* (1440)

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.

We are on Resolution 16.2 School Programs (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $253,800, on page 34 of the Estimates book.

Does the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) have leave to take a seat in the front benches? Leave? Leave has been granted.

* (1450)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): We had been talking about the variances and the actuals and, just for information, the department undertakes innovative actions under New Directions, for example. We prepare Estimates for those 12 months in advance of the planned activity, so we will be planning a year ahead. We will be estimating what it is going to cost us for activities that will take place within a 12-month period. Some of these, of course, are new activities for which there is no known track record of costs.

Then we have the actual activities in that period of time that were projected, and we will, in the department, adjust then as we meet the actual needs in the field. We have been incredibly accurate in the predictions in that we have only been off by 1 percent to 2 percent, and statistically speaking that is an extremely good record of projecting and meeting deadlines.

We have not had to expand the amount that was budgeted in a couple of areas. Again, the variance has been around 1 percent. This year I think it was 1 percent. It may have gone as high in earlier years as perhaps 2 percent, but again statistically it is remarkably good. We have had variances in the amount that we have had to expend in the employment development centres, student financial assistance and education reform. Much of that is on take up. Again, if you have a certain number of people requesting a service then, of course, you will spend more; fewer people requesting it, you will spend less.

Educational reform, I identified two items yesterday that were the areas that we saw variance this year. We had projected we would need a certain amount to spend on new educational initiatives, and then because we agreed to requests made by the education stakeholders, teachers, trustees, superintendents, parents and others on our implementation committee, we agreed to slow the pace down somewhat because the field was struggling to catch up to the new initiatives.

In agreeing to do that, of course, it meant that we did not have to expend as much money as we had anticipated because we were not doing as much as we had anticipated. That was a conscious response to a request from people to delay, by one year, certain activities. The second component of that was in the acquisition of personnel. We required certain personnel for new initiatives.

Two of the reasons we did not have to expend as much as we had thought we might have to, bearing in mind of course we always budget for the most costly expectations so that we do not run short. I mean, I do not say the most costly available, but we try to be extremely cost-conscious.

In our range then, we look at the maximum we think we are going to have to spend so that we do not run short as opposed to saying, well, we think we can get away with only spending this much and finding out that then we have fallen short, and we do not have enough money for important educational work.

We will acquire staff through a couple of ways. One is through secondment, and sometimes those take longer to arrange than we might hope; the other is through a competitive process, and sometimes that competitive process takes a little longer than might have been expected originally for one reason or another. Those are the main reasons for variances between what we expect to spend and what we actually do spend.

I think it is a credit to the department that they have not overspent. They have been very careful in their projections that they allow enough money to meet our needs, but that they do not then spend just to cover the allotment, which of course is an extremely irresponsible thing to do. It is one of the reasons governments across this nation have gotten themselves in trouble over the last 20 years. They feel that because they are allowed to spend a certain amount of money that, therefore, they must rush out and spend it, which of course is, as I say and most taxpayers would recognize, an irresponsible thing to do, to spend money if it turns out you do not need it. So when I hear you have underspent and it comes across like an accusation, that perhaps reveals more about the questioner than it does about the answerer. But I also indicate the variation and the variance has been very small.

Department-wide kindergarten to Senior 4 and post-secondary, the range of variance over the last eight to nine years has been .0 percent to minus 1 percent. You cannot get closer than that without being bang on, and if there is a government that has been bang on every year, I would really like to meet that government and give them my congratulations. This is extremely accurate, and I really commend the staff. To have that degree of accuracy in projecting over a course of eight to nine years speaks very highly of their ability to project over a long period of time on new initiatives and be so close. I really commend them.

With educational reform, budgeting takes place about every 12 months before the actual activities begin, so budgets are prepared in September and the initiatives get underway the following September. The result is that hiring of new staff, generally experienced teachers, does not happen until the end of the school year, around June 30. That has seen some lapsing because in September '95, we did our budget preparation and were not in a position to be hiring staff, for example, till June 30. As I have indicated, we also modified the time lines for some of the new curricula which, slowed down, means less money spent. So as I indicate, those are some of the reasons.

* (1500)

I had indicated to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) in our last session that we had given some probable or possible causes for variances in answer to her question on this topic. Initially, I had indicated that we did not have the appropriate staff here, but some probable or possible causes might be the mobility of students moving in and out and a few examples such as that that could also cause variances but that we would get back to her with the actual reasons, which I did last night.

I want it made clear, as I did attempt to make clear when we left last night, that the accusations from the member for Wolseley at that point that we had not been able to give full correct answers in the first question were, I think, rather unfair under the circumstances when we had been very clear that we did not have the proper staff. We were giving a possible or probable "would return with the actual," and then to have those comments made by her about not having had the actual in the beginning when she was asking off line, out of sequence and the staff was not here really was not very fair. I hope that she will consider that when she next asks us to speculate that we not then be criticized for having acceded to her request.

That is basically the answer, Mr. Chairman, and I will await the next question. The probable causes just before I conclude were, we had indicated, variances in enrollment and mobility of students, and those are in fact actual variance probabilities, but they made no statistical difference whatsoever and they affect the budget of the PSFB more than they would the department itself.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I am pleased to have an opportunity to spend some time in Education Estimates. I have a number of areas that I would like to direct some questions to. I hope I will have an opportunity to stay for a while and delve into some of these issues. They are fairly broad, and I understand we are in the section of School Programs and we are in the Division Administration. This is where the ideas are generated and policies are created and brought to the minister, so I hope that a certain amount of allowance will be given so that I could ask some fairly broad questions.

My first one is just a follow-up to the budget question that my colleague from Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) asked. My question is: Has consideration been given where anticipated funds will not be expended to put them towards a one-time allocation for capital enhancements, such as further technological supports, perhaps computer enhancement or building investments as we see a decaying infrastructure? Perhaps that type of money could be redirected. Has the department considered or is it possible to reallocate funds in that manner?

Mrs. McIntosh: I think that probably would be a question that is better able to be answered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) because we will present and receive permission for our budgetary requirements, but the Minister of Finance then has to manage all that money on behalf of the government and questions of departments at the end of the fiscal year being a little over or a little under are questions of management that the Minister of Finance has to ultimately be accountable for handling.

So that kind of question could probably be better decided by him, but having said that, we have, from time to time, been granted permission to spend some small surpluses we have had in Education to reallocate them to other directions. But in terms of an overall general, you can always do this under these circumstances type of thing; no, we do not have it. For example, our library computer upgrade was done with some excess money that we got permission to spend in that new setting. So we really do not have a general rule that lets us do that.

May I just make a comment. I am assuming the member is making reference to the possibility of infrastructure decaying, because I think the Public School Finance Board has done a pretty good job of identifying those areas and priorities for renovation and construction, and when buildings begin to need renovation, the PSFB will move them up the list for work. So I do not think we have any buildings that are actually decaying. I am presuming that the member is referring to the fact that if that would maybe prevent that from occurring, if we needed money in that area and felt we could not spend it there, we had some extra, that might be one place we could put it. If the member wishes to, 16.7 has the Public School Finance Board record in terms of capital, you know, buildings, et cetera. I am not sure if the member is wanting to talk in that area right now or if she is wanting it out of the stream, but I just identify the reference for her. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

* (1510)

Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us if it is her direction to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson)--does the Minister of Education make a recommendation in terms of the allocation to the PSFB for capital investments?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, it actually starts below--I do not like the reference to above or below--but it starts in a more immediate setting, maybe that is better than the minister that school divisions themselves will identify needs. They will take them directly to the PSFB. They go straight there with them, identify the extent, et cetera, of their needs. PSFB will put all of those in a priority order and make recommendations.

They will check everything out, and ultimately a list of priorities will come to the minister's office which will say, you know, we have had these many requests this year from school divisions, and these are the projects that we feel must be done this year and cannot wait. You know, they need a new boiler here or a new roof there or a complete new building someplace else. They may say here is a project that was on the slow track, so to speak, for needing eventual work here, but now we have had a hailstorm and it has to be done right now, so we are going to move it up the list. They will present that to me with the recommendations and an amount that they feel they need to be able to do that.

That then I will take to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and be given permission or approval to spend all or a portion of however much I am allowed. That allocation, of course, then goes to the PSFB and then they will distribute it accordingly and begin work on the next set. There is always a pending list of secondary items that are the kind of items that need to be done but not right now, things that will probably come up the next year or the year after as being the year they need to be done.

They will stage them through. Sometimes they will say we feel that this particular project they are going to need a new school in town X, and we feel this year that they should proceed to the design stage where they can design the building and get some architectural drawings done and everything because next year they are going to have to start doing some building. So it will be a cost for the architectural drawings and so on. So they will get money in stages. But it actually will come straight from the field to that third body through the minister, then through the Minister of Education to the Minister of Finance and then back through the same route into the field.

Ms. Mihychuk: I am aware that the school division, Winnipeg No. 1 in particular, has been particularly frustrated with the funding levels and the school replacement cycle in especially the decaying schools, the older schools, that the need perhaps is not being met. So I would ask the minister if consideration would be given to do an assessment of Manitoba's public school structures, compare it from, let us say, over the past decade and perhaps prove me wrong. I hope that I am not right. My belief is that, yes, we do have a decaying infrastructure, that perhaps one day we will be caught up in it, that a penny saved will cost us a dollar in the future very quickly as things pile up. I am sure the minister is aware that you can do household renovations on an annual basis, and it is important in the long run. It actually is more cost-efficient.

We have been through some very tough financial times in the province. One of the areas that school divisions have looked at first is perhaps delaying their own maintenance and further structural as they invest in the classroom. Who can blame trustees for making that a priority? I know that the province itself has looked at that type of policy--let us do the emergence projects, let us do the emergency projects, let us do the ones that we have to do and prioritize. So I am wondering if the minister, perhaps now that we are looking at economic recovery, would the minister conduct such a review of our capital facilities in public schools in particular? I would ask her perhaps in that review to pay special attention to the older schools which are, in my opinion, in dire need of support.

Mrs. McIntosh: I just wish to clarify, because perhaps I was not clear enough and maybe left the wrong impression. The Public Schools Finance Board is not just approving emergency items. They are approving those items that are deemed most important for any one particular year, just as they always have. This is nothing new, but they will obviously bump a school up the list if it has an emergency.

I know what the member is talking about. I can remember, in the mid '80s, when I was chairman of the St. James School Board and the NDP were in power here in Manitoba, the fire alarm needed replacement at St. James Collegiate, and the Public Schools Finance Board steadfastly and repeatedly refused to allow us to put a new fire alarm system in. Even after the school subsequently burnt down, they refused to put the new fire alarm system in. That was under the NDP.

We felt it was an emergency to have fire alarms in the school. We kept pleading our case, saying that we felt it was critical that there be fire alarms that worked in a school that was an older school, and the NDP Public Schools Finance Board steadfastly said that was not important enough. After the school burnt, we still had trouble persuading them to give us the fire alarm system, but I am pleased to say there is a fire alarm system in the school that works well now. The member is familiar with St. James Collegiate. I believe it is in her constituency.

So the track record today I believe is imminently better than it was a decade and a half ago when school divisions were having trouble getting those kinds of approvals, but we are building new schools. We are renovating and upgrading. I believe in Winnipeg No. 1, we have Greenway School, I hope, operating well now. The old building has been replaced with a much better building. Although I must say when I was attending school as a child, many times we spent our schooling in schools that were much like the old Greenway building and never had the opportunity to upgrade them or replace them, as we have done, and I am pleased we have with Greenway School.

I do not really think there is a need to study this, because we do assess the buildings annually. Every year the buildings in Manitoba are assessed by each school division and an indication to the Public Schools Finance Board is made by the school divisions. I think the schools divisions, in assessing their buildings, are pretty good about letting the Public Schools Finance Board know where they need upgrading. For example, when we were going with the fire alarm, we were quite definite, clear and persistent, so there was no way the Public Schools Finance Board would not have been aware of our concern, just as they are not aware of today's concerns.

We cannot cap the sum available. If the member thinks maybe that we cap the sum available, that is not correct. It is not that we are told every year here is a sum of money, now you can go fix buildings with it; it works the other way. We say here are the needs, and then we are given the allocations. So it is a demand-driven kind of a thing as opposed to there is a set budget that you get every year that can go up 1 percent or down 2 percent. It is based upon the application of needs and the assessment of when those needs need to be met. The needs will vary every year, so the allocations will vary every year. It might be that some year, although I doubt it, it is possible that some year the divisions could feel they do not have any capital needs that year, and in which case the budget would be zero. But as I say, I doubt that would happen.

Again, I say we can get into that under 16.7 under the specific category that deals with the Public Schools Finance Board. Just to give an indication last year, '96-97, the government spent $20.4 million on schools upgrading and capital expenses. This year, '97-98, they have allocated $23.9 million to meet the needs that school divisions have identified, and the Public Schools Finance Board has determined as ones that should be done this year as opposed to next year or on a longer time line.

* (1520)

If there are buildings that are decaying, and by decay we mean falling down, they would not be allowed to operate. A building that was decaying and falling down would, in all likelihood, be condemned first of all, and would need to be, if it were bad enough, replaced as we replaced or built a new Greenway. We will be replacing another school shortly in Winnipeg No. 1. We have, not that long ago, replaced Robert H. Smith School. We are looking at one of the other schools in Winnipeg No. 1.

I think we have replaced three just since I have been in government. I mean, most divisions would say, gosh, replace three schools in three years, that is pretty high, but that is not unusual because Winnipeg No. 1 has a lot of older schools. They have buildings that will have a lifespan and when that lifespan is up will either need to be extensively renovated or replaced, but the needs in Winnipeg are given, I believe, a really good priority.

We are renovating three labs in total at Kelvin and Sisler. Now this is not a school replacement, but it is a renovation of laboratory space. We are converting one into an open area; we are putting an elevator in one school there. We have done several school boiler replacements in Winnipeg No. 1. We have got a major new school, three other renovated schools. These are all in Winnipeg No. 1. So I think it is illustrative of our recognition of the needs put forward by the Winnipeg School Division. It is not insignificant. They do receive a majority of money in terms of what other divisions get, but then as I say they have a much larger division, and they do have a large number of older schools that will be in need of repair or replacement in some cases or additions.

But we do not have an allocation; we do not cap the amount. So if we had six schools that were suddenly decaying and falling down, we would have to deal with that as it happened. We would not be able to postpone it. I thank the member for the question, Mr. Chairman. That is my response for now, anyhow.

Ms. Mihychuk: Well, it was this Conservative government that delayed the construction of Greenway School by three years. It was this Conservative government that still did not replace Greenway School when the ceiling collapsed in the little building. It was this Conservative government that felt that was not an emergency and decided to still wait. It is this Conservative government that cancelled the program of one school replacement per year in Winnipeg No. 1 on top of the schools that are in an emergency replacement requirement. It is this Conservative government that has rejected and denied the policy of putting in a daycare centre with new construction, and ultimately it was this Conservative government that refused to invest in historic buildings and forced the demolition of the old, historic Greenway School.

It was this Conservative government that decided it was better to raze the school rather than add an addition and renovate because it was their priority. They refused to put the same amount of money into renovation and addition than a new school. So when the minister chooses to use an example of fire alarms, I would suggest to the minister that it is also this Conservative government that has refused roof replacements in Winnipeg No. 1, this Conservative government that has refused numerous requests for enhanced boiler replacement needs in Winnipeg No. 1. It is this Conservative government that has refused Winnipeg No. 1's request numerous times, and I know that they have appealed to the minister directly for--

Mrs. McIntosh: No.

Ms. Mihychuk: I take that back. It is my understanding that the board has approached the minister, but if I am incorrect, they must have gone to the Public Schools Finance Board in an appeal--in an appeal. I was part of that appeal in 1995, and I do know that they continue in a very serious effort to lobby and have their needs met in a policy direction for that type of investment. I would like to inform the minister, perhaps, that the investments of schools in schools is not only an investment in the future but also a strong commitment towards community improvement.

Recently we see that the--this is as of actually yesterday, Wednesday, June 4, 1997--the B.C. government will spend $126 million to create more student spaces--of course, they are in a fairly large expansion mode--buy new school buses--another area that I hope to have a chance to delve into, as that is another area that school divisions are particularly concerned about--renovate and repair older schools around the province. The funding which will also cover such things as making schools more accessible for people with disabilities was announced by the minister yesterday.

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Chairman, it was this government who decided, yes, to allocate, and in this case $23.9 million. Let us even be generous, let us say $24 million. However, let the minister review the record. During the NDP government expenditures exceeded $40 million, $40 million on schools. Since that time, 10 years later, we see the capital expenditures by this Conservative government cut to half. The minister talks about needs as if the school divisions are being assessed in a total comprehensive way. The needs of school divisions are probably put forward to the Public Schools Finance Board, but the prioritization is to the degree where you have to be in a situation which is, as the minister says, falling down. I would suggest is this a wise investment of Manitoba funds? Should we wait, should we wait until schools are falling down? I hardly think so. It is not wise economic policy. It is not good for our children, and it has no commitment to community development.

Mr. Chairman, we know that a school is the heartbeat, the heartbeat of a community. A school that responds to the children can be the meeting place of children, families, seniors and daycare centres. We have many adult literacy programs housed in schools. We now have some health services in schools. We are looking at a new model.

What we are asking, and I am asking a simple request from the minister, review the situation of our infrastructure. We know that jurisdictions have, unfortunately, had to prioritize and put their money into the classroom to save the teacher. We have examples where windows have gaps in their frames of an inch or more that are today's reality that proposals have been refused by this minister, by this minister's predecessor. Over and over and over this Conservative government has said no.

* (1530)

We have brought the Public Schools Finance Board--the minister asked for specific examples. I would suggest that she review with her Public Schools Finance Board the proposal that I brought forward with pictures in 1995. The needs have accelerated and, yes, there has been a moderate increase. Is that going to meet the needs over the last 10 years? Mr. Chairman, $40 million was committed by the NDP government, and the minister rightly cites, perhaps not all the needs were met. She cites a case where the NDP, she feels, did not finance the fire alarm systems in St. James School Division in a school.

Mr. Chairman, the condition of our schools under this government--and she chooses to politicize it. I chose my words carefully, suggesting that we look at a facilities review. She chose to cite what government, so I would like to cite that it was this Conservative government that had consistently underfunded, underfunded our public school system to the point where we had a ceiling collapse, a ceiling collapse. Was the school condemned? Did the minister take action? No. It was the choice of this government to take remedial action and, in fact, we had to wait, we had to wait for the replacement of that school.

It was this government who decided to stall and not replace schools as was the previous policy of the NDP government. So when the minister talks about a commitment and that the needs of school divisions are being met--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The honourable minister, on a point of order.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, we have been dealing exclusively now for the past 15 minutes with 16.7. The member is way off topic, and I would like to have the appropriate staff here to answer these extremely serious, serious charges she is making about an independent body that allowed ceilings to fall on children and did nothing, et cetera.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the staff for the Public Schools Finance Board be brought in immediately so that these serious charges and allegations can be answered. I had indicated yesterday that I would appreciate the opposition staying on topic when we bring staff in. We are now on to 16.7. I am excusing the staff that was brought in to deal with the issue we were supposed to be on and bringing in the PSFB staff to deal with what the members opposite are actually doing rather than what they indicated to us they might be doing.

So I am excusing the staff from Programs Division, bringing in the PSFB staff to answer the questions that are actually being put to us. Mr. Chairman, if we could do that so that we can comply with what the NDP wants here, which is to deal with 16.7 and the PSFB. It is not fair to that board to have allegations about them being put on the record with them not here to be able to answer those allegations.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), on the same point of order.

Ms. Mihychuk: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister has given a certain amount of latitude. The questions that I raise are based on policy and direction from the minister and her administrative staff. When we started this session I asked for a certain amount of latitude and there was no objection from the minister.

This is clearly a policy and directional question related to the government's policy. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about fairly broad subjects. I would suggest the minister, if she chooses to bring in more staff, let her, but we also have numerous other policy matters to discuss in these Estimates, very important issues. If she does not choose to come clean on her government's policy, I think that is debating the fact.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I would like that remark withdrawn please. On another point of order, to say that I am not coming clean--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Order, please. Excuse me. I will deal with the first point of order first. The first point of order, there is no point of order. There was an agreement made to discuss, but if the minister is willing and wants to bring down staff to answer those specific questions, she can.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, there was agreement to talk about policy today. She has been talking about Public Schools Finance Board for the last--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: I can bring them down, but otherwise she should go back to policy, Mr. Chair.

School Programs is where she is. Public Schools Finance Board is not where she is. I can bring them down if I may. I would like to bring them down to answer these questions.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Order, please. I have made a ruling on the first point of order. Does the minister have a second point of order she wants to bring forward?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the member has asked me to come clean, and what I would like to do is exactly that. I would like to be able to answer some of these allegations she has made, but she is introducing 16.7 Public Schools Finance Board concerns. She is not talking about programs, which is what we are here to do today; she is talking about Public Schools Finance Board specifically and absolutely. Hansard will show that is very clear. I would like to indeed come clean, which she implies that I am not, but I need to have the staff here to answer these allegations that they have let roofs falls down on children and done nothing about it.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): I think the point of order that was brought forward the second time is very similar to the first one, which I have already made a ruling on. If the minister decides or wishes to bring staff in at this point, if they are available to answer those questions, that is certainly the prerogative of the minister.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the staff are not here, of course, because were told we were coming in to do programs today, but since we have gone onto this new topic, if they could wait, we will bring in the staff and we will deal with these answers before we do anything else because that is obviously the issue that is important to her today is PSFB. The buildings, the structures, the money for buildings for structures, the way in which the PSFB operates, the recommendations made by the PSFB, and the record and history of the PSFB are the concerns that she has been addressing in the last 15 minutes, with no opportunity for the PSFB to provide me with advice on responses because they are not here, and she knows they are not here. We have got program staff here today. So we will go get them, come back and answer what she wants answered.

Ms. Mihychuk: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you call in the minister and we continue with Estimates. We would appreciate an answer to the questions. If she needs administrative assistance on these policy questions, that is fine, but I would not agree to the halting of Estimates to wait for the administrative staff to come down. My question was broad based, policy based, and I think this is a way--the minister is just feeling a little bit of heat about the government's policies and is trying to divert the topic.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Just again to rule on the point of order, there is no point of order.

What I might suggest, if there is agreement, to allow the time for the people to answer that can answer the questions that have been asked and deal more specifically to 16.7. I would ask that they be brought down, and if we want to start limiting the debate or the questions that we have, we can go back to line to line to allow for the staff that are here to answer the questions.

Mrs. McIntosh: In an effort to help the opposition decide which line it would like to be on, we were told that we were to be coming here today to do programs, so hence we have the appropriate staff people here. We would like to get on with that particular line, so we are prepared to do that.

If the member then would be willing to let us revert back to--[interjection] Excuse me. Did the member want to participate in this? If the member would like then when we get the staff here to answer the questions that she has actually been asking on line 16.7, if the member would then agree to allow us--[interjection] Excuse me--if the member would then allow us interrupt the program questions to provide the answers, just as she interrupted the program to put in the questions, we would like to be able to answer those questions accurately and not be denied the opportunity to answer them later just because they have gone off the agreed upon protocol for doing Estimates. So we can carry on with what we are here to do, if she will let us give the answer to the questions she asked out of order.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): I would think that that is probably not a bad suggestion in the sense that the questions have been put and the answers can come at any time throughout the Estimates process. So can I ask that we bring things back into reasonable order and stick a little bit closer to the schedule.

* (1540)

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Ms. Mihychuk: My question is one of basic information. There is a program available to many, I believe maybe all if numbers warrant, known as the heritage language program. Is that a provincial program?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Mihychuk: Could the minister, for the record, give us a description of that program.

Mrs. McIntosh: We have a formula grant that goes to school divisions. School divisions will make decisions as to whether or not they want to offer a heritage language program. They might decide they want to offer Ukrainian, if they have a large number of students wanting to take that language, for example. There is a grant that is provided to the school division. I believe it is $205 per student, the same as the French Immersion grant. It has always been tied to whatever the French Immersion grant is, so this year Ottawa has provided us--I believe it is $205 per student for French Immersion, therefore the heritage language grant will be the same amount, $205. That is always adjusted according to what the French Immersion grant is.

A decision as to whether or not to have a Heritage Language Program will be made by the division. The province does not tell divisions they have to have Heritage Language Programs, certainly will assist them and certainly does not discourage it, because we like to see school divisions trying to reflect their communities, et cetera. We also believe that the acquisition of other languages is a very valuable skill for people to have.

So that is basically the nuts and bolts of it. If she wants details on specific programs, I could answer those.

Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister tell us what the structure of that program is? I am familiar with the heritage language program that is conducted in time slots of 20 minutes per period. Is that a provincial direction for that sort of program structure? In addition to that I would like to know the effectiveness of that program, the participation we have in it and what we see as the future of that program. I understand that it is quite different from the immersion programs that we have in other heritage languages. For example, we do have Ukrainian immersion or bilingual programs. We do have Hebrew, for example, and German. But this is a separate program I understand that is operating, and I am interested in how effective it has been, what is the participation student-wise and division-wise?

Mrs. McIntosh: The pupils in Kindergarten to Senior 4 who receive 38 to 50 percent of their instruction in a bilingual heritage language program are considered to be an immersion-type student. They are the ones eligible for the $205 per pupil grant.

Pupils in grades one to Senior 4 receiving less than 38 percent are eligible for $80 per pupil. Kindergarten pupils, of course, receiving less than 38 percent are not eligible for funding, but to receive funding for language of study programs, pupils must receive instruction in a heritage language program for at least 120 minutes in a six-day cycle. We have both heritage and international languages. Since 1979 we have had three bilingual programs introduced, and they currently exist--are you able to hear me all right?

An Honourable Member: Yes, I can hear you.

Mrs. McIntosh: They currently exist, Ukrainian-English, Hebrew-English, German-English. Japanese was introduced as part of the Asia-Pacific studies in the 1992-93 year. That is offered right now, Mr. Chair, at Dakota, Vincent Massey, Miles Macdonell, and Kelvin schools. We also have Spanish now growing in popularity in French Immersion and français schools. Every year the number of schools offering Spanish grows, and the growth in Spanish, of course, is encouraging, because we have the Pan American Games coming and we will have an ample opportunity to use Spanish. As we have the free trade NAFTA corridor growing in a straight line from Manitoba down to the Americas, Spanish becomes an increasingly useful language. We do set out guidelines, instructional time in heritage language, but this time as a guide it can be allocated differently by an individual school. It does not have to be exactly according to the guideline. The guideline is a suggestion, not a command.

I am presuming it is the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) has asked the question. Obviously the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) is not particularly interested in the answer. I hope it is not distracting the member for St. James. I find it somewhat distracting here, but I suppose that does not really matter either.

As of the 1996-97 school year the basic heritage language students are eligible for--Mr. Chairperson, I have been asked a question. I am attempting to provide an answer. The member for St. James is, I think, trying to listen, although she was just momentarily distracted, but if the Education critic does not want to hear the answer and wishes to have conversations with the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), could they please go do that in the loge so that the member for St. James and I could have our dialogue? I wonder if you would ask them to discontinue their conversation right next to the questioner's seat and go to the loge to conduct their casual conversations. I would appreciate that.

Ms. Mihychuk: I am interested in the minister's comment about the flexibility of program delivery, and the minister has looked at flexibility in several different venues, and I would like to direct some attention onto the way the whole system is set up. Right now school divisions get funding on the number of school days. Has consideration been given to looking at other models, the number of instructional hours, for example? That also would allow a great deal of flexibility if a different model was allowed.

Mrs. McIntosh: To complete the answer that I was giving on heritage language before I asked if the opposition critic would mind taking her casual conversation to the loge, which she has not yet done, I would like to complete that answer. I know the member for St. James thinks this is very funny, that rudeness in Estimates is funny. I do not really think it is.

As of the 1996-97 school year, Mr. Chairman, basic heritage language students are eligible for $40 for FTE from Grades 1 to 3--

* (1550)

Ms. Mihychuk: Point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James, on a point of order.

Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call the minister to a sense of decorum. I am listening, and we are having Estimates, where I am asking questions, and she is responding. I would ask the minister to focus her attention on responding to the question and not trying to, you know, make things more difficult by pointing out what goes on in this House both sides, and so I would just ask that we stick to the business and respond to the questions. I mean, it is not bothering me. I can hear the minister's response, and I would just ask her to please co-operate.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mrs. McIntosh: Perhaps the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the Education critic are standing one and a half feet from the questioner and having a conversation does not distract the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). It does distract me, and I have asked them as a courtesy if they would have their casual discussion in the loge, which on numerous occasions, Mr. Chairman, you have asked members who are carrying on conversations in the seats to take their conversation to the loge, so as not to interrupt the proceedings of the House.

Now, if it is not bothering the member for St. James, that is wonderful. It is bothering me, and I would appreciate the same decorum from them that they constantly request from us, so that I am not distracted by the Leader of the Opposition and the Education critic having an extensive conversation a foot and a half away from the person who is asking me questions. I do not think that is out of order. I think that is quite in order to ask for that. We could be giving answers to questions right now instead of this nonsense.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On the same point of order, the Deputy Leader and I were consulting about a matter of public interest. [interjection] If I could continue. For somebody to complain about noise in the House and then to interrupt what I am saying is quite rude. Yes, we were having a whispered conversation dealing with the opening of a new police office in her constituency that I inquired about because I am quite interested in it. Unlike the member opposite, we do not yell and scream our interventions, we whisper to each other, and I think we should get back to the Education Estimates.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), on the same point of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I find it absolutely amazing that the minister who often carries on private conversations in this House would take objection to that fact. The minister should understand this is the Chamber. There is a Hansard recording process. Everything that we say is recorded. If other members have--there have been a number of developing issues that happened this afternoon that the minister may not be aware of, or people are not aware of generally. It is quite common practice. For example, as House leader, I constantly have to inform members of the House what is happening not only in this committee, in other committees. I must admit that I was, indeed, involved as House leader, in talking to our Education critic and the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) about important developments in the House.

So I do not know who the minister thinks she is, but I would suggest that she stop wasting the time of the House with this. I would also suggest that if she was concerned about interruptions in the House, that she go and look in the mirror, because I find it absolutely offensive that she lectures us with this scorn that we see from this minister, a minister who routinely lectures members opposite on body language of all things. I remember that was her big concern in the committee Chamber.

I do not know why the minister has such scorn for other members of this House when she has such a double standard. I mean if she sat there quietly, never once had a private discussion or heckled from her seat, I must admit some of us might feel somewhat guilty. But she is, to put it lightly, one of the more active participants in the House. I remember yesterday her yelling from her seat to me about, grow up, Steve. Mr. Chairperson, I just let that brush off, but I put it down to one of those normal interjections we get in the House.

I would just say to the minister, I mean, get serious. I mean, if you cannot handle the kind of minor disturbance going on in the House, I would suggest that you are in the wrong place. This is a democratic institution. We are entitled to have private discussions in here, particularly related to House business. We are not going to be bullied by a minister, an arrogant minister, who seems to want to have complete silence when she speaks but can speak from her own seat as much as she wants, heckle as much as she wants. Talk about body language, Mr. Chairperson, there is a word for that. It is called hypocrisy, and I suggest that the minister go look in the mirror if you are concerned about interruptions in this House.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable members. On the point of order that we are dealing with, the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) started the point of order. She did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the way the House was functioning at the time.

I would ask honourable members though, if they are going to carry on conversations, to do at least out of eyesight, maybe up in the loge or in the back, so that it does not disrupt the people who are speaking at the time. Any type of disruption whether it be quiet conversation or just being in eyesight sometimes, does distract people, so I would ask honourable members if they are going to carry on conversations to do so in the loge or in the back of the Chamber.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I would also indicate that if ever I have been talking, and it has been brought to my attention that I have been talking, I have immediately ceased and I have always obeyed the Chair, which I would have wished that the government House leader, that the Education critic and the government opposition Leader had done, which they did not. However, I always obey those directions and I--

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for that. The honourable member did not have a point of order, though. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, to conclude my response, and to acknowledge indeed that I had asked you to ask them to obey the rules of the House and I had not asked them directly, I will say in answer to the question that students in bilingual heritage language programs are the ones eligible for the $205, and total funding provided in the '96-97 school year was $40,832 for language and study courses; $163,182 for bilingual heritage language programming. Major emphasis in '97-98 will be placed on participating in the western protocol for collaboration on basic education and developing frameworks for international heritage languages, for bilingual language and study programming. The development is to commence in April 1997.

We have, Mr. Chairman, western protocol frameworks to be developed, which will provide a basis for resource development and will provide common frameworks for foundation for implementation documents for bilingual and basic international language programming. Aggressive curriculum development will be required in 1996-97 and onwards. Schools offering Spanish will receive special support for enhancing their audio-visual resources in '97-98 as one of our contributions to the Pan American Games initiative.

Funding on the number of days is what we do now. Have we looked at funding based on hours? We did have a study involving stakeholders on the length of the school year and some other models including year-round schooling. The unanimous advice: stay largely with what we have. Since then, we have introduced flexibility regarding the application of the school year.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw to your attention some other dialogue but the members opposite do not wish me to, so they will not and I will not, because we have all agreed we will not do that anymore. I think that shows the fallacy in their not wanting the House to be orderly because it works against them as well as for them, but we have also given some thought to another model such as 200 days or the equivalent. We have introduced flexibility regarding the application of the school year in some ways, but we have rejected it due to the view that too much flexibility could make it very difficult to plan interschool, interdivision and province-wide interactions.

We do receive requests for a deviation from the norm. We consider each request seriously on a case-by-case basis. Where we can accommodate, we are not totally adverse to doing that, but we do have to have a little bit of consistency, cross-jurisdictional consistency so we will continue to provide school authorities an extra measure of flexibility to set a school year calendar which can balance the community wishes and provincial program requirements.

We have established parameters for deviation from the school year, which applies to public and private-funded schools. School divisions have been allowed to set their own calendars, including school start dates and end dates within a ministerial requirement of 200 school days, and that has given them a little bit of differential on Christmas and school start-up, et cetera. Deviations from the calendar for reasons of local religious holidays and celebrations and so on no longer require ministerial approval provided deviations are within the 200-day parameters.

* (1600)

Some private schools like the Jewish education have been granted dispensation to run a shorter school year. They have things they do in the meantime to make it up because they do not, for example, require the same Christmas holidays that we have, and they will often go on religious field trips at certain times of the year when they are out of school, not sitting in classes.

We have had some complaints about starting before the Labour Day weekend. I think the member is probably familiar with those, but that, again, is up to school divisions to decide. They do not have to come back before Labour Day unless they wish to do that. Post-Labour Day starts are not likely unless school divisions reduce their Christmas breaks. They can do that, but most of them want to have that 10 days at Christmas.

Mr. Chairperson: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed at 4:01 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:11 p.m.

The Acting Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply

please come to order. We are dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. Before we recessed, the honourable minister was going to comment.

Mrs. McIntosh: We are actually on one line but we did have a deviation from the line into 16.7. The member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) had asked a series of questions. I did not have the appropriate staff here at the time. I have since called them in, and we had agreed that when that staff arrived we would pause in our current line to answer the questions she had asked on that other line. So the staff is here now, and I can provide the answers to the questions she asked on 16.7 which was Public Schools Finance Board, and after we provide those answers then I would expect that we would go back to the line we are supposed to be on for this session. But if you could give me just a moment to receive this information, then I will provide it as agreed upon with the questions from the member for St. James. I will just take a second here.

The member for St. James had indicated in her question that--I think the quote was: This Conservative government left Greenway School collapsing for three years before allowing children at risk to be put into safe facilities.

In fact, according to the information that is now being provided by the PSFB, the PSFB only responds to specific requests made by school divisions. The Winnipeg School Division No. 1 did not make its request for that three-year period to the PSFB. They had been deliberating as board members as to which priority they should decide. They had a heritage building and the Greenway School. That was the same school, Greenway School being the heritage school. They needed to determine, as a school board, whether they wished to replace a heritage building or not. It took them three years to make that internal decision. They then made recommendation to the PSFB which then granted the replacement of Greenway School.

So the delay was neither from the PSFB nor from "this Conservative government." It was in fact the decision-making process gone through by the Winnipeg School Division No. 1. The member had indicated that there had been three, I believe it was, appeals to the Public Schools Finance Board to replace Greenway School, and my understanding here is that the formal request to replace it did not come during those three years of internal debate within the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, but then when the request came the request was granted.

The school is now replaced, and I believe students are occupying the new facility. In fact, in talking to some of the teachers from that facility just last week, they expressed great pleasure in it. So the answer to the question, in short, is that unfortunately the member's premise for the question was incorrect, and the Public Schools Finance Board did not deny students the right to have a school replacement. They waited until the division asked for the replacement, and Winnipeg School Division, obviously a difficult decision as to whether or not restore a heritage building or replace it. So one could see that it would take three years, but that was not the Public Schools Finance Board, Mr. Chairman, nor this government. That was Winnipeg School Division No. 1.

There were a couple of other questions that were asked. The member for St. James had also asked if we could undertake a review of old buildings in the province, and the PSFB members who are here now are preparing an answer here for me on that particular question. While that information is coming forward, the member for St. James had said that when we did finally have the replacement of Greenway School, that the Public Schools Finance Board had torn down a heritage school, but, in fact, Mr. Chairman, the request to replace the school came from the school division. It was not an initiative from the Public Schools Finance Board. The Finance Board always responds to requests made to it from divisions. I believe the City of Winnipeg allowed the Greenway School to be demolished because after hearings it decided it was not a designated heritage building.

So, again, there were some faulty premises in the questions that were asked, and I hope this brief response to that will clarify for the record, because serious allegations about the Public Schools Finance Board repeatedly turning down requests to have safe buildings for children are very, very serious accusations. This now corrects it for the record with information provided from the Public Schools Finance Board itself.

With regard to the request from the member that the Public Schools Finance Board conduct a review of old buildings, the Public Schools Finance Board, by the nature of its mandate, depends on school divisions to identify school facilities that are of concern to them via the five-year capital plan process. This is a plan that has been in place for many years, indeed during previous administrations to ours as well. Every year, the Public Schools Finance Board supports renovation-type construction projects to upgrade entire schools. An example of that would be the Hazel Kellington School in the Beautiful Plains School Division No. 31.

When new construction or renovation occurs, the latest code requirements--fire code, building code, plumbing and electrical--and standards must be observed to ensure maximum safety. Building inspectors regularly inspect buildings for safety. If orders are issued to correct a safety problem, the school divisions respond accordingly using Section D grant or their operating funds. When it comes to safety, it is the primary responsibility of school divisions to identify and address any safety concerns. The Public Schools Finance Board also provides emergency funding to school divisions when unpredictable systems fail or if a roof requires immediate attention because of extreme weather, for example. So the safety aspect is one that is never neglected, and this procedure that is gone through, I hope, for the record, will dispel those shocking allegations made earlier today.

* (1620)

Over the years, the public school system has experienced declining enrollments and many schools are underutilized in terms of space. More often than not, Mr. Chairman, school divisions are quite creative in using this surplus space to accommodate computer labs, resource centres, special education programs and other special programs like heritage languages. For many schools, standards are not a problem, but where there is a problem school divisions can make their case to the Public Schools Finance Board, whose record for safety considerations is exemplary.

So I think with this particular kind of process in place, there is an ongoing review that is constantly being done on an annual basis. Those buildings are looked at every year and recommendations on them are able to come forward every year and in between times, should emergencies come up. So I do not feel that to do a study on top of that would be a needed thing when common sense and practicality suggests that it is already being done. To do anything on top of it would be to begin duplicating effort, duplicating expense, and duplicating time and efforts of personnel.

The member for St. James had said that, quote, this Conservative government, end quote, through the Public Schools Finance Board had deliberately let buildings decay as in windows falling out of buildings, et cetera, and that we ignore these things, and that is just simply not so. This year we have again an Environmental Assistance Program which will share with divisions in replacements of those types of things. The windows that I had asked for a specific example, when she said that we have schools where the windows have fallen out or are falling out, I did not get any specific example, but I assure the member that the Public Schools Finance Board has taken proactive measures in regard to these concerns relating to windows. The PSFB has recently added window repair and replacement as eligible, which it was not before. It is now eligible under its Environmental Assistance Program as well as under the section D grant. This allows school divisions to repair or replace windows on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis with the province or out of its section D grant.

Since the responsibility to provide and maintain sound environmental conditions in schools rests with school divisions, that is one of the mandates of school trustees. I think the member for St. James will probably recall that from her own days as a trustee, that that is one of the main functions of boards. They have facilities committees whose prime responsibility is just this particular task, so they have to select and prioritize projects under the program. That is the responsibility of school boards.

The Public Schools Finance Board and its staff performed a monitoring role, mainly ensuring that the proposed projects met the basic program criteria, and I just would like to indicate as an example of the parameters of the Environmental Assistance Program, which enable the following typical projects to be approved within schools: science laboratories; to ensure the exhaust and fresh air make-up; general mechanical ventilation where none existed; industrial arts; vocational shops; again exhaust, fresh air make-up; sound attentuation; the art rooms; fresh air make-up, exhaust; sound attenuation; improving air quality and air cooling; the removal and storage costs of PCBs; the remedial costs associated with radon detection in schools; asbestos removal and containment; window repair and replacement, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier.

Those, I believe, answer in the main the questions put forward by the member for St. James on 16.7. I realize it is off line, but we did indicate we would answer those despite the fact that they were on the wrong line, and I appreciate the opportunity to have the staff here to be able to provide input and information.

Did the member for St. James wish to ask any other questions on the PSFB while we are on this particular line that she brought us to? Would she like to pass 16.7 while we are at it?

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think we are on 16.2.(a), and we are prepared to pass that one.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Just for a clarification, we are prepared to pass 16.2.(a). As agreed, we will revert back to Section 16.2. School Programs (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $253,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $70,200--pass.

Item 16.2.(b) Manitoba School for the Deaf (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,589,400.

Mrs. McIntosh: I believe I introduced yesterday the principal from the Manitoba School for the Deaf, Ms. Norma Jean Taylor, and the interpreter that accompanied her from the referral service, and they will be joining us at the table now, along with Carolyn Loeppky, assistant deputy minister of program development for the department.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister for those introductions.

Ms. Friesen: Yes, the minister had introduced the staff at the last sitting of the committee. I wanted to take this opportunity just to ask one or two questions, but primarily I must say to welcome the new principal of the deaf school. I understand that there has been general rejoicing at her appointment, and I want to add those of the opposition to that and to welcome her to the school and to wish her the best of possible relations with staff and students and with the government as well.

* (1630)

I wanted to ask some questions about the residential students and what the numbers are in the residents at the moment, and whether in fact the minister has an historic pattern with her of the resident number of students in residence and the regions that they come from.

What I am interested in essentially is what kind of a regional role the School for the Deaf is playing. How many students are coming from elsewhere? Is there a pattern to this? Are they increasing? Is there an intention on the part of the government for the school to play a regional role that I believe it once did?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have 10 residential students right now and that is about what we have always had, seven to 10, around 10 throughout history. If there is a pattern, that would probably be the pattern.

The residential students are generally outside of Winnipeg. They will stay in because it is too long to get home in the evenings, and they will frequently go home on the weekend. We have one student right now from outside of the province. That one comes from Saskatchewan, comes with--it is a band student. We get a First Nations sponsorship for that student. They come from all over--north, west, east, parts of Manitoba.

In the early days when they were in the old school, and the school was first opened, there were students coming from Saskatchewan. At that point, if you talked to the alumni, they can talk about those days coming on the train here. But at the moment do we see ourselves filling a regional role? Certainly, I think we have a state-of-the-art school now that could appeal to deaf students from any parts of the country, and we would be very pleased to have them. We have now a deaf principal who is conversant with the needs of the students.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I think that we might well become a regional attraction in terms of drawing students who are looking for this kind of school. We have 75 students in total now. That, again, is close to the historical number, somewhere between 75 and 85. We are anticipating an increase of enrollment between four to eight students who would not necessarily be residential students. There are currently discussions underway with new intakes. These numbers will become more accurate in the next number of weeks, so we are looking at the possibility of maybe 80 next year.

Again, we just have the one from out of province and 10 living in the facility right now.

Mr. Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable members that are wanting to carry on a conversation to do so in the loge, in the hall, or back in their offices. I am having great difficulty hearing right now.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask the minister whether she intends this School for the Deaf to begin to play a role in post-secondary eduction? Is there an intention to use any of the technical equipment, for example, in Distance Education, adapted if necessary, for post-secondary students who are deaf?

Mrs. McIntosh: First of all, I should indicate that currently the Manitoba School for the Deaf is designed specifically for kindergarten to Senior 4. It is a K to 12 school. The students there are preparing themselves for that basic education that leads you into adult life.

The university students have a couple of options. Most of those students--and Norma Jean Taylor, our principal here, herself was at Gallaudet University in Washington which is where the majority of those go for university if they want a fully deaf learning environment. It is internationally known, and it is, I think, the only university of its type in North America, perhaps even the world--[interjection] In the world. They turn out very well-prepared graduates. They are a centre of excellence for this kind of education. That is one option those wishing to go to post-secondary have.

We are looking right now--and we see students going to Red River Community College. We have one, in fact, accepted for this fall to Red River Community College, using interpreters, much as we have interpreter referral service here today. We have another student applying for the National Technical Institute of the Deaf in Rochester or California state, and we have one who has applied for Gallaudet University in Washington.

* (1640)

We do not at the moment see our centre for K to S4 becoming something other than just that, although with distance education and the technologies that are there, it might be possible to begin offering courses. This would be the type of thing that would be discussed with the Council on Post Secondary Education as they look at needs of students and delivery sights, et cetera, et cetera, and as we look at the whole spectrum of post-secondary education and where services are provided.

We have been having discussions with the interpreter referral service on a number of issues regarding not just learning but also needs that are there in the deaf community and patients in hospitals, for example, needing interpreter service for consultation on what is going to happen to them when they are having an operation, that type of thing. So as we become more used in our society to having interpreters around, then a wider field of opportunity for post-secondary education becomes available as you get interpreters into the post-secondary system.

In the meantime, we are not, at this point, looking at expanding into post-secondary education at our current site of Alexander Ross School or the Manitoba School for the Deaf. We have lots of excitement and challenges right there with the K to S4 at the moment. It does not preclude discussions on it. It is just we have not had any yet.

I apologize, the member had another part of her question. She was wanting to know if we had any capability for distance education out of the school. Yes, we do, because in the near future, just as we have technological capability for a number of things, we have a lot of technology in this school that would enable us to do a wide variety of things including distance education capabilities. Most of the technology in the school is internal to the school, and I would be delighted sometime if the member has some time--or maybe she has had a chance to go out there--but if not, I think she would be very interested in seeing how that school is set up with the technology. If ever she would like to, I know that the school staff as well would be pleased to show her about and just get a better sense of it by looking at it as to what the capabilities might be and then you can stretch your imagination as to how far they could be extended in terms of use.

Mr. Chairperson: Should the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

Item 16.2.(b) Manitoba School for the Deaf (2) Other Expenditures $384,400--pass.

16.2.(c) Assessment and Evaluation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,988,400.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, are we waiting for more staff?

Mrs. McIntosh: May I introduce Mr. Norm Mayer who has joined us, director of Assessment and Evaluation. I believe I introduced Mr. Tom Thompson earlier in the Estimates session who has rejoined us.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about the school review process which is indicated under 16.2.(c). How much is allocated for that? What exactly is the school review? Who conducts it? What are the results and where are they lodged?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member is referring to New Direction No. 3 under A Blueprint for Action or The Action Plan. The department, with input from schools and communities, has just begun to develop guidelines for the schools review process. This is one of the items that we slowed down on. I had indicated to the member earlier that we had slowed down the implementation of the Blueprint somewhat at the request from the field in order to give them all a chance to catch their breath and move along at a more manageable pace. But in terms of what it is, although it is not yet in place, the school review process is intended to strengthen educational planning, programming and accountability at all levels in the school.

The ultimate focus of the school review process will be enhanced student learning opportunities, experiences and outcomes. We are examining methods of obtaining input on the development of review guidelines from school communities and preparing a draft project charter to utilize. As I indicated, we have placed this--it is not on hold, because we have right now a person spending about a quarter of their time beginning to develop a process for this final model, but it has not been brought in quickly as a result of developmental work on educational indicators which will help to support the review process, all of which as I indicated has been extended in time a bit to give the field time to be able to move along with us more easily.

* (1650)

The reviews are designed to be supportive. The process is likely to be cyclical and formative in nature. As I say, we have only got a person working about one-quarter time right now, say a quarter-time person on this particular aspect. Some Manitoba school boards have undertaken school reviews themselves. They have developed their own criteria and local processes. As well, they selected the personnel to undertake this type of review. We are intending to learn from these local initiatives to find out what they feel has been successful and helpful to them and their continued growth and development. As we seek input from the field on the process, those self-initiated reviews will be extremely beneficial to us in putting down ideas and so on.

Before we launch full-scale schools reviews ourselves, we believe that the school planning process has to be in place in Manitoba schools. That is underway. That has begun. We see schools this year beginning school plans, and this is the first full-fledged year for that. The school planning process will help us very much to determine what to look for in any given school review.

We will be looking at a variety of indicators, and, as I say, whether this is an exhaustive list I am about to give her or not is hard to say, but a review could look at these kinds of indicators. These are the types of items that we will, in all likelihood, be considering for inclusion: student attendance rates, rates of school dropout--these are examples; graduation rates; participation in advanced academic programs; student participation in extracurricular activities; the transition to community colleges, universities; parent satisfaction, student satisfaction, teacher satisfaction; external recognitions: honours, awards, scholarships--those kinds of things; student performance data. Those are the examples of the kinds of indicators we could use, but they do need to be considered with an eye to schooling inputs in light of pupil-teacher ratios, teacher credentials, as well as the schooling process, such as instructional and assessment practices. It is critical that schools use a variety of indicators to evaluate their effectiveness continually.

We are interested in knowing more about the United States practices of voluntary school accreditation, where some schools are now actually becoming accredited. There are all kinds of creative ideas out there that could or could not form part of a school's review. That is kind of an indication of the types of things we might be looking at, and, as I say, that is about where we are at the present time on that particular initiative.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to pursue this a little bit. I am not clear from what the minister has said: who is going to do this? The minister is talking from the perspective of a department which is developing criteria, areas for consideration, possible methods, for example, accreditation, but who exactly is going to do it?

Is it going to be self-review and then essentially something which is lodged with the minister or lodged with the division, or is it going to be something which is conducted externally by the department or by others?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my earlier response, we have not developed that yet. But as to the question of who will do it, we believe the very best people to do it would be the people directly involved, the advisory council, the school staff, the school board, the local people. Right now they are beginning to do their school plans. So as they develop school plans and set goals and objectives for themselves, then the logical extension of that would be for them themselves again to assess and evaluate how well they have done in achieving their goals and outcomes and their stated mission. They could do it school by school, their own review; they could do it divisionally, where the division office does the school review; they could do it in collaboration with neighbouring divisions, where they work together in a collaborative fashion.

What we do know is that it will be done. You will have school plans being done every year and then on a cyclical basis you will have a review of the school done to see if those plans are being met, to see if certain outcomes are being achieved. On rare occasions the review could be done by the department or by the minister. Those would have to be done in places where for some reason the field or the people that are ultimately determined to be the ones to do the review for some reason have not been able to fulfill the task.

So we would be using a similar model to develop the guidelines for school reviews as we did to develop the guidelines for school plans, which is to go out and get input from the stakeholders, pilot it, and then check with the implementation committee to see how it is working. So we need the field to help us develop this, and they have indicated their willingness to give input. Well, in fact, they want to be able to give input. They do not want us going off on our own, and we appreciate that. We want their input as well.

That is likely the way it will evolve, although it is still too early to say exactly. I would not want to be held to that in case we deviate from it in some way. That is what we are thinking at this time, that we will end up with a model that ideally would be done at the local level, maybe division-wide.

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

Call in the Speaker.