I am not able to give specific details on exactly what they are doing in terms of the plan that was presented here, but each plan would be different, one from the other. I mean they could be similar, but it would be coincidence.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, could the minister tell us something about the plan that was submitted and the education plan that was accomplished for ISM information systems? It was one of the larger ones for over 500 people and it was in the technical area.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, as indicated before, with these we do not have the individual plans with us, but we can obtain that information if it is desired. We do not have all of the files with us. We have the listing, but for specific details, we would have to go pull the paper file which we can do for this.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, similarly, as I indicated with the other one, I would be pleased to give the minister a list of ones where we are interested in the educational plan. Is that acceptable? Okay.

I want to ask one last question about the province-wide special courses, not the industry-wide partnerships, but the province-wide special courses, if the minister could tell us what is anticipated in that area this year?

Mrs. McIntosh: We do not have them for '95-96, but I do have them for '94-95. I can indicate just in terms of the description here, sectorial quality initiative is the name of the course, and that is a sectorial-driven strategy for identifying advancing quality-related initiatives in Manitoba. There were three participants in that. Six Thinking Hats workshop, which is a one-day workshop to prepare participants to apply the Six Thinking Hats framework of Edward De Bono to improve thinking, problem solving and decision-making abilities in a business environment, there were 20--

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, just to save the minister some time, you have actually provided me with that one, and I had misunderstood it as part of industry-wide partnerships. So I do have that list.

The minister is anticipating 12 province-wide special courses next year, I gather, this coming year.

Mrs. McIntosh: That is what we have down for an estimate, yes.

Ms. Friesen: Is the minister anticipating more or less the same budget? The information you gave me for last year was $93,000.

Mrs. McIntosh: We are estimating $100,000, so it is in the same ballpark.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 4. Training and Advanced Education (h) Workforce 2000 and Youth Programs (1) Workforce 2000 (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,244,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $3,703,500--pass.

4.(h)(2) Stevenson Aviation Centre (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $313,700--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $447,400--pass.

4.(h)(3) Youth Programs (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,102,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $539,400.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I do not know if I missed the area on the budget. I wanted to ask questions about the Youth Works program. Have we dealt with that line in the budget yet?

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Is it agreed to go back? [agreed]

Mr. Kowalski: I am just wondering about the pilot called Youth Works that was announced during the last provincial election, what is happening with that, any time lines, any money in the budget that has been dedicated to that. I wonder if I could get some information on that.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we have been busy working away on that one. I expect to have an announcement ready for you shortly.

Mr. Kowalski: Is there money allocated in these Estimates for that program?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, you will not see any specific funds identified in this particular booklet of Estimates, but the department will be looking for areas of surplus to accommodate that once the time comes to announce it.

Mr. Kowalski: Will it be within this subappropriation under Youth Programs where the surplus will be looked for or where in the Department of Education, or will it be in another department of government? Where will the surplus be examined for funds for this program?

Mrs. McIntosh: I can just indicate to the member that we will not be taking any money out of any existing Youth Programs. The budget, as the member knows, was set prior to the election. No, we will not be touching existing Youth Programs for any surplus funding.

Mr. Kowalski: It will not come under this subappropriation for Youth Programs. Will it come out of the Department of Education budget, or could it come out of another department budget for these Youth Programs?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to the member, the funding source has not yet been identified for that program. I am indicating to the member that the program is underway in planning, and you can expect to hear an announcement on that shortly.

Mr. Kowalski: The announcement made during the election was for 300 summer jobs for youth, $2 per hour to hire youth to input data, provide services, to learn the trade. That should give an idea of the type of allocation that is going to be looked for. Is there any idea of what type of budget this Youth Works project will be looking for?

* (1240)

Mrs. McIntosh: About $250,000.

Mr. Kowalski: I know the minister has mentioned a number of times that they are working on it now, and it will be as soon as possible. Will it be for this summer?

Mrs. McIntosh: That is my intention.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 4. Training and Advanced Education (3) Youth Programs (b) Other Expenditures $539,400--pass; (c) CareerStart $2,230,800--pass; (d) Partners with Youth $925,000--pass; (e) Green Team $2,900,000--pass; (f) Less: Recoverable from Rural Economic Development Initiatives and Urban Economic Development Initiatives--just for the record, a deficit of $3,400,000.

4.(j) Apprenticeship (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,327,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $374,200--pass.

Resolution 16.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $46,030,300 for Education and Training, Training and Advanced Education, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1996.

Item 5.(a) Schools Finance (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $821,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $137,100--pass.

5.(b) Schools Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,068,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $426,000--pass.

5.(c) Schools Information System (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $289,100.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, in the earlier part of the Estimates at the beginning we talked briefly about this information system issue. I gave some overview comments about the evolution of this system and the difficulties. I wonder initially if the minister has any comments to make on the current status of this system before I ask a couple of questions.

Mrs. McIntosh: I would be happy to do that. I am wondering though if I could beg the indulgence of the committee and ask for about a five-minute recess and come back. I have staff en route from that particular branch. They should be here shortly.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess? Agreed and so ordered. We will resume at 12:51. Thank you.

The committee recessed at 12:45 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 12:53.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: The committee, please come to order.

The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), do you want to reask the question, please, for the benefit of the staff?

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, in my initial remarks under the Executive Support section, I raised questions about the student information system, and the committee agreed to consider those questions under the appropriate line item.

I did give some background comments at that time about my concerns with the evolution of this system, and I was wondering if before we started the minister wanted to make any comments in response or to clarify current status of the information system.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mrs. McIntosh: Just for clarification, are you then skipping over the two sections that came before that, the two lines that came before that? Will you be having any questions on them, do you know?

Are we current with where you would like to be? [interjection] Okay.

The member had indicated last time his thoughts on this, had indicated over a span of seven years that this is an idea that has been going along for quite a while. We have been working on developing an information system that would track students' scholastic records or scholastic circumstances from entry of school through.

One of the things that we are looking for in this that we think would be of great benefit would be the ability to more properly trace a student, particularly a student who is highly mobile, and not have the potential loss of records and so on.

Electronically, of course, we have an ability to do these things now in ways that we never could before. I think that was the member's point, and his question before, I believe, centred on why it is taking so long to get this up and running.

One of the things that we are concerned about, I think I mentioned at the time, were the privacy provisions. That, of course, is something that we want some comfort level on. There has been progress made in terms of identifying the capabilities that we wish to see incorporated into a student tracking system.

In terms of the question I think that was asked last time, will each student be assigned a number--I believe that was one of the questions you had asked--or will we be opting into an existing number? Those are questions that the staff has been exploring. That is one of our points of concern that is preventing us from being able to go ahead right now because as we move into this we are planning to have the local school authorities, with their own information system, providing information to us, and the decision that now has to be made is what number we will use.

In terms of straight convenience, of course, you could tap into something like the health number, and, as indicated, that is a number that already exists, but what we are trying to seek comfort on before we make that decision is what kind of security will be surrounding that number. If we use an existing number, such as the health number, which would be convenient, do we have adequate protections around in terms of security? If we do not go that route, then we have to assign our own number, and then there are questions that arise out of that.

In terms of setting up a system, though, we have now come to an understanding that existing systems within divisions could be utilized to provide information for our central base here, so progress has been made. I indicate the one area that is--the thing that still has to be decided is one that has to be very carefully thought through before a final determination is made.

* (1300)

Mr. Sale: I want to be as constructive as I can in this, Mr. Chairperson. These discussions are, if this indeed is the discussion that is going on, they are absolutely the same discussions that were going on in 1987.

In 1987, we had concluded on the mechanism for a unique student identifier, and it had been tested through the whole Manitoba population. One of the problems that the minister may know is the problem of distinguishing between identical twins who are born on the same day, so birth date does not always work. There are a variety of problems whenever you go to a unique identifier system that have to be sorted out. Now those were tested and a decision was reached, but that is really water under a bridge of seven or eight years ago.

(Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

My concern is that there is no evidence that there has been the slightest bit of progress since that time, and I hear the minister saying that you have made the decision that you can use school-based information. Well, there is no other decision to be made because that is the only information that will be available is school-based information.

I say to the minister that I hope she will make the investigation of this issue a very important priority of her new mandate as minister because my information is that some $3 million has been spent on this issue with no visible progress. I would say to the minister that urban school systems far bigger than Manitoba's population are using such systems virtually off the shelf of the kind that I mentioned last time, Columbia, Trevlac, and there are a variety of others. All you are looking at is a site licence or a provincial licence. My understanding is that we own a site licence and provincial licence for one such system, which has lapsed but could likely be renewed for very small amounts of money.

Over the period of time that the minister's government has been in place and, as I acknowledged last time, three years prior to that when the NDP government was in place, no data entry has taken place in terms of student records. The minister talks about electronic transfer. Presumably, the most desirable form would be between schools. Presumably, the minister would not want a system in which a student record would be sent to the department and then sent by the department out to a new place of a student's residence or where the student is attending school because in many cases the transfer is between adjacent schools. That capacity is already part and parcel of the existing electronic student record systems.

My concern in this issue is not the detail of the record system. I believe that issue has been resolved for many jurisdictions for a long time. Manitoba is in the sad situation of being the least developed in Canada at the present time. My concern is that this government wants to talk about policy, about education and Manitoba students, Manitoba student needs. I want to talk about why girls do not stay in math. We do not have any data about what girls do in terms of math, other than survey data. We do not know across the province. I want to talk about who the drop-outs are. We do not know in detail other than anecdotally and from StatsCan numbers who the drop-outs really are.

These information systems that are already in more than a quarter of our schools and could have by now easily been in all of them have the capacity to provide the minister and her staff with decision-making information around policy issues which are now being decided in the absence of that information.

I think it is an ongoing scandal for all of us that after 10 years we still do not have a student information system, and yet you are making very major curriculum and other policy decisions. You do not have the data on which to make those decisions. That is my concern. It is not the nitty-gritty of the information system. That I thought we had solved in '87-88, and had it not been interrupted at that time, I think it would have been solved. It is not a hard problem to solve in spite of whatever your officials are saying to you. The problem has been solved by many jurisdictions many years ago, so it cannot be that hard to solve.

I would invite the minister's response.

Mrs. McIntosh: I thank the member for his comments. I do appreciate what I hear inherent in there, which is some constructive criticism. That is the type of criticism that I welcome. I thank him for that.

I was not here in '87, so I cannot comment on that. I can say that his points about the need for such a system are well taken. His request--I think it was a request--that I give this priority is received and accepted as something that I will give priority to.

In saying that we would not be looking to set up our own system replicating or duplicating school division systems, it may indeed have been a self-evident statement, but to me it was one that I felt I needed to make just in case there was some indication or some thought that the member might have received from somewhere that we were thinking of actually going and setting up our own system all throughout. I say that more as a reaffirmation.

* (1310)

I appreciate what the member is saying about the length of time that this seems to have taken over the course of years. I guess all I can say is, we will try to ensure that, if we are sitting around here another year, you will be able to ask questions about how it is functioning as opposed to when it is going to be functioning, because the points you have made, the points the member has made, about the uses to which this could be put are good points, and they are received as good points that cannot be denied.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister for those constructive comments.

To clarify, I did not ever think that the ministry was going to go to the schools and ask for different information than the schools would need to conduct their own student monitoring and program evaluation. I did not mean that.

My concern is--I will be very specific. Computer software houses such as Systemhouse and other providers can make very fine-sounding promises to provide very sophisticated systems. Virtually, without exception, they go over budget and under promise. For all that, it is a very important system, it is not a terribly technically complex issue to have a database that has some hundreds of thousands of records in it. Each record has in it a number of different fields, and you want to be able to look at those fields in a variety of ways. That is a pretty standard database question. I would be very wary of any software supplier that is promising that for $3 million or $8 million or $10 million they will give you a lovely system.

I hope that is not what is being pursued. That was my concern, that I believe some $3 million has been spent on this to date. I do not think it is necessary to go to a hugely sophisticated purpose-built system when off-the-shelf systems exist that do this job pretty well.

I do have some other comments, but I just wanted to clarify that. I was not suggesting that the ministry was going off on its own to write a separate system for schools.

Mrs. McIntosh: I thank the member for those comments, and just to indicate--and I understand what he is saying, but most of the $3 million that he is talking about has not been spent on computer companies or systems that say--well, I think the member used "over budget" and "under promised" or something like that.

A lot of that, in fact the majority of that, has been internal in terms of purchasing hardware, because we have been preparing for the preparation of this, and so we have spent--I will just give you a quick sense of the hardware and software that has been acquired for development and production.

We have spent about $437,000 on development--some of these terminologies mean very little to me; they may mean something to you--development survey 1-7-H-P net assure services. Then they go down, and there is a whole series of products, speedware products and services for conversion and training, some $80,000 there. There is a long list of them here. The total of all of that is about approximately a million and a half for those types of items. That is over the four years, over a four-year span. So they are busy putting things together.

I guess I come back to the one thing that is a concern, and it is that whole security thing. We want to be so careful and not say that it is going to impede us because I know there are solutions to those things, but that was the one thing we were talking about in terms of the number. I think I mentioned earlier, I will not go through that again. I will spare you being repetitive on the issue.

I guess my point is, they have been working, and the money that is being spent is being spent internally not, by and large, internally, not externally.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, is there a specific external consultant being used on this project?

Mrs. McIntosh: As I indicated, the bulk of the work is being done internally with our own department experts. They have used, on a short-term basis, about 180 days, less than 200 days, a consultant to assist with the setting up of the hardware, and that was simply as the equipment was being brought in to help set it up and make sure it was utilized correctly and to train our own people in any particular skill that they might need to acquire.

Basically, we do have people on staff who are well versed and very skilled in these types of systems, and they will be doing the bulk of the work. It is the hardware cost, a little bit of money for a consultant--say, less than 200 days--to fill in some of the little gaps as new equipment comes in.

Mr. Sale: Usually, Mr. Chairperson, hardware is acquired after you have the system designed so that you know what it is you have designed it for. Is the minister saying that the software for the program is all written and it is ready to go and so now you know what you need to run it?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am not a computer expert, so I hope I am using the correct terminology, but I understand that the hardware is basic hardware. It is hardware that is being used internally, needed by the department, and it is not some incredibly complicated, supersophisticated, strange thing. It is a basic utilitarian usage that will prepare them for this particular system. The software they expect can be utilized here.

Mr. Sale: I do not want to pursue this a lot further. I think it is an area in which the minister has not yet had a chance to get the briefings that she needs, and I do no think there is any reason to pursue it further.

* (1320)

I think you have just said, essentially, that the hardware that has been acquired here is simply an expansion of the existing HP system that is in the department, and it has nothing much to do with the student record system except the question of capacity. It is probably expanding the storage capacity and the processor speed or that sort of basic stuff, but it has nothing to do with this system particularly at all. I think that is fine. I do not expect the minister to have that detail at this point, although maybe by next year we will expect her to have the detail.

May I close by asking the minister if she would do this: Would she undertake to table, within a reasonable period of time--and that might be, we might say, by the time the House resumes in the fall--a reasonably detailed work plan for implementing this new system, getting the schools that are not already now on some kind of useful software on such a system and catching up the incredible backlog of data that are sitting out in Russell, Manitoba, in the student records branch, or maybe have never been moved out there and are still sitting down here in storage?

I just would say to the minister that, when we looked at doing that in 1987-88 and examined what it would cost then, it was close to $200,000. We have now let another six years go by, and I expect this is not going to be a small price tag to do this catchup, but would she undertake to table such a work plan?

Mrs. McIntosh: I will undertake to do that. I do not want to be held to a specific day and time, but I think the member has made some valid points in this section, and I will undertake to be able to give a stronger indication in the fall as to the points that he has raised. I appreciate him bringing them forward. I thank him for the support on this particular project.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister for that co-operation.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 16.5 Support to Schools (c) Schools Information System (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $289,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $705,600--pass.

16.5(d) Schools Grants (1) Operating Grants $551,682,700--pass; (2) Phase-In Support Grants, zero balance; (3) General Support Grants $18,764,700--pass.

16.5(e) Other Grants $1,737,900--pass; (f) Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund $50,150,600--pass.

Resolution 16.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty the sum not exceeding $625,783,800 for Education and Training, Support to Schools for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 16.6 Support to Post-Secondary Institutions (a) Universities (1) Universities Grants Commission (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $268,000.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to begin this by asking the minister about the new organization which is being planned to convey government policy to universities. I think during the election and both in the Roblin commission as well that the government has been looking at new forms of organization. I would like to discuss those. Could she give us a general idea to begin with of the direction the government is going to take on this and what the time frame is?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if the member could be a little more specific because there are a huge number of items in Roblin, everything from the articulation between colleges and universities and overlapping into high schools, to a council, to all of those things. Is there one specifically she would like me to start off with?

Ms. Friesen: The area I am thinking about at the moment is the changes to the Universities Grants Commission, if there are to be changes, and the creation of a council on post-secondary education, if that is the right term that the government is using at the moment. So it is the overall change from an intermediator position perhaps to a more direct connection with government or elements of the department.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification there. The government will be looking to set up a council on post-secondary education in Manitoba, and that council will see the Universities Grants Commission and the Colleges Secretariat coming together. It will oversee not just the University of Manitoba, for example, or Red River Community College, but it will be the linkage, the common umbrella, I guess--that is not really the word I mean--but it will attempt to ensure that there is a good linkage with the colleges and universities.

As we see increased articulation, and as we see more opportunities for student choice and cost containment and those types of things, the council will be a central body that will provide unity and commonality of approach in terms of satisfying student needs, so that students then, we hope, will be able to move more easily between the institutions, course offerings will be more appropriate in terms of where a student can take a particular course and that type of thing.

So that will be established. I do not have a specific date, but it is something that we have indicated as a priority, and so the establishment of that council will not be in the far future; it will be in the near future.

Ms. Friesen: When the minister says the near future, are we looking at this coming fiscal year, the '95-96 fiscal year?

Mrs. McIntosh: At least you did not say 1944, so you are in the right era.

I cannot give a specific date. I guess I am always so reluctant to be pinpointed to a date, because you either come in too soon or too late when you give a specific date. I guess maybe the best way I can answer this for the member is that I had some sort of time lines for myself when I came in. One was to take some time to get to know the member organizations, which I have been doing, and the other was to, of course, go through the first session, the first Estimates. Then, of course, I have some immediate goals that I want to accomplish as soon as those are done, and we are nearly done those three things.

One of my first immediate goals will be to have the council established and operating. I do not know what time lines are going to be necessary to make it fully functional, but it will be one of my first immediate goals, so I will begin working on it almost immediately that the session is complete, and depending upon the length of time it takes to appoint people, develop a specific mandate or a specific mission statement, goals and objectives--if it moves quickly, then it will be in this fiscal year, but I cannot say for sure at this time.

* (1330)

Ms. Friesen: The minister suggested that it would be a coming together of the UGC and the Colleges Secretariat. Does the minister anticipate that there will be outside people on that, people who are outside the current UGC staff?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I do. The council will have people on it who are not necessarily on the Grants Commission or the Colleges Secretariat.

Ms. Friesen: Has the minister given any thought to proportions of that? For example, maybe I should start with how many people would there be from the Colleges Secretariat. That we would know.

Mrs. McIntosh: We have not taken any decision yet as to the composition of the council. That is still being considered and does not yet have a decision for announcing.

Ms. Friesen: One of the alternatives that Roblin looked at was a cabinet committee on post-secondary education, as well, and I wondered, are there to be any changes in those kinds of organizations, as well, those kinds of connections within the government in addition to this, or is this going to be the one major change we should look at?

Mrs. McIntosh: All of the recommendations put forward by Roblin are ones that we will take a look at seriously, but we have not yet decided exactly how we are going to do the composition or how committee structures will work, et cetera.

We have indicated we like the concept in principle. We intend to proceed with developing a mandate and structure and the composition and lines of authority.

We have not decided the how yet. We have decided that we are going to, but how we are going to is still something that has not yet been decided. It will be something that I will be placing as a high priority as soon as we are through the session.

Ms. Friesen: I understand part of the intention of this is to bring the colleges and universities closer together. How will the colleges be connected to this? Will there be additional college representation other than through the Colleges Secretariat?

Mrs. McIntosh: The Colleges Secretariat, as the member is probably aware, is administrative staff. It is not outside people. Although certainly we will be getting ideas and so on from people such as those who currently serve in those roles, we have not yet come to a decision as to how the structure is going to be set up.

All of those questions the member may have involving composition or who will be doing what are all questions that have yet to be answered internally by us. They are good questions. Just in terms of their timeliness, I do not have answers for them at this date and probably will not for a few months yet, but those are the kinds of questions that we are asking ourselves as well. How should we structure it? Who should be here? Who should be there? Who should we include? Who should we draw in?

As soon as we have those answers we will in all likelihood be indicating them probably through the usual methods of indicating that a decision has been made in that regard.

Ms. Friesen: So if we are looking at time lines it does not sound as though the new system will be operating in the fall of '96. Does that sound a bit early?--more likely to be '97.

Mrs. McIntosh: It is very difficult to say because if we have everything fall together very quickly then we could see a quite early start. If it takes a longer time to work our way through the process it could take longer, so it is really difficult to say. I do not want to preempt any decision making by indicating that I think it can be done in time for this year on the chance that maybe it cannot be.

I hate to not give a clear answer, but I really do not have one at this point that I can provide.

Ms. Friesen: The function of this council then, does the minister anticipate that it will maintain the function of the distribution of grants between universities and, now, presumably, between colleges as well?

Mrs. McIntosh: I do anticipate that.

Ms. Friesen: So essentially the basic principle of arm's length for both colleges and universities will be maintained?

Mrs. McIntosh: I would say that principle will still exist. I am looking at the structure that Roblin suggests as some of his suggestion there, I think, would still incorporate arm's length even though he has included certain people in certain positions. I still think that principle is worth adhering to.

Ms. Friesen: Both Roblin and the minister have indicated that increased articulation between universities and programs, and I think also you are emphasizing articulation between colleges and universities. I am wondering what kind of process the government is going to anticipate in those areas. How will this council be used to increase articulation, which I think is a reasonable goal. I do not have any problem with Roblin's comments on most of that, and it is difficult to move on.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, just taking you to a different body for a moment. The council of ministers has asked for undergraduate credit transfers between provinces to be a topic of exploration and that is, of course, yet another level of articulation. So, when we start to look at being able to move from one area to another easily, we see not just between colleges and universities and universities and universities and colleges and colleges and maybe even into the high school for certain areas, but we also look further ahead to interprovincial articulation.

At the moment, the presidents and vice-presidents of colleges and universities have been working on an articulation guide and that is to talk about the kinds of things that--you, know, if you took engineering technology at Red River and now you decide you want to take civil engineering, can you use some of the credits you got in Red River, if that is where you took your engineering tech, for civil engineering--those types of things?

The council, it is anticipated, would then pick up that kind of work once it is up and running, but I keep returning to my original statement that we are still working on not just structure and composition but a clear mandate. So, while we say in a generic sense the council will be the common bond or the common authority for all the current bodies that have their University of Manitoba board of governors, for example, how does it relate to Red River Community College. Well, the council will be the--relationship builder is maybe a good term.

Ms. Friesen: Just as a detour, I am interested in the articulation guide that the minister mentioned. I know that universities and colleges have had a great deal of difficulty in coming together on these issues and if there has been any progress I would be interested in seeing what have been produced.

Can the minister tell us what exists on paper or what is publicly available in this area?

Mrs. McIntosh: There is a draft which we expect will be published sometime this fall.

The member mentioned something that I think really does clarify the need for a council when we start into this type of thing, because you indicated your understanding that the colleges and universities had difficulty coming together on this type of thing, and, indeed, it is difficult.

* (1340)

That is why I think Roblin envisioned a council, and it is one of the reasons we support a council, but difficult or not, they have managed to produce a draft, and that should be raised sometime in the fall and be available for people to peruse.

Ms. Friesen: Will the new council on post-secondary education require legislation?

Mrs. McIntosh: I imagine that it would.

Ms. Friesen: Will it require amendments to the universities act and regulations?

Mrs. McIntosh: I think it probably would.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to follow up on the previous minister's correspondence with the universities. The minister had last year, I think in the fall, indicated to the universities that he was looking for some response from them on a number of issues that he outlined that came out of Roblin.

I wondered what the new minister had received, or, collectively, the department had received from each of the universities, including St. Boniface, and what the next step was in that.

Mrs. McIntosh: All but one of the institutions has now forwarded an individual response. We had also asked for a collective response which has not yet come. We have received from one institution an interim response, and so the responses are in.

Staff has perused them. I am in the course of reading through them. We will get the final report from the one remaining university, I imagine, shortly because they have sent us an interim draft. We are, as I say, waiting for the collective response from the heads of the boards.

Ms. Friesen: So the people who have replied, essentially, so far, have been the presidents, and the minister is looking for a collective response of all the boards meeting together. Is that where we are?

Mrs. McIntosh: We are currently waiting for the chairs of the boards to send us something that they together would compile.

Ms. Friesen: And the next step--when the minister has received that and digested it, what would be the next step in that, and what is the timing on that?

If I can elaborate, I am looking for the public process. When does the public have an opportunity to comment on or to look or to reflect upon the presidents' and the boards' responses?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the first thing, of course, I am going to make sure that I have had a chance to go through them all and get a good grasp of what they are saying and how I feel about what they are saying. These responses will be invaluable to us in terms of setting up the council. We had actually hoped they might have been in a little sooner, but they are coming. That is the important thing.

Their use in terms of planning for the operations of the council and all of the things that we will be mandating the council to do, will be their prime use to us. We do not have at this time any process laid out for public hearings or those types of things. We see these at this stage as internal to the universities and government. I would not be prepared to release them at least until we had gone through them here. Although the universities I am sure, if they wish to, could make them available. I do not know what their sense is in sending them to us if they were sending us confidential documents in their opinion or not.

Ms. Friesen: That is really what I was looking for in the sense that--I was not looking for public hearings at this stage, but since the government's questions for the universities were quite public and publicly made I am interested and I think the general public would be interested in what the universities responses have been. Perhaps staff might have some concept of whether the universities did send it as a confidential response essentially to publicly laid questions.

Mrs. McIntosh: I have no difficulty with a public answer to a public question--just ask staff here if they had any sense of whether the universities felt they were replying in confidence or in public and they say they do not believe the universities feel their responses are confidential. A quick phone call to double check would be the easiest way.

It is back to my old thing. I hate to take third-party stuff and give it away. I do not think there would be any problem, because the whole process is quite public and certainly the issues are very public and a very great concern to the people and the students of Manitoba and to those who employ the students once they graduate, so the process is not a secretive process in that sense.

I do not know if their board meetings--if they had in-camera meetings to determine these issues or not. I also do not think they would have any difficulty stating their responses to the public, but I can confirm that just to be on the safe side.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, if indeed the universities believe these to be public documents, would there be a way of tabling them or transmitting them to me at a later date?

Mrs. McIntosh: I think we could probably get you some.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask some specific questions about each of the universities, beginning with the University of Winnipeg and the use of the gymnasium, which I think has probably been brought to the minister's attention.

The University of Winnipeg fieldhouse was constructed, it is generally believed, with the provision that community access be part of the university programming. I think in this past year there has been either less or no community programming. Some of the community groups who have in the past been accustomed to using that gymnasium or fieldhouse have not been able to, not necessarily because the doors have been closed but because the programmer and the programming has not been there.

* (1350)

I wondered if the minister had formally replied to any letters on this issue or whether this had been brought to her attention by community groups or by the university. I guess, secondly, is it indeed the case that the University of Winnipeg fieldhouse was built under, in part, the proviso that community groups be encouraged and programs are developed for them?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member has us stumped, because I do not recall the issue and the staff does not recall the issue. We will check it out, but it is not something that we seem to be aware of right now.

Ms. Friesen: I think it would also be helpful--I do not know whether the minister has received any correspondence on it. I have not had any that has been copied to her. What I have received has been relatively informal, although it has been in writing.

Could the minister undertake to look at the conditions of the construction of the University of Winnipeg fieldhouse to see whether in fact there were community provisos incorporated into that?

Mrs. McIntosh: We will check out all of those things that of course pertain to our jurisdiction there. Yes, we will do that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask about the direct grant that the government provides to the Faculty of Management at the University of Manitoba. What I am interested in is specifically the criteria for that grant and how it is evaluated on an annual basis.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the direct government grant to the Faculty of Management was $1,139,000 and that was based on their development plan.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, could the minister tell us what particular part of the management plan or the general direction of the management plan which this $1 million plus assists?

Mrs. McIntosh: In particular, the addition of 20 staff at the Faculty of Management.

Ms. Friesen: This grant has been going under different auspices, approximately a million dollars I think for the last several years. It came from another department and then was transferred into Education. How many grants of this type towards the development plan has the Faculty of Management had?

Mrs. McIntosh: That $1,139,000 was spread over five years and then it was to become part of the base. In the last two years, it has been extended.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could go back over that a minute. I understood it was a million dollars a year or in that ballpark.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member is correct.

Ms. Friesen: So how many years have there been grants of approximately a million dollars directly to the faculty?

Mrs. McIntosh: It has only been for the last couple of years that it has been the million dollars. Over the course of time--and I think we go back about six or seven years--but, at that point, it was only around $300,000. So it was not a million dollars every year for seven years. It was $300,000 when it started. The last two years, maybe the last three, it has been at the million dollar mark. Prior to that, it was much less.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I know that we do not have the records for Industry, Trade and Tourism here which is where it was, but I think I do recollect it has been in Education now for two years, last year and this coming year. I believe in the years before when it was transferred from I, T and T that at least two years there it was over $700,000. I know you do not have that material here. That is certainly something I will check.

This goes as a special grant for the purpose of the addition of 20 staff. Is there anything else to which it is applied?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is not just to staff but primarily to the staff. Some of that money has gone into the library and into the development of a Ph.D. program at the faculty. So you will see plans to increase the number of masters and the implementation of a Ph.D. program to bring in about 20 staff to add to the library and those types of initiatives.

Ms. Friesen: Is there a general evaluation of this each year, or is it done on a two- or three-year basis?

Mrs. McIntosh: I will give you the answer to that in just a minute, but I have to say I think the biggest evaluation for that particular one is the fact that the students themselves have voted for a whopping big increase in fees in order to make their contribution. You do not see that happen very often.

To me, in terms of an evaluation, when you see a whole body of students say, we will pay $500 more a year, which is what they did in that faculty, it is kind of an indication of how they evaluate the program, but for the rest of your answer--

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being two o'clock, committee rise.