Madam Speaker: Prior to commencement of Orders of the Day, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this morning 32 visitors from Travel Manitoba under the direction of Ms. Lori Schmitt. These visitors are the guests of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Tweed).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this morning.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), that Madam Speaker now do leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Most Gracious Majesty.

* (1010)

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it was considering item 16.1(b)(1) on page 46. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I was asking about the ADAPs and whether in fact there had been a change as I believe in government procedures to not necessarily now require the ADAPs to be submitted to the department. This change came before the submission of the special needs review which has recommended that the government track more closely the kinds of programs which are being followed by divisions in special needs education. So I think the minister was in the middle of responding to that. Maybe that is where we should start.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we were talking about the ADAPs yesterday. I have a little bit of information I can share with the honourable member today. The role of the ADAP is changing as a result of recent initiatives such as school and divisional planning and the review of special education. In 1998 school divisions were invited to participate in a program review process. Divisions who participate in the programs review will no longer be required to submit an ADAP. The pilot process will begin in 1999-2000. This will eventually result in a program review process occurring in divisions on a three-year cycle. This transition to a programs review process will allow school divisions to focus on student and program outcomes.

In addition, staff from Manitoba Education and Training are working with school divisions to incorporate the planning for students with special needs into their school and divisional plan. This is in keeping with our support of inclusive educational programs. School divisions and districts use the ADAP process to systematically survey the special needs of their population, review their policies and plan for future activities. All ADAPs include the following information: planning process; division statement of philosophy and policies; needs survey; comprehensive service delivery system; outline of divisional programs; community agencies and services collaborating with the school division; and professional development activities.

The ADAP is a public document and provides meaningful information to parents. The process of reviewing and updating encourages divisions and districts to utilize best practices for the benefit of all students. The final reports from the new program review process could include much of the above in order to provide contextual information as well as results. Since May 1991, school divisions and districts have been required to submit an ADAP in accordance with departmental guidelines articulated in special education in Manitoba 1989.

Departmental policy guidelines request that school divisions and districts develop and keep current a board-approved annual division action plan. Since their initial submissions, many school divisions have revised and added to their plans in response to feedback from Manitoba Education and Training. The review of ADAPs has offered opportunity for discussion. The ADAPs have highlighted school divisions' areas of concern or need. The ADAPs have provided a means for community, parents and educators to discuss concerns and plan for the future. ADAPs have provided Manitoba Education and Training with a province-wide picture of services, policies and needs. The focus of the ADAPs has in most cases evolved from the more severe special needs students to include a division-wide plan that includes high incidence special needs, gifted and, most recently, students at risk.

The ADAP provides opportunity to review the divisional staffing requirements for special education. Most divisions and districts have formally and informally shared information about their ADAPs at regional meetings. I hope this is helpful to the honourable member.

Ms. Friesen: Well, the basic point is, yes, ADAPs have been useful. Now they are no longer required to be submitted to the department. The department is moving to a school review process. The minister, I think, was using also divisional review. So I am not clear about the transition process. At the moment, as I understand it in terms of regulation, nothing is necessarily being submitted to the department on special needs programs in the divisions. So when does the alternative come into play, and how quickly is the government going to be able to initiate these planning processes with all of the divisions of Manitoba? It seems to me to be a relatively complex new system. It may indeed be better. I do not think we will know until we see it in practice, but it is the transition period and the fact that the government appears at the moment not to be getting any information from the divisions on their programs.

Mr. McCrae: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is the ADAPs are still required. They are all being submitted along with other activities related to the implementation of the Special Education Review.

Ms. Friesen: Let me just clarify that then. Divisions are still required to submit to the department, on an annual basis, their ADAPs.

Mr. McCrae: Yes.

Ms. Friesen: Thanks.

I want to ask the minister then what the timeline is for the transition to the new process.

Mr. McCrae: As I have stated, the ADAPs are still required for 1999-2000. Mr. Chairman, 1999-2000 is a developmental year with pilot school divisions.

Ms. Friesen: So that, by 2000-2001, the minister anticipates that the new process of review of programs on a collaborative basis, shall we say, with the department and the divisions will be in place.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, this is a four-year process, and year one is as we have discussed. Then in the next three years, all divisions will be phased into the system. Once a division has been in the new process, the ADAPs will not be required.

Ms. Friesen: That is part of the recommendation A(5)(1) in special needs review as well, which outlines that process.

I want to ask the minister about the next section of Special Education recommendations. The first one, which I think–I do not think it is a surprise to people who were involved in special education, particularly parents, because the recommendation covers many of the difficulties I think that parents faced. But it does come as somewhat of a surprise to people outside who have not dealt with that situation. The idea that Manitoba Education and Training–I am looking at B(1)(1)–does not have a comprehensive handbook on policy and procedures I think is something which has made it difficult for parents.

I am wondering how quickly the government can move to that particular recommendation. One would assume that the department has most of the information, that it is a matter of collating, collecting and publishing in the appropriate format. I wonder: is the government giving a priority to that, and how quickly can that be accomplished?

* (1020)

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I think that the comprehensive handbook that the honourable member is talking about is probably two years into the implementation of this in terms of making that a project. It would indeed be a project to have that in place. In the meantime, we do have individual education planning handbooks for developing and implementing in the early to senior years. That is there for all students.

Manitoba Education and Training has directed resources to improving regular education and on supporting teachers in developing a classroom that can address a wide range of student needs and learning styles.

Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

Effective special education needs to be built on a solid regular education system. Manitoba Education and Training has initiated several new direction documents in the area of special education: for example, Towards Inclusion, a handbook for modified course designation, Senior 1 to 4; Towards Inclusion: a handbook for English as a second language course designation, Senior 1 to 4; Towards Inclusion: a handbook for individualized programming in the senior years; Success For All Learners: a handbook on differentiating instruction; and most recently Individual Education Planning: a handbook for developing and implementing individual education plans, early to senior years.

Manitoba Education and Training has introduced a program review process and is moving toward an outcome-based approach in special education.

Ms. Friesen: The recommendation is certainly directed at Manitoba Education and Training, but I think the context in which the recommendation is made is much broader than that. In fact, the summary of the recommendation does say: other government departments, agencies, divisions, districts, et cetera.

Yes, there are certainly things that Manitoba Education and Training has done, but I think what parents are looking for is a much more complete guide as to where they go for what, who do they see for what, how do they find out when things change. So it is government-wide. I think that the document needs to be drafted in a broader context.

I wonder if the minister is saying two years. Yes, you want a handbook to be good. You want it to be right. The last thing you want is a handbook that is going to introduce new difficulties. Is there any way, for example, that an interim guide for parents could be put on the Web, could be made in public access form so that it could be done quickly and it could be updated and changed, because I do think that parents, particularly those with new children who are facing difficulties, do need a central source of information that at least gets them moving in the right direction so they are not running from department to division back to department, to Family Services, to respite services, back to their municipality. When you are facing–I am sure the minister understands this–all the difficulties that you do face with a child with special needs, this is just seen as–well, it is; it is an additional burden, and any way that you can make that simpler I think is going to be appreciated.

So, yes, two years; obviously, I would prefer six months, but two years, if that is the time you are going to take, surely there should be something interim that you can do to make the pathway more simple for parents with special needs.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the honourable member. Parents want and need as much comprehensive information as we can make available to them. The department is already doing what the honourable member is suggesting with respect to an interim guide that might be made available on the World Wide Web, recognizing that not everybody has access to that or takes advantage of that, but more and more people are. So that is a good suggestion and it is something that the department is already at work on.

I agree also with the honourable member about the need for that complete guide just as soon as we can make that available. You know, if things could be done in six months, then they would be done in six months. I mean, if we want to be inclusive, there is no doubt in my mind that it will take a little more time. It takes a little more time to get it right, and that is the one thing that needs to be said. I am interested in moving as quickly as is humanly possible.

We have the right people doing the right job here, and I am confident that this type of material will be available at the earliest possible opportunity. We will be developing a comprehensive policy handbook for children and youth with special needs. It will promote communication, information sharing, and informed decision making. Areas to be addressed include: departmental and inter-sectoral policies and practices that support inclusive learning communities; identification; assessment; IEP planning; placement; collaborative planning; appeals processes; respective responsibilities of parents, administrators, teachers, students, support staff, and clinicians will all be outlined.

We are going to be looking to do hot links of other sources to information on the Web so that parents can access a variety of information that is already there on the Web. So I guess the Web, if people know how to use it, can be an extremely useful tool, and we want to be on the leading edge of that in terms of information availability to people. So the honourable member's suggestion is a good one. Maybe she made it last year, because the department is already on top of that.

Ms. Friesen: No, I did not make it last year. I look forward to seeing it.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask about–moving through the Special Education recommendations, (B)(3)(1) asks the government to, or asks actually Manitoba Education and Training to take steps to clarify confusion over perceived contradictions in provincial directions. Can the minister explain why that recommendation was necessary? What are the perceived contradictions in provincial policy that are reflected in this report that were presumably presented in many different forms by people in the field to the reviewers? I am interested in what perceived contradictions the minister believes have been perceived in the field and what steps are going to be taken to deal with that.

Mr. McCrae: Having been in the Legislature for 13 years and in government for 11, a lot of things that government is involved in can be perceived by people as pretty confusing. There is no doubt about that. I think it is the nature of public efforts and institutions that the ordinary person, in fact the extraordinary person cannot be expected to know what is going on in every corner and in every office and in every workplace and in every school.

* (1030)

So I think what I am detecting is that there is a perception on the part of the honourable member perhaps that the report is there to be critical of what is happening in the special education system and in the education system generally. I suppose that is one way you could take any report that has recommendations. Recommendations suggest change, suggest improvement.

Well, you can conclude from that, if you are of that particular persuasion, that everything was terrible and wrong before, but that is not what we are doing, and I do not think that–I mean, there is a tendency for some people to think with New Directions generally that there was an implied criticism of the school system as a whole, and that certainly is not true either, not on the part of the government.

I do not take from proactive that we have a criticism. They were asked to do a job so that we can address special education. If there is a recommendation that talks about a perceived confusion or perceived contradictions in the system, that would not surprise me in the least, simply because there are so many things going on.

When you are spending $111 million to provide special education services and a parent comes along with a child who has special education requirements, there is no doubt in my mind there are going to be a lot of things to learn in order to get it right for the benefit of that child. So I can understand that. The only thing is, I would think maybe a more positive construction could be put on these recommendations in the sense of the expectation, anticipation of improvement in special education in Manitoba as a result of these recommendations. I guess it depends how you look at things. In the view of some, there is no confusion whatsoever, in fact there is relative clarity, but we do need to impart information to people so that they can be assisted in understanding. Since change obviously is complex and always requires dialogue, there are those who simply have a problem with change. I think we need to help people like that, because we could wish that nothing is changing and everything is going to be the same and everything is going to be okay, but the world is not like that. In fact, the world is changing very rapidly. Technological advances provide us with opportunities.

In fact, I think it was the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Tweed) who brought to my attention that the Japanese do not even have a word for change. I have an auntie who spent 30 years in Japan, and she could explain this to me if she was nearby, but she is not. But the fact is, according to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, the Japanese translate the word "change" to mean opportunity. I guess it is, is the glass half full or is it half empty? There is the optimistic outlook for the next millennium, or there is a less optimistic one, and I choose a more optimistic one, knowing the support that I have as the Minister of Education and Training for change in the area of special education. I know that some of the questions that come forward tend to reflect a lack of willingness to address changes that provide tremendous opportunities for students and parents in our system.

You know, this is an ongoing thing. The acting assistant deputy minister for School Programs is meeting with special education administrators. I guess it is a constant job for officials in the Education department to be in contact with the people in what they call the field out there to ensure that we can be of as much help to them as we can possibly be. That is what we strive to do all the time. I have been quite impressed with the attitude of people at all levels, both in the department and outside the department.

My goodness, if you read the headlines all the time, all you would ever think is that there is nothing but trouble all the time. Yet to get out there and get into the classrooms, and you see the smiling faces of those children and their teachers, I do not know of anybody more positive. Mr. Chairman, you know a little bit about this, too. I guess I was led to believe, before I took this responsibility, that there was a lot of negativity out there. You know, sure there is always negativity, but the general outlook is very positive. I see members of the teaching profession as being extremely forward-looking people. They simply want it clarified.

Mr. Chairman, you and I, the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) and the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), all of us need to be out there encouraging members of the teaching profession and people involved in special education. We need to be encouraging them that they are really on the right track. We want to continue the very useful dialogue that goes on with members of the department, members of the Legislature and, to the extent that we can do so, keep it positive. I know there are negatives out there, and there are areas where improvement is needed. If we did not think that, we would never have asked for the Special Education Review and would have gone on merrily spending $111 million and increasing that by another 100 percent or so in the next 10 years without knowing for sure if we were getting the best value for our investment. It is an investment. These youngsters have so much to offer the world, the future and their children. If we can get it right, right now, what a wonderful investment that is.

But I had to sort of bring that into the discussion this morning. There is a tremendous, positive feeling out there, a feeling of hope and opportunity to embrace the future. At the same time, I think there is a lot of recognition that the government of Manitoba has been very much supportive of assisting people to take advantage of technological and other advances that are there, that we can now utilize. The honourable member for Wolseley I am sure is part of that whole scene, having raised the issue of the World Wide Web just a few minutes ago. I mean that is not the be-all and the end-all, but it certainly brings the world closer to everyone, and all of the assists that are there come clearly to us if we know how to use these tools. I think we need to get everybody, to the extent that we can, using all the tools that are available in Manitoba.

* (1040)

Manitoba is a wonderful place. We have always traditionally placed a very high value on education in this province. I think that shows in statistics which suggest that we are succeeding. The only way we do succeed is by paying attention to the kind of detail that the honourable member for Wolseley brings to us in these discussions. Even though, in my view, there are people better able to engage in a discussion of the technical aspects of education than I, I believe I am well qualified to be a Minister of Education because I am quite committed to a brighter future for our children and making them ready so that they can be confident as they move forward and address the opportunities that there are. As a parent of children ranging from the school system to the post-secondary system and to the workplace as well, I feel that I have been able to benefit from that experience as so many of us have.

So, in terms of confusion and contradiction, those sorts of recommendations are–I guess if we do not get recommendations like that, we are then allowed to go merrily along, perhaps not doing it the right way. So we welcome those kinds of recommendations. I do not put the negative construction on it that some people might. I simply say these recommendations offer us a great opportunity to do a much better job for the kids, to take that $111 million and add some more money to that, which we are going to have to do, already started, to take that and get maximum benefit. That is a lot of money, and we ought to be able to show that we are achieving some pretty significant benefits as a result of that investment. If we always remember that it is an investment, then we never have to feel badly about spending the money for the children because we will be rewarded many times over for that kind of investment in the future.

Ms. Friesen: I am looking for elements of the Special Education Review which can be done relatively quickly and with a great deal of direction and initiative from the department. That was why I raised the issue of the tracking mechanism, the issue of the handbook, and the issue of clarifying confusion. It seemed to me those are three things that the government could move on relatively quickly, and I am not clear in my mind what the minister is actually saying about clarifying confusion and perceived contradictions in provincial directions. It is not always education. Is education going to take the lead in this? What steps are actually going to be taken to deal with this, and how will it be made known to parents?

Mr. McCrae: I really appreciate what the honourable member is trying to do. I mean that quite sincerely. I respect that the honourable member has considerable experience in the field of education, and so I figured when I got this job that I could benefit from the input of the honourable member for Wolseley. I think she knows that I respect her background and her knowledge, so that is why I and all of the officials in the Education department, many of whom are very well versed in these things themselves, are probably like that from having listened to all kinds of knowledgeable people.

So that is why I do not mind the honourable member slipping in lots of suggestions as she goes through her questioning in these Estimates because we are listening, and no doubt we will be able to learn something from her along the way as well. But I do want to remind her that this is a collaborative thing. Manitoba Education and Training is one partner here. We certainly are not here to take all of the credit for all of the successes that happened, and neither are we here to take all the criticism for those areas where there are contradictions and where there is confusion and where we can do better.

So it is our job to try to take a lead position here and bring all our collaborators together so that we can come up with some good results. We need to take steps to clarify confusion over perceived contradictions, and sometimes they are only perceived contradictions, and sometimes there are contradictions. I hope not very many, but if there are even perceptions of contradictions, then something has gone wrong, so that is an area of communication. So we need to communicate more. That is okay. That is exactly what this should be about.

I am just reminded of one perception that is out there that should be cleared up. I met the other day with some parents and school administrators and trustees from the Fort Garry School Division. One of the people raised the question that the information related to the standards tests is not being shared and that that is because it does not exist. Well, that is not true. That was an opportunity for me to point out that, yes, that fairly detailed information about testing results is available, and it should be made available to parents and to teachers and anybody who can make good use of that information. There is an example of a perceived problem, and it is something that needs to be straightened out. But again I say we are talking about a collaborative approach.

We have Student Services Administrators Association in Manitoba that our assistant deputy minister and others in the department work with to collaborate and to work out programs and to share information and to get rid of incorrect perceptions that might exist. The honourable member knows, I am sure, that perception can be very important. Some people say it is bigger than reality. Well, I do not think that is an honest approach, and wherever that exists, then we are not finished with our work. We simply have to keep working away at clarifying perceptions. When there are realities that are not appropriate, we also have to work on that. Anybody who is going to say they are doing everything right is not a very credible person or a very credible organization. Perfection is such an elusive thing, but we think we are doing very well in Manitoba judged by virtually anywhere else. I say again, we will continue to do well as long as we remember we are not finished our work, that we are never quite as good as we think we are. If we can keep that attitude about what we do, we will continue to be on the leading edge, probably better than most, but never perfect. So I do not think the honourable member will have any problem with me on that particular point.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the context of that recommendation dealt with the comprehensive handbook Best Practices and then two additional areas, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making changes to legislation to achieve consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think that partly is seen as a remedy to the perceived contradictions, only partly. Obviously there are much bigger issues involved in that. Then in addition and finally in this section, the review asks the department to develop a process to engage educators in the field in how to address the issues of struggling learners who do not qualify for a modified designation. The recommendation is not to change the designation but to find solutions that will enable the educational needs of struggling learners for whom a modified designation would be inappropriate.

So I would like the minister to address the two questions. Is the legal approach the one that the government intends to use to clarify confusion over perceived contradictions? What kind of timelines do they see for that? Then secondly, the modified designation. This is an issue that has come up long before the special needs review. It came up during the At Risk survey that the minister's own department conducted. It has come up I know in letters to the minister. It comes up at regional meetings with superintendents and with people from the department in various regional meetings. It has come up over the last three or four years since people have been coping with the New Directions document.

So I am wondering what specifically the minister is going to do in both of those areas to deal with these recommendations.

* (1050)

Mr. McCrae: I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman, about consistency in legislation and legislation that falls within the limits prescribed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the general question about the legal approach. It is not so much, in my view, all one way or all another way.

I have a fair amount of experience with legislation, and sometimes we tend to say, well, let us have legislation and that will fix all our problems, and yet we spend the rest of our lives after we pass legislation being reminded how many loopholes there are in it and how many areas of legislation can be got through or which could be end-runned.

For example, the Schreyer government brought in Bill 58. That bill would have grounded policy documents more firmly in legislation. I do not know what year that was, but I know that the Schreyer government was around in the early '70s and the mid-'70s. That bill was never proclaimed for whatever reasons. I assume it was felt that the government of that particular day felt that grounding policy into legislation was not, after all, the way they wanted to go, even though they had gone to the Legislature and got that sort of legislation passed. The province also chose to focus on developing a range of services at the local level rather than developing legislation as a vehicle for serving special needs students.

I guess where legislation is going to be required, there will be legislation. There is no doubt about that. But I do not see legislation in all things as the panacea or the be-all and the end-all that regulates human activity. Legislation in some provinces has produced onerous demands on school systems and limited benefit for students. In some cases it has restricted options for students. Any legislation has to be very carefully considered to ensure that its impact is in the best interests of students while minimizing the demand for paperwork. Especially in these changing times, we need to have minds that are open, minds and activities that take into account the myriad issues that come forward in this area.

So I do not want to hobble the system and all of our partners with legislation that is in some way restrictive or in some way limits what a child can get in terms of the assistance a child needs, and I do not think anybody would disagree with that as an approach. I of course have to be guided by what is in the Charter of Rights. We know that that Charter is there for very good reasons; it is to protect people and to protect their rights. So anything we do or any law we enact, that is going to be one of the guiding principles that we are not out to offend the Charter or any natural rights and laws under which we live. But, no, I do not see a legalistic approach being the way to go.

Having said that, I am sure that at some point along the way, someone is going to show me why some legislative requirement needs to be enacted, and we will keep a very open mind about that. Manitoba Education and Training is committed to examining and responding to the recommendations of this report. As government responds to the recommendations, the requirements for policies, regulations and/or legislation will of course be examined and considered in the light of a number of things.

First, The Public Schools Act is very clear on the right for all children to attend school. The act requires that every school board shall provide or make provisions for education in Grades 1 to 12, inclusive, for all resident persons who have the right to attend school. This addresses with clarity the issue of right to access to an education for exceptional children. Legislation, if it is going to be used, must be such that it benefits and protects students with special needs without placing onerous demands on school divisions or districts. Legislation with complex bureaucratic requirements but little impact on increasing the effectiveness of student programming is of little value. Why even have legislation like that? I cannot support that sort of legislation; neither can anybody else. It always becomes a debate on whether legislation increases or decreases effectiveness of student programming or it becomes a debate on whether it is simply bureaucratic or whether it does meet some legitimate need, and, of course, debate is what makes our society the success that it is.

Policy and support documents have been utilized in Manitoba to capture the ever changing views of educational thought and best practice. The Public Schools Act provides the framework for the organization and administration of school systems in Manitoba; New Directions provides the philosophical frameworks. The rights of all children to an education are clearly defined and, according to a national study on the rights of exceptional children, Manitoba's laws require school boards to provide educational services to all children regardless of their special situation.

It may well be that the bill I referred to, Bill 58, might have further clarified the rights of children for appropriate education, but the government of that day chose not to proclaim it. Now I am not able to comment on whether that was an appropriate thing. I think generally people would say, well, if you are going to pass legislation, you should proclaim it because it reflects the will of the elected majority in the Legislature. I think back to the Freedom of Information legislation that was brought in by the previous government and after more than three years still had not been proclaimed. So somebody needs to comment at some point on that. There may have been some very good reasons that I do not know about why that was not proclaimed, and I need more information about why Bill 58 was not proclaimed. There may be people who would argue that it should have been proclaimed because it would have further clarified the rights of children for appropriate education and, in the absence of its proclamation, where did that leave the children and what did that say about the commitment of the government of that day to the children? I simply do not know all of that right now, but I raise it because the honourable member has raised this as well.

Manitoba has a co-operative approach that works to produce results that are more positive for individual students than might be obtained through a rigid legislative approach. I think, again, what I am generally saying here is that if we can proceed more effectively without legislation, then I will do it. I think, though, that I leave myself open to criticism when I say that because somebody will say, well, then you are not committed then if you do not put it into legislation. That is a debate, too. I think maybe we all need to be judged by our actions as much as what we put into legislation. We know already you can put legislation on the Order Paper, pass it in the House, and if you are really not committed to it, then all you do is fail to put a bureaucracy in place to enforce that legislation. That says something, in my view, a lot louder than having come forward with the legislation, beating your breast and saying, are we not special, we have legislation to protect this group or that group and then it is toothless and it is a scofflaw. It does not demonstrate in my view any particular commitment.

* (1100)

What I think demonstrates commitment is the work that you are prepared to do and the partnerships you are willing to enter into. That is really a telling piece of evidence in my view. I mean, if you are not prepared to do anything, then you are not going to really want to enter into very many partnerships because your partners really have an expectation of commitment on your part. Well, here is where we have a strong statement to make and that is we do have partnering going on, and we have multistakeholder system in all kinds of pursuits.

We have been accused of having too many committees and too many task forces. For the most part, I find that criticism unfounded, because it is made with a view to try to point out that you are really not doing anything, you are just establishing committees. Well, I have heard that, and then if you do not establish committees and work co-operatively with the stakeholders, then you are accused of ramming things down people's throats. I have been on the butt end of both of those criticisms, and I know that they are always so easy to make, those criticisms. It is the difference between being in a position where you are expected to make a difference in the lives of kids or in a position where you are expected simply to be critical. Well, it is a different role, I can tell you that.

Anyway, I maintain and say again that Manitoba has a co-operative approach, and that approach does produce results that are more positive for individual students than you might get through a rigid legislative approach. This is not meant to be said in some kind of philosophical or doctrinaire way, because there are some applications where a legislative approach may well be the only way to go and the best way to go. So you have to keep an open mind and be pragmatic about these things.

Implementation of the appeals process may facilitate those situations where there are disagreements as to placement and could be expanded to include disagreements on outcomes. Clarification of this process and public awareness could ensure that the best interests of all students are addressed. We must, I think, bear in mind that rigid legislation setting a particular standard or level of service has a greater potential to create a burden of onerous results. Local school divisions need the flexibility to program for students within their unique community, and they need the freedom to offer a range of options and services to best meet the individual child's needs.

I have seen examples of that in my travels and have spoken to special needs teachers, who tell me that some of the best things they do for their kids are things they alone do in their classroom. They have a child who has a need that no other known method is addressing very well, and sometimes it is a very human thing. Sometimes it is that special education caregiver's personality that shines through and inspires the young student. No amount of legislation, regulation, rules and books and handbooks and all of these things can substitute for that. All those other things may well be necessary in order to have a certain level of activity going on and some level of effectiveness, but it comes right down to real people in real live human circumstances that no amount of rule making can improve or alter in any way.

So those people are magic. They are special people. You can see the smile on the face of a young child. You can see that something is happening there that you just do not find in the rule book. So I do not want to do anything to restrict that, and yet I want to be part of a system that creates and maintains the highest standards that we can have, that takes into account all the different types of people, both on the giving and the receiving end of the special education.

Manitoba Education and Training has responded to the recommendations of the Special Education Review, as I have pointed out already. I was really in my first briefing on this topic with Ms. Loeppky. I was quite impressed, the little time that she had had; I was quite impressed with the work that had already been achieved. I think anybody getting the same briefing could not help but be impressed with the commitment of the people that we have, not only in our department but also amongst our stakeholder organizations and individuals.

There is a lot of anticipation about this. I think there is a lot of hope that we are going to do an awful lot of good things in the next four to five years in this province and beyond that, which will just make one huge difference, and I am pretty excited about it.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the review offered two remedies. One was the legal one which the minister has addressed; the other was one which I suggested was a long outstanding issue for parents and teachers, and that is the issue of struggling learners who do not qualify for modified designation.

The review had some specific recommendations for the department, and I wondered what kind of implementation plans the minister could tell us that the department has in this area, given that this is a long-standing issue.

Mr. McCrae: The member raised the fact that the Special Education Review supports the department's approach on the M designation for those students with significant cognitive disabilities. As to what we are doing or what we will do for struggling learners, I know there are a lot of things we can do, and we are committed to that. The educational needs of the at-risk and struggling learners, for whom a modified designation would be appropriate, need to be met in a different way.

Manitoba Education and Training recognizes the challenge in striving to keep as many students as possible engaged in the educational process. This is a key theme in the review. The challenge is surmountable when families, schools, communities and government agencies work in a co-operative and collaborative manner to identify issues, eliminate barriers and produce constructive solutions for our youth. This is why it is so important–I say this sincerely to the honourable member–that we not get off the track. I do not want to address this in any kind of political way because I think that is when we do get off the track with something as important as this.

* (1110)

This is a nonpartisan thing as far as I can tell. There is no political advantage, I do not think. I could be wrong about this, but I do not think there is in this area. Besides its being distasteful for me to want to engage in a political debate over children who need special education opportunities, besides being distasteful, I think we are all on the same side here, and I would implore everybody on all sides here to resist the temptation to get off the track here because we have so much consensus, I think, around this report. There is very little disagreement about it. In my travels, that is what I have been hearing.

Everybody has got an angle; there is no doubt about that. Everybody has got a specific interest. Certainly, anyone who has a child in the system is going to look at special education from the standpoint of a parent of a child with quite unique requirements. I think we have to try to accommodate all of that and give people a sense that everybody in Manitoba, including the three parties, the two parties in the Legislature and the other one as well, that we are working together on this. I really want to see that happen because that will be a very encouraging thing for a lot of parents in Manitoba, and teachers in Manitoba, who are committed to caring for and educating these young Manitobans, who have so much potential and yet present us with a challenge to get them through that education. I really put that out as an appeal to everybody. Let us keep on the track here, and keep moving forward.

The Special Education Review recommends that the department develop a process to engage educators in the field to find solutions on how to address the issue of struggling learners who do not qualify for an M course designation, and we will do that. We will consult, we will look at best practices, and we will be responding. We increased funding this year. In addition to the annual January announcement, we increased funding by $2 million which the honourable member supports, and that is for early literacy and for early behaviour intervention. There is more money, $1.3 million, for struggling learners. This is to show that commitment. This is to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the commitment is there. It does demonstrate it, because that is on top of $111 million, which is twice the level of spending in special education in the past decade. That is significant.

It demonstrates the commitment, but it also demonstrates that the need is there, because we know if we can learn to get it right with the dollars–we know there is a clear commitment that we care, because the dollars are there. We rely on the experts to get us through this so that we have a better learning environment for all young Manitobans, including those who have special requirements. So I wanted to do that early, and it is, in my view, noteworthy that the only thing that has money attached to it that I have been able to do in my first few months is in the area of special education. That happened on purpose. It happened as a result of direct consultation with parents and teachers and others, trustees in the system. I wanted to know what is on people's minds. What are the priorities? What are the issues in education? I think, very clearly, it came out for me, from listening to hundreds and hundreds of people, special education is on the top of everybody's mind.

There are going to be all kinds of strategies in the coming months and years as we develop our system. There are going to be all kinds of think-tank discussions. There will be pilot programs. We know that they were going to–I showed the honourable member yesterday the application form for these best practices coming out of the divisions. We are going to be learning a lot from those things. There is going to be further review of literature and other sources. There is going to be interdepartmental collaboration. We talked about that yesterday. There are going to be symposiums, meetings, gatherings, to share information and general networking.

In the time that we know that we have to spend to do this, consensus is going to build. We are going to see that, just as we have seen in other areas of longer-term change, for example, in health care or in education renewal. Consensus does happen after a while, if you can demonstrate that you are moving in the right direction, and you demonstrate that it is not all your ideas that you are putting forward, that they are ideas from people who actually, day in and day out, work with children. If people know there is quality in what you are putting forward, at first some people are not going to agree, because immediately, well, it is a change, so, well, it must be bad if it is a change, so let us find out what is bad about it, instead of let us find out what is good about it. Sometimes we start at the other end, and even doing it that way, it takes longer when that attitude is the one that prevails than it would otherwise.

It is difficult, too, but you still get to a point where there is some buy-in, if you want to call it that, but acceptance at least that everybody has the right intentions. I mean, how could you have bad intentions when you are trying to do something right for children with special needs? You must be a monster if you have bad intentions in that particular area. So there are not any bad intentions anywhere that I know of, but, in the human endeavours, everybody has their own way of looking at things. Somebody said once–they were making a joke about their farm friends–that if you had two farmers in a room, you would get three opinions. That sometimes happens in rooms around this building. I know that.

An Honourable Member: I thought that was a lawyer joke. It is a farmer joke as well?

Mr. McCrae: It was a farmer joke. It was a farmer who told me that. It is a joke because I happen to know a lot of farmers–I am looking at one right now. Is there anything that you are not, Peter George? [interjection]

Peter George has one opinion, I think–the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck)–on any one given topic. Building consensus–[interjection] Sorry. I will let you know. Building consensus on any topic, when you are dealing with human beings, is a challenging thing to do. When you are dealing with the myriad issues in special education, I think Proactive did a pretty good job coming up with a report that enjoys as much support as it does.

Struggling learners benefit from best practice that demonstrates results. There is no doubt about that. Our Early Literacy Initiative is an example of how we are approaching struggling learners. Manitoba results in this area are very good. I get that from people in the field, that it is just a great investment. We will continue to look at best practice models. That is what we are being asked to do and it makes so much sense. We could spin a lot of wheels for an awful long time, and maybe there has been some of that. Maybe the honourable member, if she is going to be critical, it could be in that area that, you know, more best practices could have been developed earlier or something like that. I am not trying to give her any advice, but that is an easy one. If it is a good idea, then why was it not done before, you know, that sort of thinking. It happens all the time.

The Special Education report strongly endorses the need to continue to examine best practices with respect to policies, protocols, programs, and services. We are committed to this, and we have demonstrated this by much of our previous activity. I mean, we are always open to a better idea, always open to be told that you could have done better. I am. Maybe some of the members of the department are not quite so open to that because they have done such a good job, but that is for them to say on their own.

I think there is reason to be encouraged here. The big thing here that I am happy about is that we have political leaders all onside here. We have stakeholders, almost all. I do not know anybody who has come right out and said: that is a bad report and you should not do anything in there. Nobody has said that to me. So we have got a pretty good piece of consensus going right now.

Along the way, I have no doubt that there will be different ideas coming forward, but I do not think we should be negative about that. I think that is what made this province as good as it is, the fact that we have opened our minds to every idea that comes along. It does not mean we do them all. It is an open-minded optimism and partnership which makes me so confident that we are going to do a good job with this in the coming months and years.

* (1120)

Well, we are going to see a lot of people taking advantage of opportunities that might not have been able to do that. If you put this into human terms, it magnifies the issues manifold when you look into the face of a child and you picture in your mind's eye what would be under present circumstances and what would be almost guaranteed under changed and improved circumstances. It is going to mean so much to the fabric of our society in the future. So I am pretty excited about this.

I support things like we have talked about already, programs that really help children before they get into the school system to be better prepared for that learning experience. Yes, there are some examples of what I think is failure that are quite demoralizing to see them and to know that they are still going on in our province. It is even worse for me because I know that it did not need to be that way, and there are people who have fallen down on the job. I am not going to identify them because I will get into big trouble if I do that, but there are people who should have done better.

I accept whatever level of responsibility for our whole school system, if we could have done better, but I am, at least, quite willing to address those areas where we should do better and to move forward. My criticism is for those who are not prepared to admit that there has ever been any failure or to admit that improvement is very much needed. I mean, if we are going to get that amongst our stakeholders, we are not going anywhere, and that would be a real indictment of our generation. So that is not meant for anybody in this room, but I know there are some people who tend to look at the relationships in a very political or partisan way. When you are dealing with issues like this–I think you should be partisan about things like taxes and that kind of thing.

An Honourable Member: Well?

Mr. McCrae: Well, I want to be partisan about that, because there are some very clear differences between what I stand for and what some others stand for, but I do not like being partisan when it comes to children who have special education needs and those types of issues, or people in personal care and those sorts of circumstances. I hate it that some people use that as a good reason to be partisan.

No fingers being pointed here today, but there are people outside this room who could very well take heart. Hopefully, they will put the children ahead of their own personal, political, partisan need for advancement and lock arms with us. I think there is good support for this, and let us make the best of it.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think the nub of the response to the question of the government's response to recommendation B(6)(1) is that they have supported some early literacy programs, and that they are initiating a process of grants, soliciting ideas from which they will select from the field. We anticipate that in the subsequent years there will be other programs that will emerge from the solicitation that you have made to the field in this grant program.

I want to move to Section C of the special needs report, Quality and Cost-Effectiveness of Special Education Programs. This is an area that I think is a very interesting one. There are two areas, I think, of concern: one is the training of teachers, and the second is the assessment of students with special needs. The report makes, in the case of teachers, a number of specific recommendations. In the case of the assessment procedures for special education students and programs, it makes some very broad general ones.

So maybe we should start with the training of teachers. I have heard the deputy minister speak on this. As a challenge, I would like to hear the minister more formally put on the record what his responses are to these very specific recommendations. I am looking at C(6)(2). People who work with students who have special learning needs must be appropriately trained. Now this partly, I assume, refers to both teachers and to special needs assistants or assistants in the classroom.

Also, it refers, for example, in Section C, to professional development of the school administrators on special ed issues, training for paraprofessionals, reinstatement of minimum qualifications for resource teachers, mandatory preservice training for all teachers in topics related to special education. I think that was the section the deputy minister was referring to as a challenge.

I wonder if the minister could give us the government's response to that particular set of quite specific recommendations, and then I want to come back to look at the assessment issues.

Mr. McCrae: In response to the early part of the honourable member's latest question, I think we are in agreement here. I heard the member refer to programs. Programs are good; however, we have to keep in mind here that if you are going to call something a program in this area of all areas there has to be flexibility, given that every child is different. So I am not into this one-size-fits-all type of programming in this.

I know that you have to have that in certain areas of public endeavour, but I simply want it clear that I want to see developed a system that allows whatever flexibility is required for children whose needs just demand that. If we are going to be narrow in our approach, the kids are going to fall through the cracks a lot, and I do not want that. I believe that everybody can agree with that.

As we have discussed with respect to New Directions and the assessment process, the testing process, there are adaptations of course available for certain of our students and an adaptation can be defined as the act of making changes in the teaching process, materials or student products, to help students achieve the expected learning outcomes. Some examples of adaptations to the test format are Braille or large-print test versions, the audio tape format, oral reading.

If you want examples of adaptations to test administration procedures, there is extra assessment time, there is separate room administration, supervised breaks during testing, all of these sorts of things. Adaptations should parallel as much as possible any special classroom or school adaptations that are used on an ongoing basis to assist the student during the assessment and evaluation activities, provided such adaptations do not jeopardize the validity of the examination or test or create inequities in examination or test administration procedures for other students. Any request on behalf of a student for an adaptation should be made with the full knowledge and signed consent of the student's parents or guardians or the student if he or she has reached the age of majority.

Approval of additional time to complete an examination or test will be based on practice normally followed by the school in evaluating students. Total time to complete the examination or test generally should not exceed twice the scheduled writing time. Continuous supervision during the additional writing time must be assured. [interjection] Well, I know the honourable member was asking about the training of teachers, and we are going to get some response. The longest way around the mountain can sometimes be the shortest way home.

* (1130)

We want to strengthen the opportunity for educators–and I think this gets a little closer to what the honourable member was asking–to acquire the knowledge and skills to work with diverse needs. Manitoba Education and Training, along with the universities will review on an ongoing basis preservice requirements in continuing education opportunities for all teachers to help them address the diverse learning needs of students. This is getting closer to what the honourable member is talking about. I mean, what are teachers coming out of university with? Are they coming out prepared to deal with the variety of issues in our schools?

In collaboration with universities, Manitoba Education and Training will examine the advisability of changing the program of study for a special education certificate to include a combination of course work and rigorous professional development activities. Manitoba Education and Training will establish an advisory committee to ensure that the qualifications and certification process for clinicians and resource and special education teachers reflect the skills and knowledge essential to work with students with special needs. Manitoba Education and Training will review the minimum qualifications for school counsellors and to strengthen opportunities that provide paraprofessionals with the knowledge and skills to work in inclusive learning communities. Manitoba Education and Training will provide paraprofessionals across divisions and districts with opportunities for knowledge and skill acquisition.

We want to achieve results for children and youth with special needs. They require skilled professionals and paraprofessionals, and they require the effective allocation, organization, and use of financial resources.

To enhance the expertise of professionals and paraprofessionals working with children and youth currently presenting complex challenges to inclusive learning communities, in collaboration with other government departments and community agencies, Manitoba Education and Training will create cross-jurisdictional training opportunities for staff who work with children and youth in a variety of community settings.

To enhance the learning community's awareness of efficient and effective deployment of human resources, Manitoba Education and Training will work with school divisions and educational organizations to research, review, and share best practices in the deployment of human resources for students with special needs.

To develop improved processes for allocating financial support for children and youth with special needs, Manitoba Education and Training will assess the distribution of the co-ordinator clinician grants to ensure that the grants reflect current enrollment and geographical factors.

Further, I am advised that the Deputy Minister of Education, Mr. Carlyle, has met the deans council to talk about this. The deans, within their own facilities, are looking at the messages in the Special Education Review respecting teacher training and looking at approaches. So we have certainly begun, more than just begun, to move on these things. Eventually it might be necessary to include specific requirements in teacher certification to ensure the training and education for prospective teachers has in fact occurred.

This is something that we are going to have to engage in some discussion about, because we know that the needs out there will require, as I think the needs always have done, that the curricula for those training to be teachers or educating to be teachers have to change as society changes. That has to be done with appropriate consultation.

Ultimately, I hope that we will be able to consult with a professional organization for teachers. That is what I have been working on. I have been pleased to know Jan Speelman for a long time. With thanks to Mr. MacIntyre, I also offer congratulations to Ms. Speelman for taking over the helm of the Teachers' Society I guess at the end of this month or some point like that, soon anyway. She has been on the executive of the Teachers' Society, Jan has, and we have discussed a number of items with them. One of them is a professional agency or organization for teachers. My mind is open about that. Teachers recognize that they need to be recognized for what they are, i.e., professionals, and there is a function that teachers can handle themselves in terms of protection of the public and in terms of disciplining if there is unfortunately ever any need for that.

I have asked the department to assist me in this endeavour. I have had a couple of discussions with Ms. Speelman about this, and I want to be able to bring forward something that we can talk about together that can work towards the development of a teachers college, if that is what it is going to be called, or whatever it is. So we are moving forward with that.

I am happy about that, because I have a very great respect for members of the teaching profession. I think they do something that is as important in the development of our society as anybody else, any other profession in our society does. I can go by my own experience, but I can look at others around me and ask myself: where would they be if it had not been for their teachers? Where would the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) be? I shudder to think where he would be if it had not been for the impact on his life of members of the teaching profession. Now, I do not even want to go there, where the honourable member for Pembina might be.

An Honourable Member: Did you know that the wonderful singer Loreena McKenitt was a student of mine?

Mr. McCrae: I did not know that. I am going to tell the folks at home about that, because we are fans of Ms. McKenitt out our way. To know that part of her experience has been influenced by one Peter George Dyck will be of interest.

In any event, I make no joke about this. This is a serious matter. The Teachers' Society representatives feel strongly about this. I believe that they are professionals and ought to be dealt with in that way or treated that way, so I am very interested in that. Maybe that is a long way of getting around to the point, but is that not a function also of a professional body, to advise university deans and educators about their views about what ought to be part of a teacher's training.

What about paraprofessionals? I met with teaching assistants a couple of weeks ago, and these people are extremely important in the classroom and in the school. They will probably be needing training and qualifications and something spelled out that suggests some kind of minimum standard here, because I think that there is a sense amongst these paraprofessional teachers that they are not being utilized to the maximum benefit. That is probably true, but we will find out more about that as we go along. As we do that, we are probably going to discover that we need to bring in certain requirements and training opportunities for them, and we are obviously prepared to look at that.

* (1140)

We are going to do all of these things, bearing in mind local hiring issues. If the training and requirements are set too high and too onerous, are we going to be able to attract people like that, the same kinds of issues as you get with nursing or other professions, as we have addressed nursing issues in the past? Sometimes you end up–in some people's minds at least–creating shortages, or helping to create shortages. We do not want to do that at a time when we need just the opposite, at a time when numbers of teachers are going to be declining if we do not take the appropriate actions.

I mean the average age, I understand it, of teachers is getting on up there, around like where the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) and I are, and maybe the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) too, getting to an age where people are starting to look at them as approaching retirement. As a matter of fact, I am told that quite a large percentage of our present teaching population in Manitoba will indeed be retirement age or expected to be in that range in the next four or five years. That is pretty significant–well deserved. But, on the other hand, we are left with some pretty significant challenges. Are we training and educating enough to fill in the vacancies as they become available, and are these people going to have the right skills to address the challenges of the future? No more could that be true than in the area of special education. We do not want to have rigid and onerous requirements, but there needs to be some kind of minimum as well in order for us to do the right thing for the children.

So finding that balance is going to be our challenge, one that we accept, and I know from my discussions with Jan Speelman that she and her organization are quite happy to accept the challenge. I have enjoyed my early contacts with members of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Even though Mr. MacIntyre would not let me take part in a debate, I do not hold that against him personally. I do not agree with the position he took. Maybe he had orders; I do not know. But he was the boss. I just say that maybe he should not have done that, but that is his decision to make. He made it, and he and I both and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and everybody will all have to live with whatever the result is.

I just think that special education was something that I wanted to talk about. I wanted the people there to know the views of the government of Manitoba. Somebody made the decision that the views of the government of Manitoba were not required that day and that the more partisan approach taken by the other two leaders was what they wanted that day, and that is what they got.

An Honourable Member: We live in a democracy.

Mr. McCrae: We live in a democracy, and you would think living in a democracy that speech and sharing of ideas would be an important thing. That did not happen that day, and I was not very happy about it. But life goes on. I will try to make up for whatever we lost that day by working as closely as I can with the Manitoba Teachers' Society, because I believe in that group and that relationship that I can develop with that group are some really important results. I like to think I am off to a good start, and I will do nothing to jeopardize that relationship because it is important to me and, through me, the children of Manitoba. If we can only put the children uppermost in our thoughts as we address our responsibilities, we will succeed, we are much more likely to succeed.

On the point raised specifically by the honourable member about the training of teachers and the requirements, I think what I said a few minutes ago addresses that. But, just to be really clear about it, I have to point out that this is a difficult area because not everywhere is the same in Manitoba. That is one of our strengths, but it also presents us with challenges. We need to have skill levels and minimum qualifications at a level that get the job done for the kids but also are sustainable in the sense that you can attract people like that in all of the places where they are needed.

So I look forward to any advice that I might get on that point from the department, from the honourable member, the Teachers' Society, paraprofessional teachers, all of those different points of view. I need to have them all in order to adopt the right policies for the future respecting qualifications and respecting the training that is needed.

Ms. Friesen: So the summary answer is that the government is prepared to move on each of these five recommendations, that they are prepared to look at the reinstatement of minimum qualifications for resource teachers, and they are prepared to work with the prospect of a college of teachers for professional development.

The issue that I raised of the universities the minister responded to with the fact that the deputy minister had met with the dean's council, and as I said, I have heard the deputy minister speak on this. He refers to it as a challenge and it is a long-standing challenge. There is clearly a difference of opinion between many people in the field, particularly parents, on the nature of teacher training and the required number of specific courses in particular areas. I think everyone has a number of variations on that, but the universities respond–at least I should say that some universities respond–with a quite different perspective on the training of teachers in special education. The incorporation of certain principles into every course, I think, would be the basic assumption versus often a parentally expressed one of requiring specific courses.

I would be interested in hearing from the minister of what kind of report he has had from the deputy minister on his meeting with deans. It is not a new issue. It is a long-standing one and I wondered what position the government was taking on this; he does have a new Faculty of Education. Is there any opportunity there for the minister to stimulate a different kind of thinking, a different kind of construction than has been the long-standing difference of opinion, I would say, within Manitoba?

I also wonder whether the board of teacher education has a role to play in this. The minister has spoken at considerable length about a variety of issues, one of which was teacher education, but there was no mention of the role of BOTEC which the minister–well, I do not know actually offhand what the composition is, but I know that the minister does have a number of appointees, and I think the majority of appointees are government appointees.

I am wondering when the last meeting of BOTEC was and whether this issue in special education and particularly this recommendation has been put before BOTEC.

Mr. McCrae: I thought I was pretty clear, but I do not think I want the honourable member to jump to conclusions about the reinstatement of minimum qualifications for resource teachers. I mean, it has to be looked at very carefully and I think that is what I am saying, that we will obviously be doing that, but I think I tried to point out that that needs to be done not simply from the standpoint of the view of the Deputy Minister of Education or the view of the Minister of Education or any one person. This would not be consistent with the approach that we have used in the past, that of consensus building.

* (1150)

I mean, anybody who has any common sense will recognize that if you raise the standard too high, you simply will not be able to fill the need. If you set it too low, then you are not going to be spending your money wisely; you are not going to be getting the right results for the children. You are going to create issues with other professionals working in the field, which if you do that needlessly, then you are not being very responsible. So it is a balance that needs to be drawn, and I think what we are saying is that we want to be balanced in our approach, so that at the end of the day anybody, any reasonable person looking at the situation will say that on balance, faced with a difficult task, they did the right thing.

That is what we all strive to get, is the approval of reasonable people. There are some people who are not reasonable and maybe it would be hard to ever get their approval, but even unreasonable people have ideas to offer. You have to be a little more careful with them, about which ones you just buy into. I think the wisdom of all of this is in your ability to perceive which ones are reasonable and which ones are not.

It is not always 100 percent a pure science, so that is where a person's judgment comes into play, and we have to be judged at the end of the day on the judgments we make. One needs to be made here and it will be based on a fair consideration of everybody's point of view.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Board of Teacher Education and Certification and the deans, we expect that both those groups would be part of the consultation process, interested in knowing their point of view. The idea is to be inclusive. As I say, the advice of all of these agencies and people is important to us. Anybody who is in a position to give us some learned advice, we need to get it. Not all the advice we get is going to be the same, and that is where the warning bells start ringing because if you ask somebody's advice and then you do not follow it, they feel offended about it. At this point, I am not able to say what that advice is going to be, nor am I going to be able to say how we are going to respond to it, but we are interested in knowing and having the input.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, has this been put before BOTEC yet? Was it specifically addressed with the meeting with the deans? I repeat, I am looking for the government's response to the basic division–division is too strong–a difference of opinion about how special education should be incorporated into the curriculum for new teachers. It is obvious, as the minister said, we are going to have a renewed generation of teachers, and so this issue of the training of new teachers is a very important one.

The government, I think, has been given some very specific recommendations here by the review, and I am interested in their response. I understand the minister to be saying that he is going to be consulting with a wide range of people. I would like to know whether he has met with BOTEC, whether it has been put before BOTEC as a specific series of recommendations, and what the summary of the discussion with the deans was and where the minister intends to take that particular step. What is the next step in that area?

Mr. McCrae: We will, of course, take this to the Board of Teacher Education and Certification, but the honourable member knows the pitfalls very well, the various interests that are part of that. Sometimes, in order to find consensus, you get something that is a little less meaningful than the requirements that the kids might suggest is appropriate. So that is a difficult area. You almost need to have somebody like Job present at all of these–Job was apparently a very wise person in the Old Testament. Was he not the wise one? [interjection] Job had patience. Who was the wise one? Oh, it was Solomon. Solomon was a really wise king, and I think that while we have quite a few Solomons in Manitoba, we do not have enough yet.

The point that I am getting at is that good quality consensus is what I need and what we all need. I think when you ask a group of people with diverse interests and conflicting interests in some cases to come up with a product, you might be a little bit disappointed. I hope not, but we certainly want their input, and we would like to see what comes out of that. But, please, ask people just to–when you go to the stakeholders' meeting, leave your stakes outside the room. Put the kids first if you can possibly do that. I do not know how many times I have said that but with varying degrees of success, not as much as I would like. But that is understandable in human endeavours. People tend to represent the organization they are sent to represent. Sometimes it would be nice if they did not represent an organization and just represented the kids. However, we will carry on.

This is a very important part of the work. The kids have to benefit here, and at the end of it all, sometimes ministers have to come along and make some decisions and be accountable for it, for the decisions that are made. I have accepted the job; I am prepared to do that. I still hope for the best products I can get from multistakeholder consultations. I hope right down to the wire that we will have good, good quality recommendations for the good of the children.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being 12 noon, committee rise.