Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume the consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.

When we last sat it had been considering item 16.1 Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, on page 46 of the main Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Chairperson, the first thing that jumps out at a person when they look at the numbers underneath the section on the Manitoba School for the Deaf is some increases which on the surface seems like a pretty decent thing for this minister to be doing. I do not mind giving the minister credit when there is something good. So maybe he can explain to me the increases I see in the two lines under Managerial and Professional/Technical. I would be interested knowing especially on the Technical side what those increases translate into, what positions may have been created, or is that just due to the normal increases found within the Department of Education?

An Honourable Member: What page did you say you were on?

Mr. Struthers: I am on page 47, School Programs. Maybe I better make sure I am on the right page and line. Nowhere near?

An Honourable Member: Yes, you are in the right area.

* (1600)

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, for today I am not uncomfortable if the honourable member wants to start us off wherever, if we are able to deal with it. If we are not, then we can take notice and give the answer at a later time. But I think we are able to discuss this matter with the honourable member right now.

Mr. Chairperson: I think we have gone ahead, so we would need leave. Is there leave for the committee to proceed ahead and revert when the time comes? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I would grant leave if the honourable member would. If I do not have the appropriate material or staff present, I will tell the honourable member and we will make note of that question.

But the one that he has asked is about the School for the Deaf. There is an additional sum here for Professional/Technical staff, and that is to hire interpreters and medical services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. There is an increase of $42,000 for nursing services to one of our students, to a technology dependent student. There are going to be two new students at the Manitoba School for the Deaf in 1999-2000, and they require exceptional support. The budget, which the honourable member was pleased to support, supports those students.

Mr. Struthers: I thank the minister for jumping ahead of the line that we were to be on, but I was very interested to hear about the increases at the School for the Deaf. The other increase that is there is on the managerial side. Is that just a normal increase one year to the next, or have there been managers added, more administration?

Mr. McCrae: The difference in that appropriation from $124,000 to $130,500 is accounted for by the result of collective bargaining which gave back the so-called Filmon Fridays and a 2 percent increase– this is for wages. So that is strictly–I would call it routine because it is happening in a lot of places throughout government.

Mr. Struthers: Could I assume then that the next two lines, and this would answer some questions very quickly, the same answer would apply to Administrative Support and Employee Benefits, the normal costs of increases one year to the next through collective bargaining?

Mr. McCrae: Yes.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, if we could go back to the line we were on, a very broad line dealing with Executive Support, 16.1(b), which I do not think is passed yet.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to clarify with the minister a couple of points that had arisen earlier. I wondered if the minister had actually tabled the list of presenters because I did check with other people who had received the special needs review and apparently the appendix that the minister assumed was there of the list of presenters was not there, so it is not, as we were assuming at the last session, a part of the original public document. So I wonder if the minister could table the whole thing.

Mr. McCrae: Yes, I can, Mr. Chairperson. We had undertaken to table the appendices from the Special Education Review, and that is what I am doing now.

Ms. Friesen: Just while I am looking at that, I wonder if the minister could clarify something else that arose in an earlier discussion and which did not seem to be the understanding of some of the people in the field that I talked to. I raised the issue of ADAPs and the letter from the deputy minister, I think it was in April, '98, indicating that school divisions need no longer send their ADAP reports in to the department. We went back and forth a little on this, and the minister said that indeed school divisions are expected to send their ADAPs in to the department. I wondered if there had been anything from the department which rescinded that April '98 letter, and what is the actual situation? What is it that schools are expected to do now, or divisions, I should say?

Mr. McCrae: The letter that I provided to the honourable member written by the deputy minister ought to be reviewed by both of us, probably. If there is any misunderstanding, it is regrettable, but I think the letter says what the letter says. The ADAPs are expected to exist. The intent of the administration change was that they would be phased out when divisions will have completed their first program review. So I think you just maybe need to review the letter again and that might give you the–actually, is it a letter written by myself, or by the deputy?

* (1610)

Ms. Friesen: The minister needs to clarify which letter we are talking about. Just to summarize, what I was saying was that in April '98, and I think it is on the website, a long directive from the Minister of Education, I believe signed by the deputy minister, indicates that ADAPs are no longer required to be submitted by school divisions. This came as some surprise to school divisions because it was in advance of the report of the special needs review, and that was why I was asking the question. In response, the minister said, no, they must report them. Now, I do not remember the minister tabling any letter that indicated that, as you are just talking about now, so I think we need to clarify which letter, what dates and what is the present position, and has that April '98 directive been rescinded?

Mr. McCrae: The present position is that the ADAPs do not have to be filed with the department. It is expected that they would exist, and that if there are changes to those ADAPs, then the department is supposed to be notified of those changes. Does that clear it up?

Ms. Friesen: Yes, it does. The issue is changes to the ADAPs that must be submitted to the department. Could the minister tell me what form those changes must be submitted in, and what does the minister define as a change? For example, would it be the number of students with special needs? Would it be a change in the composition of the committee of the division which has been put together in fact to deal with the ADAPs? What level of changes? Is it policy? Is it numbers? Is it money? Is it process? Many levels at which changes can take place, and what is the department's expectations on that?

Mr. McCrae: Department personnel are very much in touch with special education personnel in the various school divisions on an ongoing basis. It is not a question that there is any confusion really. I think maybe I am confused, and maybe the honourable member is asking a lot of questions because the previous answers perhaps were not quite as clear as they could have been. But when we are talking about changes to these ADAPs, I think that it is right for the department to have some kind of record of a change in programs or services in a given division, not numbers of students. Those things fluctuate, and everybody knows that.

But, if there is a change in direction or policy or in the types of structures, things like advisory committees or community organizations that divisions work with, the department wants to know about that and have some kind of record of it. But the point is maybe, as I sit at this table away from the field, there may be a little more lack of clarity than there is out there in the field because these people are practitioners and the department is engaged in an ongoing process and dialogue with them. So I think that, in terms of any filings or information sharing, it is in areas like programs, services, policy, or types of structures and not so much the one thing the member referred to, that being the number of students.

I am advised that all ADAPs include the information respecting the planning process, a division's statement of policy and philosophies, a needs survey. I suppose, subject to correction–I mean if there is a major change in the demographic make-up of a community, then perhaps it would be good for the department to be made aware of that. But ADAPs include information about the comprehensive service delivery system, outlines of divisional programs, community agencies and services collaborating with the school division and professional development activities.

The ADAP is a public document and provides meaningful information. The process of reviewing and updating encourages divisions to utilize best practices for the benefit of all students. As I said, Mr. Chairman, staff communicates regularly with student services administrators during the year as well as around the funding review process. Staff meet one on one and also with the executive of the student services administrators group. It sounds to me, from what I am learning about the operation of special education in Manitoba, that there is a very open and very inclusive process in place year in and year out. I think it needs to be like that because, as I have learned or just begun to learn, I suppose, the dynamics of special education are certainly something that require an ongoing attention to the changes in the challenges facing special educators and the department in this province. I hope that is helpful.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, yes, I think that will be helpful to at least some of the people who have spoken to me about their difficulties with the directive of last year. I think there was some uncertainty as to what its implications were.

We are moving through the special needs review in this area, and I wonder if the minister could discuss some of his responses to the section dealing with gifted education which is another aspect of special education. Its is one, I am sure, that there have been representations to the department on over the years. There are some specific recommendations in the report for specific allocations for gifted education and it is not one, even though there is the opportunity for it, in my experience which forms a great part of the ADAP reports.

So I wondered what information the minister has, what kind of information is collected across the system and what, based on that information, he is planning to do with the recommendation from the special needs review.

Mr. McCrae: We do not have evidence, as the honourable member suggested, of uncertainty respecting the ADAPs. You know, I guess if the honourable member would like to check with the people she has been talking to, if they would like to contact us directly, we would be pleased to discuss any uncertainties there might have been. But we do not know of any, so that is why I am troubled by the language used by the honourable member. We would be happy to follow that up, though, because we are not at every single place at every single moment. So if somebody has been uncertain about something, I would not mind knowing about that.

I am advised that under the programs that exist, exceptional students include gifted students. So I know from my consultations that this may be one area of uncertainty in the minds of some people, because it was raised with myself that maybe special education does not take enough account of gifted children. So I am advised that gifted children are included in any definition of exceptional children, and ADAPs should and can contain programs, structures and plans for gifted children. To the extent that those ADAPs do not have that, then perhaps the Special Education Review will assist us in ensuring that that is covered across the province. Currently, gifted education is supported through Level I funding, and school divisions, of course, determine how Level I funding is used.

* (1620)

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister perhaps put on the record then a summary or some examples–well, preferably a summary–of the kinds of gifted education programs that do exist across Manitoba and perhaps some indication of where he sees the best practices and the kind of indication which might enable the public to have some indication of how the government was planning to respond to the recommendation of the special needs review which recommends a specific allocation for gifted programming?

Mr. McCrae: I am going to obtain profiles for the honourable member, and it will also be of benefit to myself. I will get that probably by tomorrow or next time we sit.

Ms. Friesen: In terms of the funding for gifted education, the minister has indicated that currently it is provided through Level I. Clearly the review is making a different recommendation, a specific allocation be made to ensure the delivery of gifted programming.

Has the minister given some thought to that response, and can he perhaps give us some sense of what direction the department will be taking?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I have indeed given this some thought through my own personal consultations. The department has been working on the recommendations in the report. Indeed, it does suggest that a separate category be established for gifted education. We will be looking at this issue along with all the other ones, including the information respecting best practices literature and experience. So I think that is the direction we are heading in all right.

Ms. Friesen: In Section D of the responses, which is the area that I am looking at at the moment, which is where the gifted recommendation came, there is also a recommendation that Manitoba Education and Training redefine criteria for categories, I would think particularly Levels II and III, although it does say Levels I, II and III, based on student needs rather than on labels, which assume that all children with certain name disabilities require exactly the same level and type of support.

I think the minister is probably aware of the concerns of the Learning Disabilities Association and the questions that have arisen about the issue of whether one names a disability or whether one does not name a disability. Does the government have a particular policy in that area, and how does it apply it to special needs funding and special needs issues?

Mr. McCrae: I know that there is some frustration with some people respecting the inability to define by name a child's problems or difficulties at school. Just how precisely that is being addressed, I think I could either await now the department's response or we could discuss that further at the next sitting. I am not sure what staff would prefer.

Yes, the department currently uses a process that includes presenting behaviours–again, the honourable member identifies issues that I have been identifying too. The department looks at that recommendation or that comment and wants very much to find a way not to be too rigid in terms of compartmentalizing children who have special needs. In order to attach funding to the various issues that children have that are not easily compartmentalized is a difficult process. I have no doubt about that.

* (1630)

We need to find some kind of balance between no definition of need, even though a need of some kind certainly exists, and just labelling children, so that if you fall within a certain category you get X number of dollars or services. That does not work. That is one of the reasons we need this review and the work that flows from this review. So the department is grappling with this, along with the people with whom we work.

So the department is grappling with this, along with the people with whom we work, and finding that balance is something that–I do not know if my answer here will do justice to what has actually been happening, but I certainly understand the problem that has been raised with the honourable member.

Neither solution seems perfect. I suppose no solution will ever be perfect, but we cannot simply compartmentalize kids or categorize them, and then if they do not fall into the category, they do not get any help, because that is not good for them, and it is not good for the whole class or the whole school.

On the other hand, the more we can customize programs for each and every child who needs special education, the better we will succeed. How best to arrive at a system-wide response to that type of issue remains, I suggest, the challenge, but it is not one we are not up to or willing to take on. We already focus more on need than we do on labels, but as to the balance that I referred to, the work continues. As I say, we have a dedicated person, and we also have a clearly defined unit now in the department to address the issues in the Education Review.

I know it is going to take some time, and it has to take some time in order for it to be done properly and done well. We will find that balance. The department is quite determined about that. I think that everybody understands the nature of this problem, and I think that is part of the reason I can be confident that we will find some kind of system that everyone will be satisfied with or okay with. It is just that it is almost cruel to mislabel a child or to label one and because you do not fit into that category, you get an inappropriate education, or, worse, you get no special attention.

So I thank the honourable member for raising that question because it is a very important one.

Ms. Friesen: I want to pick up on some of the recommendations in the report for increased co-operation across the department. We referred to this earlier in some of the recommendations of the special needs review for the government to clarify its direction. I wanted to ask about the Children and Youth Secretariat and the policy areas. I am going from 16.1(b), the Executive Support policy areas, as well as the special needs review. I wanted to ask the minister about the status of a number of programs in Children and Youth Secretariat which should have had, may still be having an impact in the special needs area.

One of them was called Families and Schools Together, FAST. I wonder if the minister could give me a report, a status report from the perspective of the Department of Education on that particular one. There are three others I also want to look at, so if the minister has those materials available.

Mr. McCrae: I am going to ask Ms. Loeppky to prepare something so that we can present a good response for the honourable member. We can do that fairly quickly, like tomorrow or the next time we meet.

Before we leave the other one, though, I want to say that Ms. Loeppky has already met with the Learning Disabilities Association to hear their concerns and hopes for the implementation of the review.

I wanted also to say that I do not view the report as any kind of condemnation or major criticism of the system that we have in place now. It was a recognition that the system needed some structure and improvement that caused the government to commission the study in the first place. So it would not surprise me to have recommendations for improvement.

I simply do not accept that the report was brought forward to level a bunch of criticisms. That is not really the purpose of having reports. I think there is a lot of good work being done by some very good people in the province with our children, and they simply want some better directions for the future, not unlike better directions in the whole of the education system which results in a better education for the children.

The FAST Program is currently being evaluated. A number of schools are implementing the program. Once we have the evaluations, we will be able to consider the results of this type of investment.

Ms. Friesen: I understand the minister undertook to bring back a report on FAST. Is that in addition to what he has just said or is it in lieu of?

Mr. McCrae: Yes. We will make some more information available to the honourable member next time we sit.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask in the same vein about the foster children placement protocol and whether the department could table a copy of that and perhaps some indication of how that has been working. I want to recognize that the department did in 1998 make not exactly a recommendation, but it is I believe a change in policy to enable funding to follow the student.

As far as I know, that was certainly welcomed by the field. I know that the foster children placement plan is in effect. It is an extension of that, but it is again another way of bringing together all the resources of government as well as the community to bear on the education of a child, not always with special physical needs, but many with special needs of various types. It is certainly an issue not just in the city of Winnipeg, but it is clearly an issue in rural areas of Manitoba and one where I think staff in school divisions are looking for professional development. They are looking for assistance. So I wondered where we began. Could we begin with the protocol perhaps that the government was encouraged to provide by the Children and Youth Secretariat?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We will make that protocol available.

Ms. Friesen: The transition to adulthood, I believe there was also another Children and Youth Secretariat plan or a strategy to deal with that. Could the minister table any documents or give us a brief update on what has been achieved by that particular co-operation of the Children and Youth Secretariat?

* (1640)

Mr. McCrae: In February of this year, the Children and Youth Secretariat sent out information to all superintendents, student service administrators, principals, and also to departments of Education and Family Services and Health, sent out a document related to the Manitoba transition planning process support guidelines for students with special needs reaching age 16.

I remind the honourable members of the committee that the Child and Youth Secretariat is led by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) but involves ministers like myself and the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), the Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman).

The information reminded all of these addressees that in 1989, the Departments of Family Services and Health and Education and Training mandated collaborative planning for all students with special needs 16 years of age or older who would require government supports after leaving school. Such transition planning is a critical component in providing continuity of programs and services for Manitobans with special needs.

We made available to the addressees a document entitled Transition Planning Process Support Guidelines, which was an extension of the original 1989 mandate. These guidelines generally describe the individual transition planning process in Manitoba and provide resource information about strategies, mechanisms, and current best practices. The note sets out that personnel from the departments of Education and Training, Health and Family Services are available on request to provide assistance with the implementation of this interdepartmental initiative.

We also passed on the expectation that increased collaboration between the respective service jurisdictions would greatly facilitate the successful transition from school to adult services. This particular material was sent out by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) and myself and the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson), and this is Transition Planning Process Support Guidelines for students with special needs reaching the age of 16.

Within the document–quite a bit of material–basically there are two events that have brought into focus the issue of transition planning for students. The first was the completion of the interdepartmental protocol entitled Transition Planning Process 1989, mandated by the departments of Education and Training, Family Services and Health, and the second was the Manitoba transition project 1992 to 1995. The interdepartmental letter of sanction for the protocol and the Transition Planning Process 1989 are part of the guidelines, part of the attachments to the guidelines.

It became evident through field consultation that guidelines were required to support transition planning in Manitoba. The purpose of these guidelines is to outline an individual planning process, agency interaction roles, time lines, resources, and best practices to assist with transition planning for students with special needs reaching age 16. Representatives from the departments, as well as the Association for Community Living, school divisions, and Student Services Administrators Association of Manitoba, called SSAAM, met to develop the guidelines. The honourable member, I am sure, is familiar with who all the members of it are, but if she is not, maybe I can turn this over to her and she can review that.

The purpose of the guidelines is for those who are planning for students with special needs, 16 years of age or older, who require government supports after leaving school. Planning is what we do in order to be approximately right, rather than absolutely wrong. For the young adult preparing to leave school, there are many unknowns. For the young adult with a special need for supports, these unknowns increase. The guidelines should help to anticipate those unknowns and smooth the way in which they are addressed.

I do not think I should go through this in more detail until maybe after the honourable member has had a look at it and she can review it, and if anything flows from that–but just for information. I will not go through them all. We have members of–the people involved in preparing the support transition planning for Manitoba. I guess, yes, the SSAAM, no, that is the Student Services Administrators Association, but all of the people involved in getting these guidelines together included people from the agencies that I mentioned, people like Marilyn Taylor, who is with Program Implementation of the department; Kirsti Kuuskivi, who is with the Supported Living Program, Community Living Division, Manitoba Family Services. We have got somebody here from SSAAM; someone here from Manitoba Family Services; another SSAAM representative; Family Services; Manitoba Health; Family Services; a parent from Network South Enterprises; a representative from Day Services, Community Living Division, Manitoba Family Services; another one from Family Services; a representative from the Association for Community Living; a representative from mental health programs, Community Mental Health Services Division, which would be of the Department of Health; representative from Sturgeon Creek Enterprises Inc.; a representative from student support services, Assiniboine South School Division; a representative from the Supported Living Program, the Community Living Division of Manitoba Family Services; a representative from Special Education, Winnipeg School Division No. 1; a representative from Client Services, Employment and Income Assistance Division; and a member who is identified as a parent.

Now I think I have mentioned–yes, I told you about the purpose and the use of the Transition Planning Guidelines. Rather than go through the whole document with the honourable member, which would take more time than I think she would probably want me to take, I am just going to turn this whole package over to her, and she can review it. But it is, as I say, the product of consultation with some pretty knowledgeable people and should be, I hope, very useful to people in the school system, the superintendents, student services administrators, the principals, as well as the departments of Education, Family Services and Health as they address support guidelines for students with special needs.

I do not have three copies, and that is what I am supposed to have, is it, when I table?

I am going to table that, Mr. Chairman. That is the document from which I was reading and referring. If you can make a copy, I would appreciate that.

Going back to the ADAPs again–

* (1650)

Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, yes, Mr. Chairman, for clarity, I wonder if the minister could give the title of what he actually tabled. I certainly got lost with protocols, guidelines, letters to superintendents, project transition guidelines. So I am not quite sure what he is exactly tabling.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order. The honourable minister will clarify.

Mr. McCrae: I agree that she does not have a point of order, but she does have a point. You have to get the attention somehow, I guess.

What I am tabling is a letter signed by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), myself, and the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson). It is on the letterhead of the Children and Youth Secretariat. In closing, Manitoba Transition Planning Process Support Guidelines for students with special needs reaching age 16, that is what I am tabling, a letter and the guidelines attached to it.

In reference to the ADAPs again, there is a lot of information that educators and special needs people need, and there is a lot that they are being given and provided from the department. It has been made clear that long-range improvements to the process will be phased in between 1998 and 2000 and that these improvements are going to include things like replacing the application process with a new process beginning January of 1999, eliminating the Annual Division Action Plans, the ADAPS, at the completion of each school division's participation in the first round of a three-year audit cycle.

Here is again where I invite the honourable member to tell us where the lack of clarity is coming from. I am being advised that the people with whom the department works are not expressing that. If somebody is just too shy to tell us, maybe they could be encouraged by the honourable member to come forward and tell us.

We are not going to bite them. That is not what this is about. We are here to help the kids. So if someone feels that there is a lack of clarity, let them come forward and say so. We will clear it up, if there is something that is not clear. If it should have been clear, we will say that too, should have been clear, now we will give you the information that there is out there.

The improvements also include providing assistance to schools and school divisions in developing and implementing individual education plans. So I guess the issue about the uncertainty or confusion or lack of clarity really is something we do not want to accept, not very easily anyway. We would like to know who it is that is having a problem. We would like to think we solve problems, not make them.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, we were talking about the transition to adulthood, plans of the department and the Children and Youth Secretariat. I have not yet seen the material the minister tables, so I am going to continue with questions on the same line. They may well be covered in that, but perhaps the minister could tell me about how these guidelines and protocols translate into action at the ground level. How many plans, programs, organizations are involved in Manitoba in the transition to adulthood for students over 16 or over 18? How are they distributed through Manitoba?

I am particularly concerned not just about the city and the suburbs, but also about rural Manitoba and what opportunities there are or what guides, what support there is for students over 16 with special needs in rural Manitoba.

Could the minister tell me if there have been in any of these transition projects any projects with dollars attached that the Children and Youth Secretariat has looked at? Have there, for example, been any pilot projects? Have there been any experiments in this area that the department and the Children and Youth Secretariat will be drawing upon for their future plans?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the transition process for people making their way after school, this is a system-wide system that we have in place, have done for a long time. It is a partnership with Family Services, I guess for the most part, and the Education and Training department.

The protocols that I have tabled this afternoon assist this process. For many years, though, there has been a variety of programming options for people who need other supports when they are finished school. So I guess it is a question of whether it is in special education in the school system, which is a Department of Education question, or questions related to Family Services-driven services which I guess could be talked about in the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. But the dollars have always been there and still are for the needs that are there.

Now, I guess Family Services could give us a breakdown of where the people are who are getting services and of which kind and how much they cost. I mean, it is a really hard question to answer very neatly, if the honourable member understands that. I dare say it is probably available, but I would have to consult with that department, I think, to be able to break that down in the way the honourable member would perhaps like it.

I do not know that we gain much with that, though, knowing that the kids and those who are in that transition and beyond school–I have seen lots of our clients or Family Services' clients. They are certainly good programs, meaningful programs, and deliver to the recipients of the programs some sense of independence and well-being which is really a wonderful thing to see; always interested in any suggestions for improvement in those programs, however.

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.