Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, the answer to this question is that it is not so much a matter of cost as it is administrative time. We would like to have the committee take a look at this a little more deeply in terms of how much time would be required, what are the logistics to keep records in this way, and so that was the reason that it was not dealt with last year, that there are administrative records that need to be kept, et cetera, et cetera. We will ask them to take a further look at what is implied in terms of this particular question. Is it as simple as it appears, or could it become quite logistically complicated?
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Who would normally undertake that study? There are ex officio members of the minister's department on this committee. Would they undertake it, or is it the group itself that would undertake to do that and presumably report back?
Mrs. McIntosh: The group itself.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us how often the group meets?
* (1450)
Mrs. McIntosh: At this time of the year they would be meeting about every two weeks. They survey the school divisions asking for input. Their meetings tend to cluster together at one point of the year, but overall in the course of a year it is probably six to 10 times, depending upon their own needs. They do not have prescribed meetings where it is like the second Tuesday of every month, that type of thing.
Ms. Friesen: In the beginning I asked about the distribution of this report, and the minister said that she distributed it, I think, to school divisions and obviously to the people who were part of the committee. I wondered if the minister put a copy of this report in the Legislative Library.
Mrs. McIntosh: I think we did. You know, I have not checked, but we could check and find out if it is there. I think we did.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about some further recommendations of this committee. One, of course, is the technology in schools where the committee has recommended a new initiative in support of introduction and utilization of learning technologies, and the initiative, of course, suggests a much greater amount of money than the government has allocated this time. I wondered what the government's response had been to this.
I understand there is also an additional report from the Learning Technologies council which recommends even larger amounts to be spent on technology. The government has made extra money available this year for technology, and I wonder how the minister has responded to this committee on the difference between what they recommend and what the government has allocated.
Mrs. McIntosh: As the member indicates, the committee had recommended $5 million for capital projects and $10 million for operating expenditures. We have provided, this year, $1.8 million for technology over and above the grant, that comes to about $10 per eligible pupil. This $1.8 million can be used for computer hardware, software, school-building rewiring and cabling to facilitate computer and computer network installation or Internet linkages or curriculum-based technology requirements. That $1.8 million is over and above the school funding that flows to schools which does have a component for technology in it already.
As well, of course, we have provided the grants to particular schools who submit proposals for technology, up to $40,000 per school. Some 25 schools per year obtained funding from that for science and technology projects in their schools. So we recognize that the two bodies have asked for more money than has been provided this year, and our goal would be to ultimately see those technologies in, either through their own efforts or through our efforts or through efforts of the two of us and partnering with industry or other levels of government.
We have the Computers for Schools Program which is a federal-provincial initiative, which to date has seen across Canada 50,000 computers go into the schools, but in Manitoba, many thousands. While these are computers that are used computers, they are nonetheless extremely good for all kinds of learning purposes in schools. That is never referred to as part of the work that we have been doing to get technology into the schools, but when I visit schools, it is frequently mentioned as a real plus and a real bonus that is truly appreciated. We would encourage other industries as well as federal and provincial governments and those that are already part of the program to be opting into the Computers for Schools Program because it is making a big difference in helping offset the cost. It is a very high-cost new initiative. It is coming in very quickly into our society. It is very difficult for businesses and schools and governments and all those who use computers to keep up with the rapid increase in technology.
But at any rate, may I, while I have the microphone, provide an answer that the member had asked for last week, Mr. Chairman, or yesterday rather? The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) yesterday had asked to itemize how property taxation has changed. I do have some charts and graphs that might be of interest to her. The first chart substantiates the 2.3 percent increase in reliance on taxation since 1988, which she had asked to have verified, and the second graph is a different look, because it shows the same 2.3 percent since 1988, but it goes back to 1982. Yes, I have three copies. It shows that between 1982 and 1988, which happened to be years that her party was in government, there was a similar increase of 2 percent on reliance on property taxation. So the record is almost identical during their tenure and our tenure. So I provide these three copies of each of these for the member's information and give them to the page. Thank you for just letting me insert that before I forgot.
* (1500)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, what I am concerned about is that there is quite a large discrepancy between what the government has added to technology this year, even if we include the other initiatives that the minister mentions, which I assume were also considered in the recommendation that the committee hear. The minister's Advisory Committee on Education Finance as well as the Learning Technologies committee, I am sure that they also included that too in their consideration. They clearly felt that a great deal more needed to be done.
Without getting caught up in the actual numbers--5 million, 10 million, 40 million--there is still a large discrepancy. I wondered if either the committee or the minister or the minister's department had looked at some kind of standard. Had they looked at standards across the country? By standard, I do not mean the standard of the standards test. I am looking at some measure of equivalency. For example, some schools have argued that students need so many minutes on the computer per week. Some divisions and provinces have argued that there should be so many computers per child, and that might differ according to whether one has an elementary school classroom or a high school classroom. Has the department looked at those measures, which may be able to give us some sense of equity across the province?
Mrs. McIntosh: We have had and we have been responding to requests from stakeholders for a provincial plan for the implementation of learning technologies in Manitoba. Some provinces have already developed such a plan. We are in the throes of developing one here in Manitoba, and our plan will be able to be used at all levels of planning and implementing learning technologies in a co-ordinated fashion.
We had asked the Council on Learning Technologies to develop a strategic plan for us, which they have done. That draft strategic planning framework is out with divisions now seeking their feedback to it, and we are pleased to be in the throes of this initiative. We look forward to hearing what the field has to say about the draft strategic plan and to its eventual implementation or modification if it requires it prior to implementation, depending upon what the field says. We have also asked for responses from groups outside the schools such as the Council on Post-Secondary Education, the K to Senior 4 part of the department. We will have all that feedback reviewed by the council and recommendations from that for future use developed accordingly.
I want to indicate that the actual school expenditures in this area for '96-97 were $16.8 million, so the member should be aware that $16.8 million was funded last year via our regular funding into the schools so that when we talk about the top-up, the extra money we have put in, being that $1.8 million in the technologies, she should be aware that she is not talking about the only money that goes for technology but rather the extra money that is going for technology. I think that is important to underscore.
We have the Computers for Schools and Libraries update that is available. The CFSL program year-end above, the program year-end shows that targets were exceeded. We got 2,100 computers distributed provincially alone; 75 percent of computers now going out are 486 or better, and this ratio is expected to continue or improve in the year to come. The upgraded units were mostly 166 MMX Pentiums in this last year, well, the year that we are finishing, '97-98. The targets for next year are 2,000 computers--this is just provincially--with 1,500 at 486 levels or better. The upgraded units will be 200 MMX Pentiums if they are desktop management computers. If we get desktop management computers coming to the program, then the numbers should increase rather dramatically over that, with an additional 6,000 to 7,000 computers processed over the next 18 months. These also are expected to go out at 75 percent with 486 or better. The CFSL management has decided that to line up with government policy, its mandate will be assumed to cover all K to S4 programming for all ages. So when we start July 1, literacy programs will be deemed eligible to receive computers. Applications are available at the program website, and credit is certainly due to the staff and committee for the program's accomplishments. I would like to note that for the record. They do deserve a lot of credit because that is quite a really remarkable achievement. Again, thanks to all those who donated the computers, because that has really help offset the cost incredibly.
Ms. Friesen: I am interested in the draft report that the minister said has been sent out to divisions and to people outside the divisions as well. She mentioned the Council on Post-Secondary Education and others. Could the minister table a copy of that report, please?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, we can. We do not have one here, but we can obtain one and be pleased to table it.
* (1510)
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask the minister about the distribution of technology. It seems to me that is one of the areas that is leading to the concerns and to the kinds of recommendations that are reflected here in the committee's recommendations to the minister. I got the sense from the way in which the minister is discussing the annual increase in the number of computers, that there might be statistics or numbers which are kept on the outgo of these computers. Are there also numbers available on where they are going to and what the actual distribution is of computers across the province at the secondary and at the elementary level?
Mrs. McIntosh: The school boards are the ones who gather that type of data, so we do not in the department.
Ms. Friesen: Is that the kind of information that would be reported to the minister in the divisional action plans?
Mrs. McIntosh: The action plans that are submitted to the department, school plans, we have asked that they outline how they intend to address technology in their schools, what action they will be taking in terms of technology programs for the students there. But we have not asked them to submit specific requests for equipment or that type of thing. Again, that will be done by the school division, just as we do not keep an inventory here of how many desks a school division might have. School divisions do that. Similarly, we do not, ourselves, keep track of how many computers any individual division might have. We fund money to divisions and from that, they purchase the equipment they need.
From time to time, as we did this year, we will provide additional money like last year. As I said, they spent $16.8 million on this area. We topped it up this year with an additional $1.8 million but, again, how they spend it is up to them because they are the local elected authorities and the people in their divisions choose them to make decisions for the local community. It is the local autonomy aspect which is very highly regarded and which we respect.
Ms. Friesen: Would it not also be the responsibility of the department to look at equity issues, to look at whether there are large inequities? I do not mean three more computers in this division compared to that division, but are there, for example, large scale inequities, are there any inequities between the abilities and the choices that have been made in schools along the lines of providing technology?
Have different divisions, for example, made different policy approaches? For example, have some divisions said, well, we will provide so many hours per student? Other divisions might have said we are going to provide so many computers. Is there that kind of difference in levels of policy that are being made across divisions, and are Manitoba students being served equally in terms of their access to the new technologies, and is that not a concern of the department?
Mrs. McIntosh: Of course the department is interested in everything that goes on in schools. It is the future of our province, the future of the children in the schools, it is something that we are keenly interested in and something that we work very hard to address in terms of equity and fairness and so on.
Because we do also honour local autonomy, which has been very much promoted to us by the people of Manitoba, there are lines which we know are there separating the local jurisdiction from the province. When we had our boundaries review and went around the province and talked to many, many people, when we had the review on arbitration for teachers, we went around the province and talked to many, many people. Literally thousands of people said, it is extremely important to us that we be allowed our local autonomy, our local decision making and we retain our ability to levy taxes and make decisions as to how we wish to spend our money for our local people.
Teachers said that overwhelmingly, trustees said it overwhelmingly, parents said it overwhelming, everybody said it overwhelmingly. As a result of that, we did not choose to proceed with forced amalgamations but rather voluntary amalgamations, and we have really made it a matter of respecting local decisions made by local trustees. We have tried very hard not to interfere with that, provided that The Public Schools Act is followed.
In terms of equity, though, of course we provide that through the funding formula. The funding formula is specifically designed to address the issues of equity. The member may recall discussions we had recently about the impact of assessment and reassessment and how the funding formula, even despite the anomalies that face a division when they have a rapid change in assessment, was still universally upheld by even the divisions that were affected by reassessment as being the right formula because it had the equity in it; it had the equalization factor designed to promote fairness.
This year, in fact, because of assessment problems, an additional $4 million was added as supplementary funding for equalization to those with particularly low assessments. You know, those kinds of things are there to promote equity in the system. In terms of technology, while we do not keep the statistics, which does not mean that we are not interested but rather that it is up to each division to keep statistics on how much equipment they have, where it is, and how they are using it, we do ask for them to tell us how they plan to teach technology in their schools.
* (1520)
We flow them the money with which they can purchase the amount of equipment they feel is required, and we supply them with the computers for the schools program to help as well flesh out the number of computers. But, I can say that from recent information in Manitoba schools, we do have some recent surveys that indicate, from schools, the current status of Manitoba schools in technology preparedness. We see that in terms of student-computer ratio, all equipment, student-computer, it is 6 to 1; six students for every one computer. In terms of student-computer ratio, the multimedia Internet-capable equipment, for every 21 students, there is that capability.
Schools linked to Internet by high-speed means, we have 36 percent of schools in that category. Schools requiring upgrades to wiring or cabling, we still have over 80 percent that need some form of upgrading. All levels have reprioritized to support this particular learning need. Over the past four years, the department initiatives to support technology have increased from $155.6 million in 1994-95 to $2,263.1 million. FRAME information shows divisions budgeting over $11 million for technology costs in '97-98. So there is a lot going on. MERLIN's brokering, the Internet and training services helped to decrease the cost, and that has saved the sector $1 million in the '96-97 year.
Now, I do not know if you would go into every school and see that in every school you would see six students for every one computer. In fact, I know you would not, because I have been in close to 200 schools at this point, and in some schools it almost looks like they have got a computer for every student. They are so up on the technologies, where in still other schools, you will see that the computers are centralized in a lab, they are not in the classrooms. That is by choice for a variety of reasons, some of which may have to do with choosing to spend money in other areas that are deemed more important for that particular school division.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister table the surveys that she was reading from?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was not reading from a survey, but we could get the survey information from the department for her. I was just reading from scribbled notes.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that. There was one set of numbers in there that I did not understand. It was, I think, total expenditures on learning technologies. In 1994-95, it was $155.6 million, and I am not clear whether that is departmental spending or whether that is total spending in all divisions, and does it include, for example, corporate donations? I am not sure of the source of that. Then there was a second figure which was given, I believe, for the current year or '97-98. I wonder if the minister could just run those by me again, with a little explanation as to what they cover.
Mrs. McIntosh: The member was wise to ask the question because I am looking at where the decimals are in these figures--and of course it is done in accounting figures. The figure is $155.6 thousand in '94-95 to $2.263 million in this coming year. That is over the past four years, and those are department initiatives to support technology, and they have increased that amount over the last four years. [interjection] Pardon? Over $200 million. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. You know, when I went to school, we just learned thousands had four and hundreds had three and tens had two, but accountants put numbers down differently on paper. I hope that clarification has been helpful, and I am glad the member asked for it because it gives her a more accurate response.
Ms. Friesen: It does clear up some of it. My other question relating to that was--this is just departmental initiatives, I gather. The minister answered that--what would be the range of other additional monies that we should be looking at if we were to calculate the whole picture for Manitoba education. I do not know if you can work out a percentage or maybe just a list of what else should be added. There would be corporate donations. There would be, presumably, local initiatives. There would be additional material from Canada. Are there international editions that people have been applying for? Is there any way we can get the full picture of what is being spent on learning technologies in Manitoba?
* (1530)
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the short answer is no. A bit of detail surrounding that is that we know what school divisions have spent. We know that, for example, last year they spent $16.8 million in this area in the '96-97 year. We know that the department is at $2.2 million-and-some for this area, but we do not know the revenue sources necessarily of local school divisions, if they have obtained donations, for example. We know if they have computers from the School Programs, but if they have received donations of computers through endowments or other good corporate citizens, we would not know that, and we do not keep those statistics. We do know how much they spend. We do know their identified needs, but there are local decisions and local autonomy in terms of keeping those kinds of data which we do not have the staff or the wherewithal or the time or the need to do here.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to get back to my concerns about equity and about some comparability between the provisions that are being made in different divisions across the province. So far we have not established any means of comparability, and the minister's concern is for local autonomy in this. I wondered if in meetings that the minister has had at the national level or meetings that the deputy minister has been to in international situations, whether there are means of comparison in the provision of computer-technology-assisted learning.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the member asks a good question. We are into an emerging field. It is a new area of education that has not historically been part of our delivery system. All across the nations, in talking to other ministers, we are all at about the same place in terms of the ratio, like, students to computers for example: we are all at about the same place. What we are struggling with, all of us, right across North America is that as the technologies come on stream and we know they are forming an integral part of the education system, as well as everything else we seem to do in society these days, so we have six computers. We have six students for every one computer, and that seems to be on par across the province. What is the quality of the computer? What is the appropriateness of the computer? What are we using the computer for? Those questions are ones that are being sifted through our strategic plan for technology, or the plan that is currently being examined here in Manitoba may help give some clarity around those issues.
We have questions in terms of teacher competency in using the computers, student competency in using the computers as tools for learning, not just as techniques, administration, school records. There is a whole series of things that some schools are more sophisticated at simply and only because the people in them are more sophisticated about them.
You know, where all else might be equal, they have the same number of computers, et cetera, et cetera, but you have personnel in one school that are technologically highly competent, and others who are still getting their feet wet struggling to learn what these machines can do for them.
So we look across North America and know that it is still an emerging field, still in its infancy. People are beginning to question in various jurisdictions, I mean provincial jurisdictions and certain states, you know, have we invested in the right kind of machinery? Have we bought the right model? Have we bought the right speed, the right power? They are asking themselves questions as to, are we becoming too technologically dependent or are we at risk of that? For what should we be using these machines? And more and more they are becoming tools for learning as opposed to learning a keyboard and learning how to use a computer. The uses to which you can put it are becoming dominant. I think we are on the right track in that regard, but it does presume, once you start emphasizing computers as tools for learning and research, that at an elementary level or some early foundation level students will become computer literate, know how to turn the machine on. They will know how to access certain programs. They know how to use them. In many respects the young children adapting to these items adapt very easily and very swiftly, whereas those instructing them, in some cases struggle with something that was not part of their own education.
* (1540)
So that is all very new. I do not think we have ever had a generation where those who are doing the teaching may in fact, in some instances, lag behind those who are doing the learning. Many divisions are doing some intriguing things to get the teachers up to speed. Some teachers take to it naturally and they gravitate to it, and they are doing splendidly. Others, as I say, struggle. Some divisions are sending the school computers home with teachers during the summer so they can become familiar and comfortable using them. We are encouraging professional development in how to use computers as tools for teaching, because they are marvellous tools for teaching.
But because it is so new, there is not a long track record to go back and examine. Because it is so new, a lot of the early decisions that were made across the nation are beginning to be rethought, are beginning to be challenged, as were these in fact the right decisions. Before we go too much further, should we be going down another avenue? We know that there have been some intriguing things going on that have captured the imagination and the interest of educators, and one of those, of course, is the World Wide Web. There have been significant resources being applied to provide Internet connectivity for every school in the province, because the potential access to unlimited resources in global communications are attractive inducements for educators. The Web is becoming a very powerful developmental tool, a very powerful delivery medium for distance education because of the communications possibilities and the richness of the resources available.
They had a recent definition of virtual schools and it captures the on-line dimension of course delivery. It said: a school that delivers its education program, in whole or in part, through the use of computer-mediated communications, either synchronously or asynchronously, where teachers and students are typically but not necessarily separated by distance. When you think about it, it is an amazing thing. It could never have happened 20 years ago, simply could not have happened.
I can remember being on a school board in the early '80s, bringing in the first computers into our division, and our division was one of the first divisions to bring in computers. There were some others that were doing it at the same time, and it was looked upon more or less as a novelty. That is just a little more than a decade ago. The great concern that students would forget how to read and write because of the computer and all that we have learned about it since then in terms of its ability to assist in increasing literacy was not known a little over a decade ago. So we are looking at it so differently. Students, we know, are taking Distance courses, if for no other reason, just to resolve a timetable conflict or to augment their studies with courses that are not offered in their own buildings.
This enthusiasm for the Web has created a flurry of discussion and activity that ranges almost from an evangelical to a huckster range. But there is a very strong and growing core of knowledgeable practitioners who freely share their experiences and expertise, and as in any emerging and rapidly growing field, the Web has its share of misconceptions, assumptions, misunderstandings, and sometimes that results in things being overstated or false information coming forward.
But there is a lot of interest in this area and a lot of writing about the importance of it. We look for improved access to learning because of the broad range of communication tools, multimedia capabilities, easy access to vast resources, as well as for collaborative learning opportunities that are possible through the use of computer networks to establish learning communities, learning networks. Active learning from participation in a WBC is based on making input, responding to peers, and sharing ideas.
We know that improved learning can result from the visualization and stimulations made possible by Web-based technologies. We know that student monitoring and feedback can be provided at a much higher level much more rapidly. Assignment submission can be almost instantaneous, and we know that it also facilitates life-long learning.
So we have all of these things that we know, the things that we are learning, the things that have already been rejected as things that should not have been looked at in the first instance, and so we grow and evolve. We grow and evolve very, very rapidly, and it is very difficult to keep up. Everybody everywhere says that about technology. There is a clear need for us provincially, federally and locally to find more tax dollars for technology for schools, for colleges, for universities, and we will do so. Provided our economy continues to grow, no doubt more dollars will become available, but it is imprudent to spend on technology outside of the more important context of the act of planning, teaching and learning. So we are not going to buy a computer just so we can say, there, there is a computer in the school. We have to know why we are buying it, what we are going to do with it, if it is the right model for the purpose we need, and if it is going to be sustainable over time so that equity through the succeeding years can be put in place. We have to establish the competencies that are required to plan, the competencies that are required to teach with technology. But as educators we have to be vigilant to use technology for teaching and learning for the correct educational reasons and not just to say that we have become technological.
Teachers have many skills and traditionally over the centuries have had many tools, but their tools are changing and their skill requirements are changing. They need to know that it is very legitimate to not use technology at some times for many educationally sound reasons, and we must make certain that we do not become so enamoured with the machines that we forget the human element.
Having said all that, in summation I come back to it is a new emerging field. The last five years in particular have shown very rapid change, building upon the previous 10 years where there was kind of a slow introduction and an understanding that we were on our way into this kind of world. The last five years have seen unprecedented growth and even unprecedented growth in the schools, albeit, not as fast as all might wish. If you compare the introduction of this into the schools compared to other things into the schools, this has been rapid indeed because it is changing the entire way of doing things.
* (1550)
Is there equity school to school to school? There is the possibility of equity school to school to school. I have been in schools where the decision makers in those places have been determined to utilize computer technology. I have been in other schools where the schools have been determined not to use it for a variety of reasons, but the opportunity for equity in the funding is there, the opportunity for equity in being able to access computers in schools programs is there, the encouragement from the department is there, the ability to access proposals for science and technology grants is there, the local decision makers then have to decide how to deal with all these opportunities.
They will soon be forced into, those that are still reluctant, as new curricula comes on stream that has technology as a component of the curricula where teachers have to use certain technological tools to teach the content, those divisions that are still reluctant will be forced into coming on stream with technology, because the mandatory curriculum will include it and that is beginning to happen now.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the question I had asked was whether there were national or international means of comparison available that would enable us to move towards equity, and I gather the answer to that was no.
I wanted to ask the minister about the phrase that she used "keeping up" in her response. I mean, that is the issue. People, parents and schools and divisions want to know that they are keeping up. How does the department measure "keeping up?"
Mrs. McIntosh: It is a good question and it is one that is being asked, as I say, right across Canada. By the way, I confirm the answer to the earlier was no. She says she assumes the answer is no. It was no.
When we get to the MERLIN line we will be able to have a much more thorough discussion on this topic. I hope the member will raise it when we get to that line because that is where we are slated to deal with this issue.
I can indicate that we now have the strategic plan out to the field to obtain feedback from them as to their opinions on technology, et cetera. We are more interested in finding a standard that we can set for the competencies, rather than, you know, like we take a look at one computer for every six students, and that is very interesting. That shows that we are on a par with other jurisdictions, but what does it really mean? Does it mean they are competent? Does it mean they can do with a computer those things that are useful for them to be able to do in the workforce upon graduation? So we are more keen on determining what are the competencies that are being learned. Are they things that the students will need when they graduate? Those are things that are still being determined by society, you know, how much technology does the workforce require in certain occupations. Those are still being discovered by the occupations. So as they discover what they need, we need to determine whether or not our students are competent to provide what the world out there is requesting.
So I would be looking for competency-based standards as opposed to equipment. I do not want to be the kind of minister that says we are successful because we have a computer on every desk. That does not tell me that anybody is successful. Or IBM is better than Apple and we have all IBM, or Apple is better than IBM, we have all Apple. We have all Macintoshes, good name, but are they the best? I do not know. And does it matter? I do not know. What I want to know--and this does matter and it is very important--what are the competency levels of the students when they finish their learning? That is the central question. Various places may have different routes of getting there, so those standards are still being developed. They are not developed yet and there are not a lot of places that have standards even that we can borrow and look at as precedents because we are all at about the same place in our evolution in this area.
Ms. Friesen: How does the department measure the competencies then of students in Manitoba in this area?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the council on the new technologies has, as I indicated earlier, in this past week or so sent out to school divisions its strategic plan for learning in the province and is seeking back from the field information that will provide the framework for the integration of competencies into core curriculum areas in '98-99 and beyond, and we should see out of that the development of an information technology literacy continuum integrated, of course, into the core curriculum.
The department provides guidance to educators and department staff for the integration of information technologies into education, and MERLIN, the Textbook Bureau and the department are negotiating provincial licensing for educational software. MERLIN and the department are also co-operating in developing the improved use of the Internet for support services. For '98-99, some of those additional initiatives include the integration of multimedia into mathematics and English language arts in the K to 8 curricula and the extension of the interdisciplinary middle years multimedia project.
* (1600)
We are hoping that when the council hears back from school divisions, they will provide to the council expectations as to competencies at various levels that can be identified and then looked to, but in the area where they are using computers or technology as tools for learning, it is like another level of saying you can use the radio or the television as a tool for learning and many have. So they use the radio or they use the television as a tool for learning. Is there a competency standard that needs to be met for turning on the radio and using the television? There might be one if the teacher had to program a VCR because a lot of people struggle with that, but those are all technologies. Radio, television, VCRs, those are technologies that most of us are quite comfortable and familiar with using, and these new technologies, in terms of their usage, are simply other tools, better tools, more exciting tools with wider potential and capability that can also be used.
So we will see the competencies itemized. The competencies that are expected should be itemized when we get everything back from the Council on Learning Technologies. The feedback we expect--it has been asked that the feedback will comment on the completeness of the competencies, of the appropriateness of them, et cetera. But we are still in our--like we are emerging out of a cocoon, we are still in our developmental stages. There has not been a complete metamorphosis take place yet, but it is coming, and everybody just seems to talk about the millennium, and perhaps it is the time. People talk about the millennium and the way the world will change when we enter the 2000s, and one of the things that so many observers say is that as we enter the millennium we will truly become a fully technological society. Well, we still have a few more years to hit the millennium but not very many. At the rate of speed with which this is growing, that prediction was first made a couple of years ago, I think will have a pretty good chance of being a true prediction.
So, in terms of keeping up, those are some of the ways in which we are keeping up. The identification of competencies coming in from the field will certainly assist us in staying on top of this as we continue to grow and develop in this area.
Ms. Friesen: Before we leave this area, I wonder if the minister could give us a timetable for when she expects the council to have received feedback and to develop its next step of proposals?
Mrs. McIntosh: We are going from memory here, so I do not have an exact date, but I can give the member a ballpark time. The chairman of the Council on Learning Technologies is hoping that he will have heard back from the field by the end of this academic year and hopefully should be in a position to provide me with information early in the fall. I always hesitate when I say that, because I get concerned that I am committing someone to a time frame that--he may need a bit of extra time, but that is our expectation right now, and it is a ballpark figure not tied to a specific date.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I want to look at another policy area that the minister's Advisory Committee on Education Finance looked at and to again ask the minister's responses to it. It is obviously a huge area affecting schools well beyond the boundaries of Winnipeg, and that is fetal alcohol syndrome.
The committee made some recommendations, and it also attached an appendix and recommended specifically that the department include fetal alcohol syndrome and criteria for determining eligibility for Level II and Level III funding. Without necessarily getting into special needs and Level II, Level III funding at this time, I am wondering what the department's overall policy and implementation advice has been to the minister on this?
Mrs. McIntosh: We do not say, for example, that we will fund FAS or FAE or Down's syndrome or that type of thing. We say that we will fund the symptoms or the behaviours that are evident in the child which may be caused by FAS or may be caused by something else. But if a child is showing severe aggressive behaviour, for example, then that would be the thing that is determined to be the need. The cause of the severe aggressive behaviour may be one of 10 different things but the behaviour is still severely aggressive and needs to receive funding. So that is the way in which we do it. We take a look at the child, how the child is evidencing his problem and then we address that evidence through treating the behaviours regardless of the cause, although certainly we would be familiar with whatever the cause was.
I think this is the best way to fund it because, as the member knows, in every range of ailment there are levels of severity and levels of competency that show that not every FAS child automatically has the same characteristics. If they did, if they were all identical in terms of their characteristics, then maybe you could say that they all should be Level II or they all should be Level III, but each child is an individual who evidence characteristics differently, one from the other.
* (1610)
There is no cap on the numbers, so as many FAS children who have the fundable behaviours are eligible to receive that funding. There is no cap on it; it is done for the child. This is similar to what happens in British Columbia, for example, where there is no targeted funding for students with FAS or FAE because again, they may qualify in areas of function or disfunction. Similarly, Alberta has no targeted funding for students with FAS. They may qualify for funding under other categories of behaviour that show the need to address. Saskatchewan has no targeted funding, neither does Ontario nor New Brunswick, et cetera. So we are in line with what other provinces are doing by treating the behaviours and the symptoms, and not just saying you are FAS, fine, then you must automatically need these kinds of funding, because they may not.
Ms. Friesen: The recommendation from the minister's advisory committee seems to assume, and obviously I am reading between the lines here, and I want to know from the minister whether she sees the same assumption in this and whether it is a correct assumption.
In the interim, this is in the interim of before the special needs review committee finally reports, this committee, the minister's advisory committee recommends that the Department of Education and Training include fetal alcohol syndrome in the criteria used to determine eligibility for Level II and Level III funding. That assumption seems to me to be there that the department does not, that the minister has answered that, yes, symptoms are included, or the behavioural things that proceed from possible FAS diagnosis. So who is right here? Has the committee misunderstood the department's recommendations, and has this been clarified with the committee?
Mrs. McIntosh: I do not think anybody misunderstood anybody, and all were correct. I think it is just the way in which the member has read this particular line. They had recommended from the committee that every child who had fetal alcohol syndrome be eligible for Level II or Level III funding, and our response is that every child who has symptoms that need treating, that may be caused by fetal alcohol syndrome will be eligible for Level II or Level III funding if they require it.
So if they need it, they will get it, and if they need it because they have FAS, they will get it, but it may be that if they are FAE and it is mild, that perhaps they do not qualify. Most would, I would think, because FAS normally exhibits symptoms that see children being eligible for funding, so that would be the case, I think, in many, many, many situations.
But we do fund those FAS students who have needs right now. They were saying fund all of them even if they do not have the needs, and that is when we said, well, that does not make a lot of sense.
So the specific diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome has not been included in the criteria, but we know, and it will continue to occur, that a number of FAS students are receiving Level II and Level III support because they meet existing Level II and III criteria based on their programming needs.
For example, Mr. Chairman, Level II support which provides $8,520 over and above the per-pupil grant for each pupil who is psychotic, autistic or severely deaf or hard of hearing, severely or emotionally behaviour disordered. That is Level II funding. Many FAS students will exhibit those tendencies.
Similarly, at Level III, Level III support is $18,960 for each pupil, who is profoundly multihandicapped, profoundly hard of hearing, deaf or profoundly emotionally or behaviourally disordered, over and above their regular school grant. Many FAS students will exhibit those characteristics, will meet the criteria, and will be funded. But, they are not being funded because they are FAS; they are being funded because they are severely multihandicapped or one of the other symptoms. I hope that provides clarification.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask about two recommendations the committee made on page 11, that dealing with clinician funding and small schools funding. I wonder if the minister could give me her response to each of those.
If we could begin with the clinician funding, where the committee recommended a different funding formula, that support be calculated using lower divisors for smaller school divisions, and that a different formula be used for northern schools who have higher travel costs and difficulty sharing clinician services. I wonder if the minister could give me her response to those recommendations.
* (1620)
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, we accepted those recommendations and we have done those things.
Ms. Friesen: And on the small schools funding, the committee recommended that kindergarten pupils be counted as half time rather than full time, and adult pupils be included on a full-time equivalent basis for the purposes of the grant. Did the department accept both of those recommendations?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, we accepted that recommendation, and we are doing that.
Ms. Friesen: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, there were actually two parts to that recommendation. The kindergarten pupils and adult pupils were both aspects of that accepted by the department?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman. When I said, yes, I was saying yes to both, because the question included both and the answer included both.
Ms. Friesen: One of the responsibilities in this section of the department is for the deputy minister to represent the department and the minister in local, provincial, national and international education-related matters. I wonder if the minister could table for us, at a different time, a list of the occasions and events at which the deputy minister has represented the minister.
Mrs. McIntosh: I do not believe the deputy has been internationally--the deputy has just informed me that he has not represented me at international or national events. However, he will be next week when he will be travelling to Ottawa on my behalf for an event that I cannot attend, because I am in Estimates and I could not get a pair from the House. So he will have to represent Manitoba at that event. He does a lot of speaking on his own, but not on my behalf recently.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister table the events at which her deputy has represented her locally and provincially then?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do not have that here, of course. But from time to time, the deputy will take my place at local events, if I am already doing something else, just as he will be travelling to the sustainable learning conference next week which I very much regret having to miss, and because it is a national body that works with sustainable development I am there representing the ministers of Canada at the committee's request, and, unfortunately, the opposition refused me a pair to attend that.
It is very regrettable and the committee is most upset about it, but they recognize that sometimes opposition members do not recognize the value for Canadians in sustainable development or learning for sustainable futures which is being integrated into Canadian curricula. Because I was chosen to be the member and because the committee itself had requested that I be the member, there was no backup minister on that committee. Mr. Cummings had been a member for six years prior to me, and I had become involved with sustainable development, hence the community had specifically requested that I be the Minister of Education sitting on it.
This is our once-a-year meeting that the opposition has denied me the opportunity to attend, and it is regrettable for education; it is regrettable for sustainable development; it is regrettable in terms of the spirit of co-operation that is not shown for national initiatives in education. It is one that I do feel a little resentful about, both in terms of education for the students of this country, for my colleagues across the country and for all those who are interested in sustainable development and the environment of Canada that the opposition sometimes say they support but clearly do not, or they would have allowed me to go.
Hence, my deputy will take my place. I am very grateful to him. He is a knowledgeable man and will attempt to fill that role on behalf of elected people.
Ms. Friesen: Well, the minister is always free to go. I believe there are 31 MLAs on that side of the House, and I believe there are other people who could do that. [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members to wait until it is their turn to put their comments on the record, so that we get everything for Hansard.
The honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), to complete her question.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask the minister to give us some background on the recommendation in aboriginal education where the committee--I am back again to the minister's Advisory Committee on Education Finance which emphasizes the urgent need for an effective strategy.
Now, I understand that the department does have a strategy on aboriginal education, and I am curious as to why the minister's advisory committee seems to think there is an urgent need for an effective strategy. It seems to imply that the one that the department has meets neither of those criteria.
Mrs. McIntosh: First, a response to the comment that while we have 31 MLAs on this side of the House and any one of them could have gone to the sustainable learning futures conference, the member, of course, is aware that in refusing to give the minister a pair, that they absolutely would not give anybody else a pair. If the minister responsible who has been working on it and has the information and the knowledge and has done all the lead-up work for the conference is denied the opportunity to go, they are certainly not going to grant a pair to anybody else on this side of the House.
Pure and simple, the opposition is refusing to pair government ministers unless it is specifically a meeting of other ministers, and that is fine, but that does not take into account that many ministers chair, and they would not even let the current Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) attend when he was the chair of the national committee.
These committees are national and international committees that include as sitting members people from federal and international governments, provincial and state governments, people from European countries who are not ministers of Education or ministers of anything else in Canada, but who are very knowledgeable people in developing curriculum in new areas such as sustainable development for schools around the world. This meeting is the outgrowth of the Rio meeting, and this opposition has denied this government the opportunity to be there, not just to represent Manitoba, but to represent education in Canada.
So please do not tell me, Mr. Chairman--the member should not tell me through you--that somebody else could go. No one else is ready, and they would not give anybody else permission to go either. I think it is just symptomatic of the co-operation we get in trying to make a better Canada, and I am pleased it is on the record because this is not the only thing that we have had to send not the person who is expected by this national and international high-level committees, but a person that is not expected, somebody that has to take time away from their duties to go and attend. That is the way, I believe, the opposition wants it to be. They do not want to see success in endeavours where we are involved. It does not suit their long-range purpose or motivation.
In answer to this particular question, the committee does its work a year in advance, and at the time the committee developed this, they did not realize that we had an aboriginal program in place. Had they seen it, I am quite sure their response would be much different.
* (1630)
I will just maybe read you--maybe I can table even--some of these pieces of information. Here is the one on learning technologies that I think the member was seeking, right? And so in here, if I could just backtrack to show what was sent out in terms of learning technologies, I now have the material here to submit for the member. Mr. Bill Shafer's covering letter says: Attached please find the draft Strategic Planning Framework for the Integration of Information Technologies into Manitoba's Education and Training System, developed by the Manitoba Council on Learning Technologies, with input from other educational stakeholders. As part of our ongoing consultations, we are seeking your feedback by June 1, 1998, to assist us in completing this document.
This went to the field. Suggested areas for feedback were included in the document, but all comments are welcome, et cetera, et cetera. Where you can send the responses. Because of the changing nature of technology and of education, the council will treat this framework as a living document to be reviewed each January and updated each June.
So we talk about a final report. There never will be a final report on this. It is a living, breathing document that will be constantly changing, just as technologies are constantly changing.
It is the council's hope that the provincial framework will provide a basis for linking planning at a number of levels to the benefit of all learners, and the basis from which activities in Manitoba can be organized and measured. It is also expected to provide a basis for ongoing discussion on how in an information age we can best meet the needs of our students.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
That was the covering letter--I am just taking that little note off--and with that then we have the draft Strategic Planning Framework for the Integration of Information Technologies in Manitoba's Education and Training system. I think the member will find in here a lot of very useful information. In terms of competencies, for example, it says that in terms of expected outcomes: simple concrete definitions of the expected technology-related skills of teachers in various grade and subject areas; technological responses which support improvements in students' success; pedagogically appropriate teaching strategies for technology; a high level of collaberation and information-sharing amongst teachers, curriculum developers, researchers and a wide range of experts worldwide.
That is an expected outcome under the category of improving and enhancing teaching and learning, and it is just one that I sort of picked at random as an example to read. But there are goals in the action plan framework, the goals of improving access, equity of access to learning opportunities and resources, to provide students with the opportunity to acquire the skills and attitudes needed to use information technology effectively in their lives, to improve and enhance teaching and learning, to improve the planning, decision making and administration of education, to change education in fundamental ways which enable it to better fulfill its responsibilities and expectations.
We have key implementation strategies and assumptions, and under each of those that I have just read are subcategories with expected outcomes identified. So you would have under each of those a listing of expected outcomes which I will not take the time to read because I will table the document for the member, but just so the record gets a sense of what it is I am tabling.
There are questions and comments in here, and, as I say, feedback requested from the field. I have three copies of each that I can table. Actually, I have four copies of each, one for me, and this letter has just gone out to all the stakeholder groups along with the strategy on technologies.
Back to the aboriginal question--I am sorry to pause while I introduced that--we do have a directorate. We do have a strategy that is in place and not just in education but--[interjection] I am just waiting till she can hear. There is no point in talking if she is not listening.
Well, Mr. Chairman, since the member seems otherwise occupied, I will provide the rest of my answer when she is able to resume listening to what I am saying.
Ms. Friesen: I think the minister might want to recognize that she is speaking to the public record, that this is not a personal issue. It is something that she seems to take quite personally. She should not. She is speaking to the public record, to Hansard, but if she wishes to end her statement there, that is fine.
Mrs. McIntosh: Earlier, yesterday, in fact, I believe, the member had indicated that--I really thought I was speaking to her. If I am not speaking to her and I am speaking to the public, then I believe I will have more latitude to answer on behalf of what I think the public needs to know rather than when the member tries to cut me off and insist that I answer only her specific request, a narrow field for her information only, that I am now at liberty to say, but my critic, honourable critic, I am not just speaking to you so therefore you can no longer limit my answers to just your question because she has just now asked that I speak for the broader public. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, that is wonderful. That is wonderful and I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairperson: I would suggest that we direct all comments to the Chair and that is the process that we use here, and I would ask the honourable minister to continue in completing her answer as she had started on previously.
Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, and through you to the people of Manitoba, I think that they should be aware that not only--[interjection] I am having trouble hearing over the comments across the way, Mr. Chairman. I wonder, I am speaking, but I am speaking to a record and I am being interrupted by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who has been heckling from his seat and he is continuing to heckle from his seat.
* (1640)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would encourage all members to--
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. The minister was just speaking what I thought was a point of order. She interrupted the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and I would just like to say that the minister obviously has no idea on how the Estimates committee functions. What I was concerned about her doing and our member was too was answering questions--that is what Estimates is for--on the public record, which is part of what it is for.
It does not mean she can get up and make some bizarre statement of talking through you to the people of Manitoba. My only reference from my seat was that given her propensity to send out memos such as on God Save the Queen and other very important public issues that if she wants to communicate with the people of Manitoba that is how she should do it. But we do have rules in this Chamber. She should follow those rules. You should call her to order and ask her to respond to specific questions related to the Department of Education Estimates. That is what we are here for.
Mr. Chairperson: The member for Thompson does not have a point of order. I would encourage the minister to continue and to complete her answer, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, that was regrettable, but we will carry on and through you to the people of Manitoba, for the record, as requested by the opposition critic that comments go to the people for the record, not to her. I comply with her request regardless of her government House leader having a different opinion than she seems to have. There are differences in caucuses; a clear example of that was just shown us now.
I think that the people of Manitoba would be interested in knowing that the Native Affairs ministry has also embarked upon an urban aboriginal strategy, which has linkages into education in very strong and dramatic ways. We are most encouraged by the work that is being done with that group through the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Newman) and the many people who have given of their time and energy and knowledge to work with him to develop an urban aboriginal strategy which does have impact and considerations for education.
In our aboriginal education directorate we have three goals identified and those goals are a part of our strategy. One is to increase the graduation of aboriginal students; we have been doing a number of things in that regard. Two is to increase the labour market participation rate of aboriginal peoples; again, we have been working there. The third is to strengthen and increase partnerships, and those we feel are goals that the strategy has spelled out and that are underway in Manitoba in addition to the work that is being done in our elementary schools.
In terms of proposed actions on the strategy, we are proposing to establish an operational framework for partnership between the departments and with the aboriginal people in developing and carrying out education initiatives. We proposed to implement a department-wide human resource development plan, which includes training for all levels of department staff to increase sensitivity and operational ability to meet aboriginal needs and programs. We are participating with other government departments to prepare preschool children for success in school. Those initiatives are in the final stages of development.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
We look at the establishment of mechanisms for partnerships, not just with other departments, but with other departments and with agencies to co-ordinate activities relating to social, economic, and health issues for aboriginal people, because we know they all come together. We know the health issues need to be addressed. We see those health issues being addressed, for example, with the great bannock bakeoff that was held last year, where, in recognition of the fact that diabetes has become a serious health problem for aboriginal peoples and that diet can affect diabetes onset and control diabetes, recipes for bannock and traditional foods that were prepared with a diabetic-prevention or diabetic-control element about them were established in some of the elementary schools where there were high pockets of aboriginal children, to talk to them about how they can use nutrition to effect health.
We know that health, social and economic, and educational issues all do tie together. My assistant deputy minister sits on the diabetes working committee to develop the provincial strategy on that aspect. That is just one, tiny, small segment of the many things that are being done, but I provide it as an example of the types of things that are happening.
We are also creating effective, relevant and high-quality curriculum, learning resources, and a school environment which will ensure the success of the resources and the success then of aboriginal students in schools at all levels. We are establishing a series of transition programs to assist in the development of career information to enable students to move from school to post-secondary education training programs, the workplace.
I mentioned earlier today, Partners for Careers, or was it yesterday, I believe it was. Over 300 aboriginal graduates now successfully placed as a result of that particular initiative, which we did together last year with Industry, Trade and Tourism, so, you know, were interdepartmental initiatives.
We are looking at developing initiatives and providing financial support services to increase the success of aboriginal students in post-secondary institutions and in training programs. Those are goals of the strategy, and as I say, it is not just our department because we do have input from the Native Education Directorate and those other departments.
But in terms of the school, elementary, K to Senior 4 learning experience, already in advance of the strategy, we are already integrating aboriginal perspectives into the provincial curriculum, not just for aboriginal students, but for nonaboriginal students, as well, so that they can have a cross-cultural awareness and an understanding of each other that was never there 10 years ago. In the 1980s, none of these things were being done. In the '90s, they are being done and they are important. They are being done in advance of our strategy, and they will dovetail nicely with our plans for the future.
We have an aboriginal education curriculum steering committee. It advises and assists the department in the development and integration of aboriginal perspectives into the curriculum.
We have a curriculum framework for aboriginal languages that is currently being development with the western protocol partners: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and we expect to have that completed at the end of 1998.
As well, in January of this year, we distributed an annotated bibliography of Manitoba-based aboriginal language resources. We are partnering with the Aboriginal Teachers' Circle and with the University of Manitoba to hold a summer institute on native education. The department, in partnership with the Aboriginal Teachers' Circle, Children of the Earth High School, Manitoba association for multicultural education, has held and will continue to hold an annual aboriginal education conference, usually in October.
Manitoba schools receive over $4 million for English language enrichment for native students. As well, student-at-risk funding is available to all divisions and districts but concentrated in divisions where there are high numbers of aboriginal students, many of whom are at risk, and money will flow to them. We are participating, Manitoba Education and Training, on the interdepartmental task force on aboriginal self-government, as I said, the Urban Aboriginal Strategy.
You know, I do not want to take up all of Estimates on this, but just those two little examples I gave of the proper nutrition to address diabetes concerns in the schools because we recognize that diabetes is a health problem for many aboriginal people and, you know, those kinds of things are beneficial for all students but do address particular problems in the aboriginal community.
* (1650)
I think if the aboriginal education item on the advisory committee's report had been prepared now instead of a year ago, it would be quite a different request that they were making. They would probably urge us to, if I were anticipating them, implement as swiftly as possible the plans that we have laid down as opposed to saying, lay down plans.
Ms. Friesen: Well, I am puzzled by the minister's response on that, because she has two assistant deputy minister who sit on that committee and who presumably were already sitting on the interdepartmental committees. The minister has also suggested that in advance of the strategy there was, she believes, a great deal that was being done. So presumably, this recommendation of the committee is in response to all of that, and they believe that not enough is being done. Is that the case?
Mrs. McIntosh: The member made a couple of statements prior to her question that I certainly hope were not imputing motives, and I am indicating by my response here that I am assuming that she was not imputing motives, so that if she did intend that, the record will now show that she did not.
Mr. Chairman, indeed there are two members of my department sitting on this committee, but perhaps because the member has not been in government and does not understand the process that government has to go through, the members sitting on the advisory committee were fully aware that there was the strategy plan readied for presentation to the government. They were not at liberty to discuss that because it had not yet been approved as a government initiative, which it now is. So all they were able to do--and if the member reads and I suggest she do that, at the top of page 12, that the School Programs Division of the Department of Education and Training presented a document called--and she goes on about aboriginal education, that the committee noted that the Department of Education and Training has identified aboriginal education as a high priority.
That was all they were able to say at that point, Mr. Chairman, because there are at various stages in the planning of any particular strategy areas of confidentiality.
Now, I recognize that the member may wish that there were no periods of confidentiality in cabinet or in government or in personnel or in tendering or in advice to the minister or in documents prepared to make recommendations to the minister or in privacy provisions for citizens or students or patients, but there are certain things that at certain points in the development of a strategy still remain confidential.
That is what the--[interjection] Mr. Chairman, I believe another member wishes to speak and have the floor. I am quite willing to let him--[interjection] I am quite willing to let the member have the floor if they wish it. No, they do not wish it? They just wish to heckle. Okay, fine.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I just heard her say that we did not wish to protect the rights of patients or others to privacy in appropriate fora. I have never heard anybody on this side of the House or for that matter on that side of the House make such a silly argument, so I was asking my colleague if all of the answers had been along this vein or not, and she indicated that many had.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude her remarks.
Mrs. McIntosh: I am delighted to have that on the record and invite people to read Hansard to see what I did say and then compare what the member thought I said, and then also to point out that many times, Mr. Chairman, many times in this Chamber opposition members have asked us to breach the privacy of citizens in the Chamber, and we have been forced to say that we could not reveal certain information because it was confidential. It was that to which I was alluding before the member walked in and decided to join us for Estimates here and assume that what I was referring to was something else.
But, indeed, the opposition has frequently asked members of this House on the record to reveal privacies that the government was not able to do because they were confidential in nature for a variety of reasons, and as I was saying when the member rose on his point of order, or his alleged point of order, that that was the position in which my staff found itself, unable to say to the finance committee the details of our strategy.
That was not because they were ignorant of it or because of the things the member implied about their abilities. They are competent, capable people, but they are also very conscious of when they can and cannot reveal government initiatives or recommendations about to be made to the minister.
It is not because they are ill informed or ignorant or unable to contribute wisely to a committee at all. I do not want that implication about my staff to be the implication that is interpreted from what the member said in her commentary.
The committee made the recommendation, and from that recommendation we note that they also see it as a high priority. It may be the context arose because the special programs division discussed funding support for aboriginal students, and the SPD urged the committee to make this discussion a high priority. We are making it a high priority. We continue to keep it a high priority, and the department had identified what they were able to, the departmental people on the committee, what they were able to identify at that time, not all of which they knew. I hope the member, my honourable critic, and her colleagues will appreciate that even though an ADM may know a piece of information, they are not always at liberty to reveal that information at certain stages along the way of the development of a new initiative. So, please, it is not because my staff were lacking in capability in any way or were not listening or did not want to contribute. It was because they had constraints of confidentiality placed upon them by oath.
I see the member is otherwise occupied now, but since I am not addressing her and I am addressing the people of Manitoba anyhow, I want the people of Manitoba, through you, to know, Mr. Chairman, that we appreciate the input received from various aboriginal leaders around the province. It has been most helpful. They have been willing to look at things for us, provide us commentary, and their input no doubt will bear very good fruit for the children in their community for whom they care very deeply. We appreciate their help.
* (1700)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being five o'clock, time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.