Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 20B - 9 a.m., Friday, April19, 1996 ISSN 0542-5492

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Aff"iliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Pa1:t): N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, April19, 1996 The House met at 9 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Good mo rning. Will the Co mmittee of Supply please come to order. This morning this

section of the Committee of :Supply will be resumi ng consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education. When the committee 1recessed yesterday afternoon, the minister was going to 1introduce the staff in attendance and then the committee 'MlS to proceed with consideration of line 1. (

b) Executive :Support on page 34 of the Main Estimates book. The ho nourable minister, to introduce her staff present. :Uon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to in troduce ttoday at the table with me the Deputy Minister of Education Mr. John Carlyle. Along with Mr. John Carlyle, we have Mr. Jim Glen who is one of the assistant deputy ministers with finance and along with tthose two gentlemen, we have Mr. Tom Thom pson. His t�xact title is director of finance with the Department of Education.

Jim Glen's exact title is assistant deputy 11Ilinister, Administration and Finance. I would like to tthank them not just fo r being here today but fo r all of the very, very good work they have done in the last year. 'They are very helpful and very prof essional people whose quality of work I fee l is superb. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would ask leave to make a very brief opening remark. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee fo r the member fo r The Maples to make an op ening r emar k? [agreed] Mr. Kowalski: I will be very, very brief.

First of all, a com pliment to the minister about her effort as Minister of Education. Quite often, I do not agree with many of her actions and policies, but I will never discount her eff ort. I am one to put in long hours here and I continue to see her here worki ng in her office quite late at night and quite early in the mornin g, and I commend her fo r the eff orts she is making in her department. Having said that, I am concerned about many of the directions that this gov ernm ent is going in.

It bears mentioni ng just to remi nd myself, as well as to put it on the record, and I said it in my Budget Debate, that in the role of opposition, quite often we criticize gov ernm ent policies, and in the heat of debate sometimes members take the criticism personally. I want to put on the record that I separate my criticism of the minister 's policies from criticism of the minister personally. The role of opposition is very important.

A dictatorship is probably a very effi cient fo rm of gov ernm ent, probably gets things done very quickly, very efficiently, but it is not the best fo rm of go vernmen t, and that is why we have opposition to com pliment the gov ernm ent when we agree with the policies-and I have-and to criticize the gov ernm ent when we do not agree with their polic ies. That is our very important role here, and I will continue to do that.

Speaking about education in general, more and more in the past year as the Education critic for the Liberal members in the Manitoba Legislature and fo rmerly as a school trustee and as a parent to a 15-year-old daughter, and now I am a student taking a certificate course at the University of Winnipeg to become a teaching assistant when I grow up- An Honourable Member: You could do that after the next election. Mr. Kowalski: The member says I could do it after the next election. Who knows what will happen after the next election. Re-election has never been that important to me.

I am here to make changes to my community, to the province ofManitoba. I am not here to be re-elected; I am here to do what is important. All those experiences more and more re-enf orce that the most important elemen t in the education system is not

992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1996 the minister, is not the curriculum, it is not even the policies, but it is the classroom teacher, the person who has day-to-day contact with the child. I do not think there is any educational system that could ever prevent a good teacher from teaching. I believe in some directions we might be testing the edges of that envelope.

Good teachers, no matter what, will succeed, will care about their students, will d9 a good job, and it is becoming more and more apparent in sometimes difficult situations that teachers are going above and beyond the call of duty constantly. Yesterday, I attended Forum '96 in the River East School Division, and I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) was the guest speaker there.

A presentation was put on about many of the internship programs, work experience programs, alternative education programs, and, of course, they had the usual-the representative from the school board, the representative of the superintendent team, and then from each high school, Miles Mac, Kildonan East, River East, they had one teacher talk about their program. In the most powerful part of the presentation, a student from that program came forward and talked about their experiences. There was one young lady, I do not remember her name , from Miles Mac Collegiate who talked about last year.

Her average was 41 percent. She had missed 17 days of school during the school year. As a result of this new program they have at Miles Mac Collegiate, my alma mater by the way, she now has an 85 percent average. She has only missed one day of school. This program-wh ere instead of having a number of teachers, she only has two teachers. Last year, she only received four credits; this year, she will be able to get 12 high school credits. Most importantly, even more so than the marks and attendance , was her attitude.

She was looking forward, she had a vision of her future, and she attributed it to the support that she received from those two teachers. That was the strongest element of that program, was the connection between the student and the teacher. I am sure we are going to hear about federal ofll oading during these Estimates a number of times, and we are going to hear about the $2 million a day on interest from the deficit. I like what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) said during his Budget Debate-get over it, get over it.

All governments of all diff erent political stripes in the '80s during a tough recession, whether it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the '70s, whether it was Peter Lou gheed, no matter who it was, whether it was Conservative, NDP or Liberal governments, that was the economics of the time and deficits were created and, yes, we have to deal with them. So let us get over it. It is a reality; it is there.

Just as when I was a school trustee when the provincial government cut our spending, we could have spent hours upon hours complaining about it, but we had to get on with the business, the business of what we were doing in Seven Oaks School Division and we did. *

(0910) The other

part is there is an inconsistency. The criticisms that the provincial government gives about the federal government cutbacks, it is funny how they do not hold true when we talk about the $120-million surplus and why it is important to not spend that and how the additional lottery revenues, we do not take that into con sideration. There are choices there. At a speech I said to the Kelvin High School teachers' public forum last night, I mentioned that Choices, who are not necessarily my best friends, created an alternative budget.

There are choices; there are other ways of doing things so we do not have to suff er some of the cutbacks we are seeing in education in Manitoba. Right now, myfimril y is an analogy, possibly, of what is going on in society in that I am running a large MasterCard balance and I pay interest on that, but does that mean. last summer when we were short of money, we were paying interest on a MasterCan:l balance, that it was not wise for me to spend the money I spent on mini­ university for my daughter to send her to mini-university as an investment?

Would it have been better to put that money to pay down that MasterCard bill so I would not have had the interest payments this year and would have more money to spend on her education in the future? The world does not stop. The needs, whether it is in health care, education, continue regardless of the interest payments we have to pay on any debt. So there are alternatives. I will not go into detail repeating what I said in the Budget Debate about the common belief that taxes are bad, government is bad and public service is bad, therefore, if we had no taxes, no government, no public

April l9 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 993 service, it would be a better world. No, that would be anarchy. That would be survival of the fittest. And yet, that seems to be the direction that we are going in public ,education in that because taxes are bad, so the less taxes we have, the less public service we have, the less public school system we have, the better off we are. Only the strong, the independently wealthy, the people who could .afford it will succeed, will be able to go to university. I am concerned about that direction we are going in.

I said I would be brief, and I have gone a little bit too long. I will just finish by saying, with those criticisms, as is my duty as an opposition member, that I know all mem bers here care about children, care about the province of Manitoba, and I will respect the minister's right to make the final decision, but I hope she will continue to respect our right to oppose her policies. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): We are on line 16.1(b), I think. We are looking at Executive Support. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am sorry. It is l. (

b) Executive Support

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $631 ,900. Shall the item pass? Ms. Friesen: This is a line which over the last three or fom years has shown considerable increase. I note if we go back to 1993-94 that this line was at $361,000. We are being asked here to pass a line of $625,000. Could the minister explain some of these historical changes? Mrs. Mcinto sh: The main reason is the creation of the second deputy minister for the post-secondary side. Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain the increase this year from $590,000 to $625,000 that we are being .asked to approve here? Mrs.

Mcintosh: At the time the Estimates were being :prepared, the department was not at that time able to ,:;on:finn the classification or salary level for the new deputy minister because it had not yet been decided, but that new deputy minister's salary in fact has not changed :tTom his old salary.

In the meantime, this had to be printed, so to ensure the sum appropriation was suffi ciently resourced and to avoid having to have a supplementary funding issue, the budget was based upon a DR3, a Deputy Minister 3, at the maximum salary and that is not really the case, as it turns out, because the new deputy's salary is actually that of a DR2, the same as he had before. So that money will probably lapse. It was put in there because at the time of printing we were uncertain and we wanted to budget for the highest-case scenario which, in reality, is not the case . Ms.

Friesen: Could the minister tell us what the maximum salary is then that she budgeted for at a Deputy Minister 3? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, the maximum that had been budgeted for was $116,000. Ms. Friesen: And I believe the new deputy minister comes in at a salary of about $110,000. Mrs. Mcintosh: No, you are wrong. I know that the MGEU printed and distributed widely as fact a salary that in fact they had not researched and did not know, and you may be going with what the union is telling you.

However , as those who are actually paying the money, I can indicate that salaiy is $99,000, not the figure that the MGEU has published as a fact. They probably should correct that because it is a disservice to the individual involved and a very, very poor reflection on their integrity and credibility. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, that DR2 salary, $99,000, is that a maximum? Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes, it is. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, could the minister tell me what changes there have been in her st aff this year, and could she give me the salary levels of the people she has in her department in this area? Mrs.

Mcintosh: On all the st aff? [interjection] Oh, just on this line, okay. The st aff is looking to get numbers. I will give you the names of the people in the meantime and their position. We have Pearl Domienik, who is the administrative secretary to the minister. We then have two administra tive secretaries in the outer office, Debbie Milani and Sharon Curtis Lesley. The two assistants who are traditionally assigned to ministers, Beverley Hares, executive assistant, Connie Hall , special assistant.

994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1996 *

(0920) We have, in the deputy minister's office for Kindergarten to Senior 4 John Carlyle as deputy minister, and he has two people working in this office, Nicole La Roche, his executive assistant and Diana McCly mont, administrative secretary to the deputy minister. On the Training and Advanced Education side of the department, we have Tom Carson, the deputy minister and Yolande Choiselat, assistant to the deputy minister and Gail O'NeilL the administrative secretary there, and, if the member will just pause for a moment, I will get the figures. Mrs.

Mcintosh: The salaries in the order that I gave the names-for the administrative secretary to the minister, $37 ,000. These are gross salaries that do not have anything taken off them. That was Pearl Domienik, $37,000; Debbie Milani, $31,000; Beverly Hares, $48,000; Connie Hall , $41,000; Sharon Curtis-Leslie, $31,000. Now into the two deputies' offices-John Carlyle, $116,000; Nicole LaRoche, $49,000; Diana McCly mont, $36,000. In the other side of the department- Tom Carson, $99 ,OOO;Y olande Choiselat, $49,000; Gail O'Neill, $34,000. Ms.

Friesen: Could the minister tell us what changes in salaries there have been in each of those positions over the past year? Mrs. Mcintosh: The staff will obtain last year's salaries. They indicate to me that there were no adjustments beyond the normal annual increment that civil servants receive. So the annual increment is included in this from last year's base, and what also is not included in this is the four days reduction. The base salaries, we will provide for you and table them as soon as they come-the base salaries from last year. Ms.

Friesen: The minister is asking us to look at an increase here of from $590,000 to $625,000 minus, I assume, the $17,000 diff erence in the deputy minister's salary. Could she explain what that diff erence is for? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, it can be summarized in this way. The adjustments for salaries included money that was identified for the deputy minister of Training and Advanced Educaion which will not be applied. The merit ilx:reases , in total l3 .5, the merit being the annual increment, the accrual - Ms. Friesen: 13.5 what? *

(0930) Mrs. Mcintosh: Thousand I am sorry, 13.5 thousand. I appreciate the member's request for clarification there. The department is switching to an accrual method of acc ounting. The accrual for one day is $13,200; miscel laneous, $3,000; and that is a total of $49,000. Those are the adjustments, those are the rationale for the adjustment for salaries. Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain the accrual method for accounting and how that leads to a $13,200 increase? Mrs.

Mcintosh: I appreciate staff giving me the information here because my background is not in accounting, but I could explain it this way-and maybe it is easier for one layperson explaining it to another. To explain it simply: basically we used to pay 26 bi-weekly pay cheques for the year, but some years, of course, have 27, and so the accounting is changing to reflect the actual year, the actual days used in that year.

That means that this year will have one extra pay that we distribute because we will have 27 instead of 26, and that accrual that I referred to earlier when I said one day's accrual of $13,000--$13.2 it actually is-is that extra period. Ms. Friesen: Is this then system-wide throughout both the department and the government, and should we anticipate this kind of same percen tage increase in every line of salary in this department and in the government? Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes. Ms.

Friesen: Could the minister tell me whether her staff or how her staff dealt with the issue of so-called Filmon Fridays, the work reduction weeks, and how that is accounted for in the Estimates as presented here? Mrs. Mcintosh: Here they are showing the salaries with the workweek reduction removed. That is the net salary that has been identified.

April l9 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 995 Ms. Friesen: I am sorry, I do not understand that. I thought earlier the minister had been giving me a list of base salaries, and now we are talking net salary. So I probably need some clarification on that. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister, to clarify. Mrs. Mcintosh: The individual salaries that I read out earlier are the base salaries. The summation that the member is looking at shows the summation of those salaries with the workweek reduction and other things removed, so that they are the total net total. Ms.

Friesen: Could the minister tell us a little more about how her department dealt with Filmon Fridays with that workweek reduction? We will stick to this particular line, to the administrative executive support. Did everyone take that workweek reduction? Was there a rotation of st aff over certain periods of that time? Did everybody whose name the minister read out to me take that workweek reduction? Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes, everyone took the workweek reduction in terms of salary. The minister and the minister's special assistant did not take the days off, but they did take the reduction.

That was applied to ev erybody . If you are asking, did they take the time off? Most did, some did not, but they all took the workweek reduction in terms of salaries. The minister's office was still open though, with the minister's assistant and the minister. Ms. Friesen: Could we come back now to the $13,000 adjustment for salaries that is in here? Earlier the minister-just for the concern of staff, I see them puzzling over this-had said that what was included here in this increase was $13,500 for merit increases; $13,200 for the accrual method of accounting and then $3,000 for miscellaneous.

So I am going back now to that first item, that $13 ,5 00 .adjustme nt for salaries, including merit increases. I wonder if the minister could give us a breakdown of how that is .distributed in this group. Does it apply, for ,example, to the ministerial assistance? Does it apply to the deputy ministers? Does it apply to everyone whose :name was read out? Mrs. Mcintosh: It applies to everybody. That is the figure that I indicated. If you would like the breakdown, st aff will provide it. It might be later in the day though because they do not have it here. Ms. Friesen: The minister mentioned it as merit increases.

Could the minister explain to me, for the record, what merit increases are? How they are judged? How they are applied? Mrs. Mcintosh: The way in which that works, Mr. Chairman, is that ann ually, with each year of experience, the person becomes eligible for a merit increment. The supervisor must do a report on the employee and indicate the reasons why they feel that employee has worked to earn a merit increase. If it is felt that the individual has not performed in a way that merits an increase, then of course they do not get the merit increase.

A form comes around to each supervisor asking them to do a report on the employee and indicate whether or not that employee should be granted the merit increase. Then that will continue for a specified number of years until they reach a maximum, and thereafter, there is no more eligibility for increments beyond that point. Ms. Friesen: How many years does it take to achieve that maximum, or what is the average number? *

(0940) Mrs. Mcintosh: It varies from one area to another, but it is proper to indicate that somewhere between six or seven and 10 years, depending upon the individual's role. Ms. Friesen: That report on employees, is it done-1 know in some companies it is done in conjunction with the emplo yee, that the supervisor will fill out a report on the employee. The employee will sign it, will discuss it with them. Plans are perhaps made for the next year, and then there is a subsequent evaluation. That is the level of discussion I am looking for. Could the minister explain to me what happens within her department? Mrs.

Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, we have two procedures the member is referring to. There are performance appraisals that are done with employees and their supervisors, and if it is a full-fledged performance appraisal, which occurs from time to time but not on a

996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1996 stipulated time line, then fo r those the employee would be asked to sign. The merit increments, the employee does not have to sign those. The supervisor does that on an annual basi s, and the merit increment is normally granted on that annual basis, the supervisor still has to send in the fo rm and everything, but unless the perf ormance is less than satisfactory it is not normally a case fo r interacti on with the supervisor and the employee. So there are two diff erent things going on here.

Of course, there is usually ongoing dialogue between supervisors and employ ees. Most employees have a pretty good sense on a daily basis as to their perf ormance. Ms. Friesen: Is there an expectation in merit increases that the employee will have had some guidelines set in the previous year which will have been met? Is there an exp ectation that employees will have exceeded requirements or exceeded previous years ? The minister used the word satisfacto ry, not quite in this context, but I am ttying to get at what the levels of judgement are. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr.

Chair, employees have job descriptions, and the job descriptions will normally indicate fa irly concisely what is expected of that employee on a day-by-day basis . The perf ormance review process is ongo ing. It occurs daily . It is normal between an employee and that emplo yee's immediate supervisor. But in short, merit reviews are summative that once a year you would pause and say, according to this job descr iption, are the daily tasks being perf ormed? If it is a secretary in the outer office, fo r example, is the corresp ondence being filed properly? Those kinds of things .

The perf oiiDanCe review proce ss could become a more in�epth thing on perhaps the mutual setting of goal s, et cetera, fo r those whose job does not have routine tasks, but the job description is the ultimate indicator of goals and objectives. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, could the minister explain how deputy ministers are evaluated and how increments are awarded in that case? Mrs. Mcintosh: Deputy ministers are also subject to the merit review.

The deputy minister 's role is sli ghtly different in that it is defined by The Civil Service Act and the merit increment fo r them would be governed according to the same rules as with other employees, that once a year pause when the supervisor-in this case it would be the minister-would look to see if the year's work has been done satisfactorily. If there is no major problem, then the merit increment could be granted, or if there is a problem, discussion could occur to correct that problem. Ms. Friesen: Is the time frame for merit increments for deputy ministers about the same, the six to seven years? Mrs.

Mcintosh: Yes, as long they are not at maximum, it is on an annual basis. *

(0950) Ms. Friesen: It seems to me that there are strong similarities between what happens in the department and what happens to teachers . I know that the ministe r's review and the min ister's proposals fo r changes to teacher compensation suggest departures from this, and so I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that, in the com parability between the civil service and the teaching prof ession on merit increments and evaluations . Mrs.

Mcintosh: Oh, would that they were similar, because if they were similar then boards would be fo rced to sit down every year and evaluate a teacher 's perf ormance to see if a merit increment was justified. That is the main point of departure that has been identified in the accountab ility document, that was identified by trustees; that is the main point of departure from the way the civil service runs.

The way the school divisions run is that here in gov ernm ent merit increments are only granted upon a signed document by the supervisor indicating that perf ormance is satisfactory and that the job description has been well met. If there is any problem, it has to be brought to the employee 's attention and the merit increase denied.

I would wager that if the member searched the full breadth and width of this province, the member would have a very, very difficult time finding any teacll er whose merit increment has been denied and would find very few instances in which a summative report has been done on that teacher before a merit increment was granted . In

_Aprill9, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 997 school divisions, the merit increments are more properly c;alled automatic annual increments and, in fact, many boards now do refer to them as automatic annual ilncrements because they occur with no obligation for assessment, with no obligation for a look at the c�mployee's work, with no obligation to inform the c�ployee that anything needs improving. So the member is correct in identifYing that those two procedures do need comparing.

I am absolutely delighted that she raised that c;omparison because that has been the main bone of c;ontention, that in private industry and other levels of :government, employees do have to have some sort of ��valuation on an annual basis before they are given an automatic annual increment. Ms. Friesen: So what I understand the minister is looking for then in terms of accountability is an annual signed statement, similar to that used in the civil service, which says that this employee has met the job description, that their job performance is satisfactory. I understand that that is what she said. Mrs.

Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, that must be corrected, the conclusions drawn by the member, and I would ask permission that each time an incorrect conclusion is drawn by the member that I be given the opportunity to c;orrect it for the record. I am not saying that the school divisions should adopt the government's model. That is an incorrect .assumption. I have repeatedly, over and over, indicated to the member and to the opposition that we have no preconceived notions as to what the outcome should be.

We do have some defined problems, and the document defines problems and asks the field to suggest ways in which it could be improved. There are many who would feel that the government model does not do enough in terms of evaluation and merit and would say it does not go far enough and that what teachers require is far more than just the immediate sup ervisor indicating approval, but that they should :include as well other fuctors for consideration in deciding whether or not a teacher should get an automatic raise.

What we have heard loudly and clearly, and I know the member has heard it loudly and clearly as well, is that an automatic raise should not be given just because one more year of experience has been put in. Experience is important and in most cases experience is a growing experience, but in some cases an extra year of experience using bad habits is an extra year to reinforce bad habits that will then be that much harder to undo. So there are many factors.

Because I indicate to the member that the government model of granting annual merit increases, if deserved, is a superior model to the school division, and I say it is a superior model to the school divisions, the member is incorrect to conclude that because this is a superior model in my opinion, it is therefore the model that I wish to impose upon school divisions. I wish to see school divisions, together with their members, come to an unde rstanding that performance evaluations must take place on a more regular basis, with more defined criteria.

They must be thorough and regular and more frequent than they curr ently are, and they should seriously consider tying increased monies received to the indication that the performance, in fact, has been good. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, could the minister tell us when the last time was in this

section of her department when someone did not receive their annual merit increment? One of the procedures that the minister established early on was that these could be denied and she would see I think as one way of an effective evaluation system that such inc rements could be denied. That is what she is proposing for the teaching profession. Could she tell us how frequent an occasion this is likely to be, giving, for example, her own department? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, in my own branch, to my knowledge, the staff indicates there have not been any in recent years where they have been denied.

The point I am trying to make is that there has been opp ortunity to deny them, and that is the critical point. We take very careful pains when we are hiring people for minister's offices and for senior levels of government to ensure that we place people properly in the first instance, and that is another issue that we may like to talk about in terms of hiring and firing throughout the part of Education that is not directly accountable to government. Proper hiring in the first place will ensure that you do not have a lot of mistakes. Where you have a lot of mistakes

998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19 , 19 96 in terms of hiring, nonnally what happens is the employee will ultimately not be there anymore and we may have some instances of that having occ urr ed. But the point that the member overlooks, inherent in her question, is the fact that I have opportunity as a minister and my deputies and the ADMs and the directors have opportunities as supervisors on an annual basis to deny a raise. They have that opportunity. The employees know that The employees do not wish to see a denial occ ur on a merit increment form.

Everybody is conscious of that time of the year when it comes around. I am not saying that is why perfo rmance stays high. I am just saying everybody knows it, and in the school division that does not occur. Hopefull y, if everybody is doing their job right, there should not be very many denials. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to bring, perhaps this afternoon or tomorrow, a copy of the employee evaluation forms that are commonly used within the department. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, we do not have them here, but I will try to bring them in this afternoon.

If we do not have them this afternoon, we will have them at the next time that we meet. Apparently, we will have them this afternoon. *

(1000) I just want to indicate as well that many employees in government are appointed by Order-in-Council and they can be removed without cause. There is no tenure as there is in teaching, for example, where you are given job security in exchange for having been there for a certain period of time. So no tenure for Order-in-Council employees. They can be removed without cause, and nonnally if their perfo rmance is not satisfactory that is what happens. They are just let go and replaced by others. That is another difference, but then those are 0/Cs; they are political appointments in that sense. Ms.

Friesen: I thank the minister for bringing in that form, and it is of course a blank form that I am looking for, the evaluation methods and procedures. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether the evaluation forms for deputy ministers are similar? Are they the same, I should say, or are they different forms? If they are diff erent, may I also see a copy of a blank evaluation form for deputy ministers? Mrs. Mcintosh: The merit form for deputies is worded slightly diff erently. We will table that for you as well.

Deputies, because of their close association with ministers and government hierarchy, are evaluated on a day-to-day basis, and the ultimate supervisor for deputies, of course, is cabinet. Many of the day-to-day interactions are verbal or oral in terms of the constant ongoing assessment, but the annual merit increment is done similarly to the other employees. The form is slightly different, and we will table that for you as well. Ms. Friesm: The minister has also indicated that there is a ceiling which is reached, eventually, by most staff, I assume. I wonder what the minister's thoughts are on that?

Again, I am drawing the comparisons to the criticisms that have been laid about teachers' evaluations and teachers' ceilings and annual increments and those sorts of things. Now, we have that in the civil service. Is the minister arguing that in the civil service this is appropriate but perhaps is not appropriate for teachers, or is the minister, perhaps, not content with that in the civil service and would like to see changes there? Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Bon.

Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): The other Committee of Supply has recessed for about 15 or 20 minutes because of the Holocaust reading of listed names in the rotunda. Public Acco unts has also recessed. You might want to consider it. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to recess for 15 minutes? Some Honourable Members: Yes. The committee recessed at 10:04 a.m. After Recess The committee resumed at 10:30 a.m. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Now, where were we? l. (b )(1 ). The minister was about to answer a question.

April l9, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 999 Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all pleased that we were able to take that break and join those who were reciting the names of those who died in the Holocaust, some of those millions of people who died. I think those kinds of remembrances do several things. They do help us focus in again on what is really important in the world, and sometimes some of our games here are not that meaningful in the light of people who have lost their lives under cir cumstances such as those, so I think the pause was a very important one for us to take.

The member had asked just before we went to the ceremony, or visited the ceremony for a few moments, about classifications and whether, I believe the question was, there is a cap or there is a ceiling on the number of increments in government. Therefore, do I believe there should be a ceiling on the number of increments in school divisions? Is that the question? Ms. Friesen: No, not exactly.

What I am trying to do, obviously, is draw some lines of comparison between the kind of evaluation system which exists in the civil service and the kind of evaluation system that the governm ent is looking for in the teaching profession. As the minister has outlined it, there are annual eval uations, which are written, which relate very specific ally to the job classification. Satisfactory or unsatisfuctory is the kind of criteria which are dealt with by the immediate supervisor. I thought that was an intere sting form of evaluation. I have asked for the evaluation form and will certainly be looking at that.

The minister clarified beyond that, that was not exactly what she was looking for in the teaching service, that it would have to be more than that, but without any predetermination of what more than that would be. Then what I asked was about the ceiling issues, because, again, that is something which has been raised in respect to the teaching profession. What happens to ev aluation systems? What happens to that kind of accountability once a ceiling has been reached? So it was re ally that. Accountability beyond the ceiling was the issue I was raising. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr.

Chairman, those are exactly the kinds of questions we are asking school divisions. Of course, I am accountable for governm ent in these Estimates, so I will say that, in government, once the maximum has been reached is not to imply that perfo rman ce evaluations or assessment of employees' work does not continue. There are constant daily indications to supervisors as to whether or not an employee is performing the tasks that that employee was hired to perform, and there are procedures for dismissal of emp loyees who are no longer capable of serving the governm ent in the job capacity to which they are assigned.

That is at the one end of the spectrum. But I indicate that in case there is an implication that once you are at the maximum you no longer have a merit inc rement, it does not mean that your merits are not continually assessed and that measures are taken in place to correct that up to and including dismissal if necessary, and usually those are not the first choice, of course, in terms of doing a perfo rman ce evaluation. In the school divisions, we are saying that we do not have any preconceived notions. We have identified problems.

There is a big diff erence in saying there is a problem when an increment is given automatically and the suggestion that the school divisions would then automatically best be served by some other model that exist s-say, for example, if the member is making the comparison here in the provincial governm ent. Because you are dealing with diff ering kinds of situations, you may require differing kinds of solutions.

I think in terms of ceilings or caps to the number of increments, obviously, if there is a ceiling then there comes a point beyond which raises just do not continue to escalate ad infinitwn in terms of automatic increases because, as the member knows, on top of the automatic increase goes whatever the negotiation for the year provides in terms of settlements. So you have two things going in terms of money paid to employees here and in the school division.

That would be the automatic raise in school divisions and the annual increment in governm ent on top of which is added whatever is settled for that year , and traditionally that has been a raise . In latter years that has been a status quo, or with the workweek reduction it might be possible that some ac tually saw less pay going home. Although many indicate that they saw no reduction in pay, many that I know personally have showed me their pay stubs and showed no reduction in the actual amount of money

10 00 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19 , 1996 going home, but that is because they got the annual increment and then the four days off and they netted out. So that did not happen in every case. It will vary from employee to em ployee.

A cei ling then will ensure that at a certain point, once a person has reached what is presumed to be a suitable number of levels of experience and increasingly satisfuctory perf ormances, satisfactory over time showing that it is not just a flash-in-the -pan performance but an over time consistent indication of satisfactory performance, that at some point in government it is deemed that you need to have a ceiling so that you do not continue to see raises going up and up and up until you find a secretary ultimately at the end of a 40-year career making $1 00,000 which is what could happen if there were no ceiling.

Similar ly, it could be said that the same thing could happen in school divisions and that in fact you will often hear teachers say, all I have had for the last 1 0 years are my raises and I have not had my annual incremen ts, so all I am getting is the 4 percent or 5 percent or whatever it was in those days that was being provided.

Or otherwise you will also hear school boards complaining as they do most vociferously and most viciously when the teachers say to boards, you only gave us a 1 percent increa se last year; boards will say, yes, but 45 percent of you in our division were also getting annual incremen ts. So while you only got a 1 percent raise, the cost to the school division was more than 1 percent increase on the salary line . So those kinds of things are there to be debated and to be talked about.

I do not have a preconceived notion that the cap or the ceiling on the number of increments or the number of steps in classifications should be left, or removed, from school divisions. We have identified it as one of the chronic complaints that comes forward. The ceiling is not a complaint, but the steps within those levels are the chronic complaint. Trustees have not complained to government about the ceiling.

Some teachers have because they want the ceiling removed and the classifications to be longer, but the steps within them and the length of time, would it be six years, 10 years, has been discussed and debate d. What we have said is these are the complaints we have been told, these are the problems that have been identified, and we would like people to tell us what they think about them, to see if, in fact, there is a better way of recompens ing people justly and fairly for their good work in a way that is also designed to meet the employers' needs as well as the employ ees.

So we can make compar isons, but we must also lUlderstand that when we talk about the way in which we recompense people who work for the civil service, we are talking about very diff erent jo b descriptions than we are about people who are employed in schoo ls.

You can make com parisons, and I think you do need to make comparisons, between like professions, and I stress the word "lik e," similar professions or the same jo b performed in other jurisdictions, but to compare an administrative assistant in a business office of the gov ernment with a person teaching in a classroom, to me, is not quite an accurate compari son in terms of the job descri ptions. Does that mean that the method of ev aluation needs to be slightly diff erent as well, is a question that I pose, in turn, to my colleague from the opposition. * (1 040) Ms.

Friesen: The question I was really posing was what are the implications of ceilings for continued evalu ations, as that is an issue in school divisions as well. I understand what the minister's response is. That informal eval uation continues after ceilings are reached and that there are no written evaluations after that. Am I understanding that correctly, Mr. Chairman? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr.

Chairman, the eval uations and perf ormance appraisals, whatever terminology people wish to use, but the process of supervisors being aware of their emplo yee s' work and working with employees to improve perf ormance which, hopefully, then would occur or to dismiss employees whose perfo rman ce does not improve, that process is ongoing, as I indicate . Regardless of whether they have reached the ceiling or not, it should be irrelevant to the ongoing process of evaluation whether they have passed a certain step in the progression of the person's career .

So those evaluations that take place after the maximum has been reached could be oral, could be written, could be whatever they choose.

April l9, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1001 They have continued evaluation and sometimes that is definitely put in writing, particularly if an employ ee's petf ormance is in jeopardy. Performance appr aisals are always designed to be positive in their outlook, to be taking the attitude that they would help to assist employees to improve, to correct prob lems that might be there, but even with good employees to assist them in improving and enhancing so that they become even better. So they are not designed to be punitive . They are designed to be supportive.

They are designed to work to enhance performance and also to give an indication to the employee where they are perf orming well so the employee will have confirmed fo r him or herself that indeed they are on the right track. I have mentioned that the ultimate conclusion of a severe ongoing problem with perf ormance could be and probably should be dismissal but one does not go into an evaluative process with that in mind.

One goes in with the desire to ensure that the team of people working together are fimctioning at full capacity and that there are adequate supports, both moral and instructive and any other thing that needs to be there, to assist that employee to become better and better and better in their jobs. Relating that and comparing that to school divisions, that I think is somethin g that should also be there fo r teac hers.

I think teachers deserve to know if they are doing well and deserve to know that their perf ormance is pleasing those with whom they interact and that it is deemed to be suiting the needs of the children properly. I think a teacher deserves to know if there is a flaw in the petf mmance wllat the flaw is and how it can be corrected and that they be given assistance with that. Regarding the paper that the member has introduced into this part of the Estimates, the Enhancing Accountability document, we are motivated at this point by questions, not answers, and that is maybe the simplest way to put it.

We are motivated by the questions that have been put to us over the years and not by answers at this stage, although we are looking fo r answe rs. We have these kinds of questions . Should a teacher be granted an increment if a fa ir evaluation shows they are not perf orming satisf actorily? Now, we asked that question in the document, and I realize it has caused an uproar, but I still think it is a legitimate question to ask. We ask it of our civil servants all the time. Should a teacher be granted an increment if a fa ir evaluation shows that that teacher is not perf orming satisfac torily?

As I say, I know that question has caused an incred ible uproar in the community, but I still think it is a legitimate question to ask, and because it is a question that has been asked of us as government so repeatedly, I think it is a question that, in fairn ess, we need to examine. I think not to examine it is to do an injustice to the clients in education, the only people fo r whom the system was designed, the only reason that all of us are here in this room today, the education of our studen ts. The system was designed fo r them. The system was not designed fo r those of us who work in it; not fo r teachers .

The system was not designed to create jobs fo r teac hers, or jobs fo r ministers of Education, or jobs fo r critics of education, or anybody in between those two levels. The system was designed for students . Everything we ask ourselves about how the people in the system are evaluated and paid has to always have those studen ts' needs in mind as No. 1 crite ria, No.1 priority. We have had other questio ns, such as, what is the relationship, if any, between experience, the number of years of employment, and perf orman ce? Do more years on the job make you a better person to do that job?

I would wage that, if asked, the opposition critic would say that the longer I stay on the job as minister, the worse things get. [interjection) An Honourable Member: Well, there is maybe some truth in that. Mrs. Mcintosh: The member fo r Burr ows ( Mr.

Martindale) has just made my case because he says there is some truth in that, and I thank him, and that quote will be used quite extensively, I guarantee it, because that is the point we make about the questions being raised by school boards when they say, if we have teachers who year after year simply reinforce bad habits and bad direction, should we have to pay them extra fo r that? I thank the member fo r Burr ows on behalf of the official opposition fo r putting on the record their position on it. If it is not their position, then I expect that the opposition would clarify that that is not their position,

1002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri119 , 1996 and clarify it probably within the next statement. Otherwise, it will be assumed to be the position of the official opposition, and it will be extensively and widely quoted. *

(1050) The other question we have is, what constitutes eff ective perf orman ce in education? What is eff ective perf orman ce? There are so many ways that you can answer that. What is quality education? There are so many ways that you can answer that. How do you detennine eff ective performan ce?

We know that one way that you do not determine eff ective perf orman ce is to never observe a class with a teacher in action, never observe the work that is being done in the classroom, never look to see if the children are actually being able to improve their own perf ormance, never listen to complaints or concerns raised by parents about a particular teacher. Those are some ways that you do not determine performan ce. What is the converse of those ways of not determining eff ective perf orman ce?

That is a question that has been asked of us repeatedly and consistently over enough years fo r us to know that they must have some basis in reality fo r legitimate concern. We are motivated right now, as I indicated, by questions, not answers. So the member will continue, I am sure, as she has in the first fe w questions, to draw the parall el between the civil service and the teachers, and to indicate that things that are happening in the civil service are things that may be, or may be not, the minister fee ls should be happening in the public school system.

I say those are good comparisons to make, but one has to consider, when they make those comparisons, the fa ct that you may not be comparing like occupations. There may be some things in the processes in government that could be well-utilized by divisions, or vice versa, but when you draw comparisons, do try to compare apples to apples and we will have much better comparisons by comparing like prof essions or the same prof ession in other jurisdictions than dissimilar prof essions. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Chairman, so I understand the answer to my question then is that when ceilings are reached, that evaluation continues on an inf ormal basis and that written reports are made on an as-needed basis. The minister has suggested that we compare like professions and, of course, that is an important concept. The minister does not apparently believe there are any comparisons that are useful at this point between the civil service and the teaching prof ession, and she may be right in that. I think it requires probably more than the kind of discussion we are having here.

What I am trying to understand from the minister is what she does value in evaluation, what kind of procedure she thinks could be considered fo r the teaching prof ession. She has, as she said, put out a document which caused considerable concern and has, I think, created a great deal of disunity in the teaching prof ession. So my concerns here are about evaluation procedures, the ones that are used in the department, the ones that are consistent with a system that has developed over 100 years essentially in civil services around the world.

I think some of the elements that the minister has suggested are diff erent fo r teachers. She would be looking fo r observation, I think, she said, that if we are looking perhaps at the converse of what she did say, that we need a system where there are observations of teachers' work, that there are recommendations or an understanding that children will improve, or have improved, and that complaints are taken into account, listened to and dealt with. Those were the three elements I heard her say. I wonder if the minister might comment perhaps on divisions in Manitoba where she believes that is not occurring.

Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, I first want to indicate that we are off line. You know, every other question the member has asked so far has at least made some fleeting reference to the line in the Estimates. This last question does not even bother to make any fleeting ref erence to the line in the Estimates. So I would suggest that it would be helpful fo r me if we could stay on the lines because I need to have the appropriate staff here for the line by line.

Apri1 19, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1003 What happens when the opposition goes off the lines, is that I either have to do what happened a couple of years ago where the minister of the day had to bring all the staff in and sit endlessly for hours because the opposition was jumping all over the place, or I have the wrong staff here and have to go out and get others and bring them in. So it would be appreciated if we could keep to the

schedule so that the work of government, and the civil servants who work in it, is not so consistently disrupted by going offline. While we sit here in Estimates arguing these fine points, civil servants are called away from their desks to be here with us, and there is a lot of work to be done . I do not want to have people sitting endlessly waiting or to have to bring people up in anticipation that we are going to consi stently go off line. I do not think that is fa ir to the govermnent or the people of Manitoba, and I think it would be better if we stayed on line.

As long as the point she is raising bears some fleeting connection to the line, I am quite happy to answer it, but this last question did not. I also need to put on the record, and I am sorry to be taking up time doing this, and yet I do need to correct all of the asswnptions the member comes to when she comes to them, because they get on the record and they are assumed to be something that they are not. The member started off her question by doing what she always does, and it is really, perhaps-well, I will not insult.

The member indicated, the minister apparently does not believe that there are like prof essions in the civil service and in school divi sio ns. Again, she draws an incorrect, erroneous assumption from comments that I have made. She comes to a conclusion and then on the basis of the conclu sion to which she comes, fo rmulates statements or questio ns. When the basic premise or the basic assumption or the erroneous conclusion is wrong, then the questions and the comments that she puts fo xward are meaningless and have no substance because they are based upon fo g.

I did not indicate that I do not believe there are not like prof essions in the civil service and teachers. What I indicated is that the process laid down for civil servants and government employees is, in the main, a generic fo rm of progression through a career and that it may not have application to school divisio ns. The member knows full well that in a body as large as the provincial go vernment, that the majo rity of people in that body will not be compared accurately or consistently to teachers. There will, however, be some that might be able to be compared.

They would be in the minority in terms of numbers, but the system here was designed for a standard fo r the majo rity, and the majority is not compared to teachers For example, I sit here with my human relations head, a fine man who probably would relate very well to young people in a classroom, but the work that he does in helping decide where people are best placed within government is not like teaching Grade 3 mathematics.

The secretary in my outer office, who I believe is superbly skilled as an executive secretary-one of the finest in go vernment, in my opini on-w ith her knowledge of word processing and all of those things, telephone pro tocol. All of those things that she does so well may or may not be suited to teach in a classroom, but, certainly, one could never compare her job to that of a kindergarten teacher or a high school physics teacher. The comparisons cannot be made. The majority of people in government fa ll into that category.

There are some in gov ernment-a small number-where there might be some similarity between what they do and what teachers do and when I talk about the process of government being laid down in a generic way to meet the needs of the majo rity of government members who se jobs in the main are not like those in a classroom, I did not say nor did I imply that there is nobody in government that has a prof ession that might be similar to a teacher's and fo r the member to extrapolate from my comments that that is what I meant is to draw, once again, yet another erroneous conc lusion. * (llO

O) So I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, having indicated that, if we could get back on line and at least have the questions bear some relevance or connection to the line under discussion. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister 's desire to use her staff effici ently, but I think the fine points that the minister suggested I was raising are indeed the public business. I think the public business, particularly when it relates to the kinds of com parisons

1004 LEGISLAffi'E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April l9, 1996 that have been drnwn as a result of the public discussion the minister initiated, I think perhaps are worthy of discussion here and we can certainly continue them in other areas. I would, secondly, point out that the issues I raised of observation, child improvements and listening to and reflecting upon and dealing with complaints were ones which the minister raised in her response to me. So, Mr.

Chairman, perhaps just fo r your consideration, it seems to me that what the minister is saying is that she is permitted to comment at will on what I say, but when I respond to what she says she can then say that it is not on this line and we are wasting the time of her staff. I do not think that is my intent, but I do believe it is my responsibility- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Point of Order Mrs. Mcintosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am responding to questions and concepts raised by the member. So if the member raises a point, I have an oblig ation to respond. She is the questioner.

I am the one answering the questions. I am asking that the questions be relevant to the line and I will answer the questions and try to address the subtle nuances in the questions, the assumptions, the implications and the innuendos in the questions, and I will do that. But I believe the onus is upon the questioner to keep these questions on line. Mr. Deputy Chairperso n: The honourable member fo r Wolseley, on the same point of order? Ms.

Friesen: Yes, on the same point of order, I think what the minister is saying is that she is requiring you to rule that I may not respond to issues that she raises in her response. It seems to me, you know, it is one hand clapping here . Could the Chairman perhaps rule on this, or would he perhaps like to take this under advisement? Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am ruling that the minister does not have a point of order. I would say this, and ask all honourable members at the committee table, in the l. (

b) Executive Support

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, in the past, they have been allowed to have reasonably widespread questions. I would say to all honourable members at this table, though, that I would ask you not to-[interjection] No-expand that too, too much. Let us spend some time there, but if you could work with me on this thing, perhaps we can get through this line. * * * Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, could the minister tell us how many of the Order-in-Council appointees are evaluated on an annual basis in this same way? Mrs. Mcintosh: All of them. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Chairman, could the minister tell us which of her staff that she laid out at the beginning are Order-in-Council appointees? Mrs. Mcintosh: The executive assistant and the special assistant-[ interjection] Plus the deputies, of course. I just made the assumption that was known. The two deputies and the two assistants. Ms. Friesen: So that would be Connie Hall and Beverley Hares, is it? Mrs. Mcintosh: Connie Hall , Beverley Hares, John Carlyle and Tom Carson. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, this is an area which has seen a change in staff this year, with the loss of one deputy minister and replacement by another.

Could the minister tell us what the explanation fo r that is? Mrs. Mcintosh: The deputy minister of Advanced Education and Training was replaced by an Order-in­ Cmmcil, as all deputy ministfls are when deputies rotate, by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us why that last deputy minister in post-secondary education was let go by this government? Mrs. Mcintosh: I think some of these personnel matters, Orders-in-Council, of course, are different from the normal process that is undertaken in the civil service.

I beli eve the member knows that, and I think some of

April 19, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1005 these personnel matters are really quite inappropriate to bring up in this setting. Ms. Friesen: Well, I appreciate the minister's comments on this, but the removal of a deputy minister is an extraordinary event. This is not something which happens every year. It usually does not happen every 10 years. It is an extraordinary event.

It is a deputy minister whom I understand, not just from members of the minister's own department, but from staff with whom he had worked in other areas of governm ent, that this was a person who was very well respected, that he had brought a great deal to this governm ent. I remember the last Minister of Education, the previous Minister of Education, speaking very highly of this particular new deputy minister.

He brought him in to deal with post-secondary education, expected great things, thought this was the right thing fo r the department to be doing, and the minister, in her comments last year, when I did question the appointment of two deputy ministers in one department, argued that this was what was needed and this was the right way to go. So it is a surprise that within a very short period of time and with a change of minister, this particular deputy minister has not simply been shufiled but that he was, I guess a euphemism that is still used is, let go.

So it is an issue of policy in my mind, and I am looking fo r some explanation from the minister as to why that particular decision was taken. Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes, I am really very puzzled as to why the member implies that we have a change in policy here. I recall very clearly last year saying that what was needed and the right way to g<rjust quote the member exactly here. She said that last year I said having a deputy minister in post-secondary was what was needed and what was the right way to go, and I still believe that. We still have a deputy there, and it still is the right way to go.

There is no change in policy. There is a change in person, but there is no change in policy. We still have a deputy minister in that capacity doing the job description that was indicated last year that I wanted done. Last year the member said, will this be a permanent position? I said, absolutely. It is a permanent position. It has not been removed from governm ent. The member did not say, will I fo rever and all time see the same person operating in that position? The member did not ask that last year, and it was not a concern to her last year. She wanted to make sure there would be a deputy minister position.

I assured her there would be. There still is. Never once last year did she ask fo r assurances that we would fo rever and all time have the same people in the same role s. She wanted assurance that the role would continue to exist, and it does. So, please, again I ask that the member not put incorrect assumptions on the record with every question.

Because the personality of the individual in the position has been changed from one to another does not imply a change in policy, and it is not correct nor is it fa ir, nor is it completely and totally within the realm of honesty to indicate that I have changed a pol icy- * (1 1 10) Point of Order Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the minister did not choose her words perhaps as well as she might on second thought, and I think she was perhaps moving towards language which was unparliamentary and perhaps she might want to consider that. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister, would you like to withdraw part of your statement? Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do apologize most sincerely fo r having used the words about honesty. I was grasping fo r a word that would reflect- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to thank the honourable minister. * * * Mrs. Mcintosh: As I said, Mr. Chairman, I do apologize.

I am grasping for a word that I believe would accurately reflect what the member does when she draws conclusions that she knows absolutely are wrong conclusions and then puts them on the record implying that they are the truth when they are not. Maybe in her mind she believes them to be the truth- Point of Order Ms. Friesen: Yes, I think we need to conduct this discussion in a civil manner. I am doing my best to do that. The minister is suggesting there are a lot of

1006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1996 assumptions being made. I think the assumptions are the minister. I would pref er to keep this in a civil manner, and I think it would be better if the minister stuck to answering the questions . Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister, would you like to withdraw a part of your statement? Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I woul d. Once again, I have to apologize. I perhaps should mayb e use the words right and wrong, and that does not then impute any motive . Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: I would like to thank the honourab le minister fo r withdrawing those wor ds. *** Mrs. Mcintosh: I will attempt to rephrase without impugning moti ves . The implications the member allows to go on the record are wro ng. I am comp elled -the member says would the minister please answer the question Well, when wrong implications are put on the record I believe it is part of my duty as a cabinet mini ster to respond in a way that will correct the wrong information and make it right.

When the member says that becaus e we changed people in the position of deputy minister that we changed policy, then I am compelled to correct that and say no policy has been changed, no need has gone unaddr essed, no right way to go has been altered just because a diff erent person is now doing that job. The member I am sure knows that there was a mutual parting here of the ways. We are going into tremendous changes in post-secondary education. We are looking at esta blishing a council to oversee a system-wide, post­ secondaiy education We will be doing things diff erently than we have in the past.

The member is quite right when she indicates that the form er deputy had many good friends in the educati on system who thought most highly of him, and that is not being questioned. The decision to have a new deputy is a matter that is always taken seriously . Every employee has strengths and weakn esses. We fee l we are going into new direction s, new changes . There are always skills to be matched and mixed, and the member knows that.

We believe the fo rmer deputy minister deserves our support fo r all the excellent work that he did He has our respect, and I think he deserves the respect of those fo r whom he worked so hard during his time in gov ernm ent. Order-in­ Council appo inbnents are not subject to the same kind of scrutiny that the member would normally have for employees who are hired and have a degree of job security. Those who take on Ord er-in-Council appointments know when they take them that there is no job security.

In fa ct, when the hearings fo r teacher arbitration were going on, many people said that the Deputy Minister of Education earned too much money. I believe, in one of the debates that occurred there, someone else responded, yes, the Deputy Minister of Education earns more money than a high school principal, but then a high school principal not cnly has job security but has tenure, and the Deputy Minister of Education could be fired tomorrow because 0/C appointments have no job security.

There fo re one of the things that people do when they take an Order -in-Council appointment is to weigh the $1 00,000-type salary against the fact that there is abs olutely no job security. That is known and und erstood when the positions are accepted. When the go vernment and the deputy minister decide to come to a parting of the ways and that is their decision, that can be done by simply revoking the Order-in-Counci l.

I think that when a person leaves gov ernm ent to go on and seek future careers, delvi ng into some of these matters in terms of his own personal career and making them public in a matter of record is not really in the best interest of that person 's future. I believe, as I indicated when I started, that some personnel matters are inappropriate to discuss publicly, particularly when in this instance if the member 's co ncern is, was process fo llowed? The member knows absolutely that process in 0/C appointments is very different from process in other appointments .

Does the member have any concern about the process that was fo llowed in an 0/C being revoked or put in place? Because those, I think, are the only legitimate questions she has to ask in this line . Is there a flaw in the process with this 0/C appointment of T om Carson or the 0/C revocation of the fo rmer deputy? Ms. Friesen: I notice in her response the minister again raised Enhancing Accountability, but I gather this is

April l9 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1007 something that the minister does not want me to respond to. So I will not respond at this point- Point of Order Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, my comment was absolutely relevant, because I was not talking about the Enhancing Accountability documen t I was talking about a comment that was made at those hearings ref erring to the deputy minister's salary and whether or not the deputy minister's salary should be the level that it is.

The response that was given was, the deputy minister's salary should be the level it is because the deputy minister has no job security. It was totally and absolutely relevant to the question. It happened to take place at those hearin gs, and those hearings were only referenced to indicate the setting in which the totally relevant comments were made . The member has no point of order. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I will determine if there is a point of order. The minister does not have a point of order . The honourab le member fo r Wolseley, for her questions. Ms. Friesen: No, the same point of order. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley on a point of order that I ruled already is not a point of order. The honourable member for Wolseley, to continue her questions. * * * * (1 12 0) Ms. Friesen: My concern is with the loss of a deputy minister who had built up some experience in this area and the consequences for the department of changing deputy ministers at this stage in post-secondary education when there is a transition period that is being made. Of course, my concern again, as I said earlier, is that this is an extraordinary situation.

I did not question the procedures or indeed the evaluations, or indeed is this related to any personal issues or personality issues of either of the deputy ministers, the fo rmer one or the incoming or present one? It is really a sense of, why did the government do this? Why did it do it at this time? Why did it decide that a deputy minister whose work had been satisfactory and who was in a department which was in quite considerable transition not just in the post­ secondary area but in Workf orce 2000 and in appren ticeship, why did that happen now?

It is an extraordinary thing, and I think something that perhaps should be drawn to the attention, in a sense, of the public record. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. In making the ruling just a minute ago, I did not explain that it was simply a dispute over the facts. The honourable minister, to answer the question for the member fo r Wolseley. Mrs. Mcintosh: I already have answered the question. I have indicated that we are undergoing massive change in the system. We know, the member knows, that there are people who have wonderful talents and abilities fo r maintaining systems.

We have people who have wonderful talents and abilities for changing systems, we have people who have wonderful talents and abilities fo r making systems smaller or making systems bigger, and the member should know that the person who is skilled and excell ent at doing one particular task, that there may be somebody who can do a different sort of a task better.

Is she saying that govermnent should, once a deputy by 0/C is in place, that that deputy by 0/C should remain in place ad infinitum, you know, because I think that is what she is imply ing, that unless we can justifY to the opposition why a particular deputy is no longer in a position, that we should continue with that deputy ad infinitum. The whole nature of an Order-in-Council removes it from that type of scrutiny. As I say, the risk to the person becoming a deputy is high; there is no job security. That is why, as they say in the vernacular, they get the big bucks.

They take tremendous responsibility upon their shoulders with no guarantee of job security; it has always been that way. I believe the NDP might like to go back and check their records of the days when they were in gov ernm ent. I know the opposition member was not in government, nor was the other opposition member with her today in gov ernm ent at the time that there might have been similar changes made by the NDP gov ernm ents. I would be very interested in having her examine the Hansard in Estimates to see how the NDP government of the day answered questions about deputies who were suddenly no longer deputies.

I think she might find such a

1008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1996 comparison very interesting indeed and very revealing, typical of the kinds of things that happen so often when you are in government and have to be accountable and when you are in opposition and have no need to be accountab le. It is very easy when you are in opposition to sit and point at all the flaws-which is great. We need to have flaws pointed out, we need to have questions pointed out. Unf ortunately, we also need to have some solutions suggested.

It is just as with the time that the federal gov ernm ent indicated they were going to give $18 0 million to Manitoba, and the opposition stood up and said, you are going to have $18 0 million coming, we have been told verball y, therefore spend it on this, spend it on that, spend it on the other thing, and they end up spending about $300 million on-they spent that $1 80 million over and over and- An Honourable Member: Relevance? Mrs. Mcintosh: It is relevant. I will prove the rel evancy in a moment.

They spent that $18 0 million over and over, and we kept saying, wait until you see the colour of their money, boys. Just because they said they are going to give it does not mean we are going to get it. Then of course we did not get the money but had they been in gov ernm ent, they would have spent it all, and if they did not get it they would have added that to the debt that they already left us. So what I am trying to say is, it is easy to sit there and ask questions, but when you are in gov ernm ent you have responsi bilities.

I would suggest, for example, that the NDP gov ernm ent might like to go back and tell us the rationale that they presented forward for dismissing Ron Macintosh as Deputy Minister of Education. Would you please go back and indicate why you did not give any public accoun ting as to why you dismissed Ron Macintosh, a fine deputy minister, who had lots of respect in the field, had all kinds of accolades for his abilities. He was dismissed overnight on the revocation of an 0/C and no public accounting was given by the NDP as to why they did that.

I cannot imagine why they did it, such a fine person with an experienced background, highly thought of in the field. (Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair) I guess what I am just pointing out is that what is good for the goose, in terms ofthe NDP jargon, is never good for the gander.

They can revoke 0/Cs and feel that there is no need to give a public explanation and decline to give a public explanation and then they can come in-it was sheer, unmitigated gall-a demand that this gov ernm ent provide for them what they would never provide for the opposition when they were in gov ernm ent, a very, very inconsistent approach. There is an old saying that chutzpah, chutzpa, real true chutzpa is defined and exemplified by the person who having murdered his parents throws himself at the mercy of the court because he is an orphan, and that kind of chutzpa I see sometimes surfac ing.

Relevance-very relevant, because what I am indicating is a double stand ard. You dismiss a deputy on an 0/C overni ght with no public explanation and yet then come with chutzpa and ask me to do what you declined to do, not you yomse l( but the gov ernmen t with which you are aligned, your predecessors in government, your curr ent Leader, who was a member of gov ernm ent at the time. So I guess maybe what I could say is, I am simply following precedents set by you. Having answered that question, and I believe that that question has now been answered, earlier the member asked about other changes in my office.

I will indicate that we had one secretary who wanted to move to a half-time job, and she has done that. So she has been replaced and moved on to that other job, and we have a new secre tary there. One seaetary had a name chan ge. It is the same person, it is just a different last name, so that infor mation is there. Ms. Friesen: I think we have a situation here where this deputy minister had served the gov ernm ent for eight years and then there was a very sudden change.

I think it seems that the minister is not prepared to answer any further questions on this, but I think, unfo rtunately, she has left on the record an implication, and she might want to correct that. She has said that there are skills for maintaining skills, for expanding skills, for bringing change to skills or talen ts, I think was the term she used, for different aspects of gov ernm ent policy for downsizin g, et cetera, although she did not use the word "downs izing," but for reduci ng. I assmne that the minister is not leaving on the record any sense that it was a particular mismatch of skill

April 19, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1009 between this deputy minister and the government's requirements that led to the sudden change of personnel. * (1 130) Mrs. Mcinto sh: For once and at long last, the member has made a correct assumption. I think we should note it in the histmy boo ks. I was talking generically in terms of reasons that 0/C appointments are changed.

That was a generic statement, not ref erencing any particular individual, and, again, I have to correct-! am sorry I have to keep making these corrections, but I do-when she indicates that Ron Macintosh was a diff erent situation because the deputy who had been here, the deputy that is no longer deputy, had been a deputy for eight years, and that Ron Macintosh had not, I submit that Ron Macintosh had been Deputy Minister of Education for many, many years-many years more than the immediate past deputy had been Deputy Minister of Education.

The immediate past deputy had been Deputy Minister of Education fo r only two years. Ron Macintosh had been Deputy Minister of Education fo r much longer than that when the NDP revoked his 0/C with no explanation. The only point I am trying to make is that, when you take a man like Ron Macintosh, who had all the fine attributes that were attributed to the deputy that has recently parted from gov ernm ent, and the NDP, again with the double standard, and that is part of the problem that we have, the double standard that is constantly presented.

You dismiss Ron Macintosh summarily as a government, revoke the 0/C with no explanation after many, many years of fine service , highly respected, highly respected to this day in the field. You do that with no explanation and are not willing to off er an explanation, and yet when an 0/C is revoked under this government as 0/Cs can be without explanation, you then demand of this government the things that you were not willing to demand of yourselves.

That double standard is seen so often, and if you expect me, via your questions, to conduct a perfo rmance appraisal here and now in the middle of Estimates of the person under question, I will not do it, because I think all of us owe that individual more respect than that.

I think, as I indicated, it is inappropriate fo r the Minister of Education to be asked to do a public perf ormance appraisal in Estimates on an individual who is no longer an employee of governm ent, who accepted an Order-In- Council appointment as all deputies do, with the knowledge and the understanding that Order-In-Council appointments carry with them no job security whatsoever. I think, Mr. Chairman, I have answered this question. I have pointed out the double standard.

I have pointed out the proces s was absolutely without question and that we wish the fo rmer deputy all the very best in his future career, and we do not wish to see this kind of discussion about his capabilities and perf ormance put him in any way in any kind of discomf ort. We do not do this with other employees and with 0/Cs we do not have any obligation to, and certainly I do not see her asking me about clerical workers or other people who may also not be with the government and I would like to know why she fee ls they are not as valuable to the system in terms of the work that they do.

I just do not think this is the proper place to do perf ormance evaluations. I really do not. Ms. Friesen: My questions dealt with policy issues. They dealt with the possibility of diff erences in policies between the minister and her fo rmer deputy. The minister has chosen to put a number of things on record which, I think, were quite unnecessary, and again I emphasize that I would like to keep these Estimates at a relatively civil level.

I think perhaps if we stick to the questions and the answers, it seems to me that when a deputy in an area of government which has been downsized considerably, the post-secondary education area in terms of the staffing of this department, and when that deputy is let go, I would be remiss in my duty as the Education critic to not ask questions on the public record about the reasons fo r that.

I think the minister should take those questions in that context, and we will simply leave it at that, but I do not think that this process is going to be finthered by the kinds of personal comments and assumptions that the minister rushes to. Again, all I can say is, let us conduct this at a civil level and let us stick to the questions and the answers. Let us remember what the role of a public record is and what the role of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is in this process of governm ent. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr.

Chairperson, I am vastly relieved to hear the member now adopt that attitude because I think it is critically important that we do. I think it is quite important that we be civil, that questions not be

1010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 19, 1996 filled with innuendo, assum ptions and statements that call into question our mutual desire as governm ent and opposition to do the best for the students of Manitoba. So I am vastly relieved to hear that she will no longer be asking questions that have those innuendoes in them, that they will be straightforward questions that come straight to the point without snide little remar ks about, well, you have dismissed a deputy so you have changed your policy, which she knows is not correct.

I am glad that she will no longer put those personal comments and those incorrect assumptions into her statement because I agree they do then go on the record. So I thank her very much for agreeing to bring this to a higher level of straightforward, clean, constructive questions devoid of the innuendo. Once she starts to do that, and I will see her do that in the next question I am sure, then she can be assured that my responses will, again, echo the questions she has put forward. I will respond to her in the same vein with which she asked the questions. The questions start with her; the response ends with me .

My response will always reflect the tone, the timbre and the insinuations that are in the question. If they are good, the answers will be good, and, if they are not good, the answers will be the same tone as the que stion. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, again, the minister cannot resist a personal attack, and I do not know how many more times I have to say this. It is not personal. May I, Mr. Chairman, ask the minister about another member of her department, somebody whom I speak to fairly frequently on the phone, and that is Mr. Masters . Where is his line in this department? Mrs. Mcinto sh: Mr.

Chairman, his staff line you will find appear ing under the Colleges Secretariat . Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, could the minister explain the job description of Mr. Masters ? I do deal with him on a number of issues which seem to range mostly over the K-12 area rather than post-secondary. So I am swprised to find that it is elsewhere. Could the minister explain the job description? (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) Mrs. Mcintosh : We are off line, but I do not mind deviating from that line in this instance. I know the member had indicated she would stay on line, but I do not mind. Mr.

Masters is doing the ma jority of his work with the post-secondary side of the branch. As you know, he is the immediate past chairman of the Univers ities Grants Commission. He is a former member of the Board of Governors of the University of Manitoba and has credentials in that vein on the post-secondary side. However , because we have the bulk of work that we have inK to 12 , all staff have been pitching in and assisting. Mr.

Masters also has considera ble experience in K to 12, having been past president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, a school principal, former executive assistant to the Minister of Education and a wide variety of background experiences such as that. * (1 140) So Mr.

Masters has on his form: And other duties as assigned He frequently will assist with phone calls from members oftbe opposition or members of the public that are in areas where he would have some knowledge and expertise such as school mana gement, those kinds of issues, but his main duties are with the post-secondary side of the department, and we do appreciate his wide­ ranging expertise and his willingness to take on all those other duties as assigned.

I should indicate that I find him a most valued member of my staff, frequently working till 11 , 1 2 o'clock at night, frequently in to spend his whole day Saturday working oo issues in the department, a very valued person. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Masters then is an Orde r-in-Council appointee on the minister 's staff but primarily for post­ secondary education. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Masters is an 0/C appointment. He is a term employee, pardon me. He is not an 0/C appointment. He is a term employee with the government of Manitoba, and he has been with the department since last summ er, June or July of '95.

I do not remember the exact date. His primary responsibilities or the place where he does most of his work is in the post-secondary side of the department. As you know, we will be soon announcing the establi shment of the council on post-secondary education in Manitoba. That will see the Universities

April 19, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1011 Grants Commission and the Colleges Secretariat rolled under the coun cil. We have an interim transition committee worki ng in the mean time. We have a lot of work to be done in preparation fo r that. As we ll, we have many linkages now being fo rmed in terms of articulation between colleges and universities and between colleges and high school s. That linkage is important as well. What was the other part of your question? Was he an 0/C appointment?

No, he is a term employee, and his duties are primarily post­ sec ondary, although other duties as assigned see him :frequently doing work in the K to Senior 4 area as well. Ms. Friesen: Just a final question on that is, which line do I find his salary under? Mrs. Mcintosh: I am informed it will be 16.6. Ms. Friesen: Thank you. I think 16.6 has a couple of sections . Could the minister ask her staff fo r which

section that is? Mrs. Mcintosh: 16.6 (b)(l). Ms. Friesen: I want to pass the mike to the member fo r the Maples, but I have some other questions on this line as well. Mr. Kowalski: I think there will be a line further in the Estimates, but when you were talking about assessme nts earlier, of st aff, I just wanted to put some comments on the record.

For the time that I was on the police fo rce, we went through a number of assessment proce sses, and one thing, as a supervi sor, as a sergeant who did asses sments on people, it was always :frustrating, the amount of time and energy that had to go into it, that it took away from other duties that I was also doing. So I had a choice of whether to do a poor assessment, because if you are going to do asses sment properly you have to keep records throughout the year. You have to bring up the good points and bad points when they occur. You have to document them .

You have to fo rmulate them into a reporting structure , and then you have to fo llow up any recommendation and plans . Because the discussion varied a little bit, I am going to take a little bit of leeway because other members did. When you go into the assessment of teachers, one thing I hope the minister and her staff are considering any plans for any mandatory assessment structure, to consider the amount of resources and time that it will take. Whether it be administrators, teacher team leader s, whoever does that asses sment, that is going to take a lot of time.

In the past year, with the standar dized testing, we have taken educators away :from a teaching function, a student contact function, to an ad ministrative function, a testing function, which, you know, you could make an arg ument that testing is related to teach ing. Now here another one that we might possibl y be addi ng is this asse ssment function and, again, one more bureaucratic function that takes educators away :from their primary purpose, and that is education. My question simply put is, have the minister and her staff, in their discussions and consi deratio ns, taken this into consideration? Mrs.

Mcintosh: I indicate yes, because of all the questions that get asked in terms of, what do you need to do out there in the system, you weigh the pros and cons . We start with a principle in making any decisio ns. Let us say fo r the sake of discussion on the point that you have raised, that we say there is a principle that teachers should be given the privilege of a regular perf ormance evaluation and pick a time like once a year or once every two years or whatever the appropriate time is determined to be.

Once you have decided on the principle, then you go from that and you say, how can we do this without wasting time, how can we do this without disrupting classr oom time, how can we do this without getting so heavy into the administrative bureaucracy type thing that we are getting away from teachi ng? What are the pros and cons of doing it this way or that way? How, in essence, then can we achieve this principle in such a way that the students in the system ultimately benefit?

Always that last question has to be the question, how will the students ultimately benefit :from this thing that we fee l we need to do in the system? So that question is sort of a guiding criterion that has been behind all decisio ns we have been maki ng. It is always tested against, how will the students ultimately benefit? We know that sometimes we make decisions on our way to the ultimate benefit of studen ts, that we may upset certain interest groups along the way , and we want to minimize that. We want to make sure that all of those

1012 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 19, 19 96 who are in the system ultimately fee l that the system is en riching their lives as well, but we must never fo rget who the system was created fo r. * (1 150) Ifi may, Mr. Chairman, make a quick response to the member fo r The Maples ' (Mr. Kowalski) opening comments, I wanted to say two things. One, I very much appreciate, and I want it to go on the record, the member fo r The Maples ' style.

He and I, as I say, do not always agree on the issues, although we do agree on some, but those areas with which we do have disagreement, I have fo und that the member fo r The Maples has been ver y constructive in his comments . He mentioned that we often bump into each other late at night in the hallways, and when he said that he indicated that-I will clarifY that-when he is working hard in his office and I in mine, but he paid me a compliment which I wish to return. in that he said I work late, but the only reason he only knows that is because he too works late.

The reason he s ees me coming out of my office at midnight is because he is coming out of his at midnight, so I know he puts in long hours, but it is more than that. I know that there have been issues come up in education where the member has had a concern and he has come to me and asked fo r assistance and I, without condemnation, without imputing motives , without sly innuendoes or any of those things that we sometimes see in this adversarial setup that governm ent has, the member from The Maples (Mr.

Kowalski) , while he presents criticism and raises difficult questions , always does so, in my opinion, as a way of trying to get to an improved solution, not to try to score political points or to try to demean the governm ent that I am sure he would like to have control of someday . I mean, I know that his party would like someday to be governm ent. I am pleased to see that on your way to fo llowing that quest, you do not at the same time demean and impugn motives to those who curr ently govern.

I think a lo t of critics could take your example as the best way to be a critic-<:<>nstructive, positive, firm, and not necessarily making my job any easier by some of the questions you ask, but I thank you fo r the dignity and the obvious concern with which they are put. You had indicated in your opening r emar ks, to one of the points of criticism that you made , that in terms of cuts, fed eral cuts , that we need to get over it and start making the adjus tments , and I understand that and I agree.

You used the example about, you know, it is not always wrong to have a MasterCard or to have a mortgage, et cetera, and again I agree . The only thing I would indicate that where we do, as we often do, say, when mem bers of the opposition will say, you are cruel and unkind because y ou cut funding to education by 2 percent and you do not care about students, you only care about your big wealthy corporate frien ds, then by way of explanation we indicate we are faced with fiscal rea lities.

We have , I believe, been fairly consistent in indicating that we do not disa gree with the premise the federal governm ent has to get their financial house in order. We know that the fed eral government has a huge financial problem and that they must get it under control if the rest of us are to survi ve. We do not quarrel with their premi se; we do quarre l with their prioriti es. When we are asked why we have been so unkind and cruel as to be not spen ding the same amount of money as we used to spend on certain areas , we explain this because we have far less revenue than we used to have.

We will from time to time question the priorities of the fe deral government but never their basic premise of having to get their financial house in order. If people, in raising criticis ms to us about fimding cuts, would cease blaming us fo r not having any money, we would not even have to make the explanation. So I just wanted to clarify that and indicate that, y es, a MasterCard and a mortgage are not bad things in and of them selve s.

They become bad when the MasterCard beg ins to be used in unwise ways and when you get MasterCard, Visa, American Expr ess, and Enroute, and all of them to the limit all at the same time when your income does not allow you to be able to make all the payments . I am not saying that about the member 's personal finances beca use I know and I believe that everybody in this room would have a credit card of some part that is used wisely in order to make purchases that are fe lt to be wise purch ases, sort of the buy-now, pay­ later plan, which is part of a mortgage, a household mortgage.

The diff erence between us and the preVIous governm ent here m Manitoba, the NDP

April 19, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1013 gov ernment-because I have heard the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) make the same point, well, you have a mortgage on your house, what is the diff erence?-the diff erence is that most everybody who has a mortgage on their house works to pay it down. I would hazard a guess that if there is any person in this room that has a mortgage on their house that what they are wor king to do is to pay the mortgage off. They always have that end viewpoint that eventually they will pay the mortgage off.

The previous government just kept taking out a second mortgage . They get the mortgage down to a certain point and then they just borrow some more, take out a second mortgage, and we think that has to stop. Anyhow, I will leave it at that. That is in response to the member's opening r emar ks. Mr. Ko walski: Thank you for the positive comments. I will try and get back on line, but I know the minister meant those positive comments with the best intentions but probably they are the kiss of death with the media, who like people who criticize the gov ernm ent and bring up the, you know, the dirt.

It does not help me probably due to my inexperience as a politician to cause that. Maybe I will learn to be very confrontational and that in the future, and maybe that is what you have to do as a good opposition politician. Also, having been a police officer, I know the tactic of good cop, bad cop, and the minister has played both roles here today. Going back to assessment and related to the minister's staff , I am going to get the advantage of their expertise and knowledge here.

My fundamental knowledge of management techniques was in motivation that pay, increases in pay, annual increases were fo und not to be a very good motivator of people. They are very short term. The impact they have on that person is just very temporary. Only if they do not get it, it is a negative, it is not a motivator. It is a deincentive if people do not get that. Is that still in the latest studies and the latest academic studies? Is that still true as a management technique, that increa ses in pay is not a good motivator of people? Mrs. Mcintos h: Just for clarificati on. You are talking Mr.

Ko walski: Well, anywhere. Mrs. Mcintosh: Anywhere. Mr. Chairman, I should indicate that first of all an employee needs to fee l that they have been adequately compensated fo r their work. One of the things, I think, in the engineering cerem ony when they are given their ring amongst all the ethical things to which they commit is, they commit themselves to accept without-! am not sure of the wording -but just compensation for their honourable work or words to that eff ect. I cannot recall it exactly. So certainly people need to fee l that they are adequately compensated for the work that they do.

Adequate will mean something diff erent to people, but there will be a range, I think, that could be identified for most people in terms of the work that they do. Doctors woulp see a range, fo r example, that would be a higher range than a school teacher just because of the fa ct that they literally take lif e in their hands when they are doing surgery if they are surgeo ns. But having said that, money, I agree with you, is not the main motivator, and it is one of the questions we have been asking in the public school system: Are there other reward structures in schooling versus other perfo rmances?

For example, extracurr icular activities, time during the workday to do work that other people might take home in a brief case at night, those kinds of things. What are rewards that you can build in? If, say, a social worker has to take a brief case home at night to do work at night and the teachers do not, is that a reward that they have been given, or is it just part of the working conditions? We do not know. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I will give the minister time to finish her response after we go for dinner. The hour being twelve noon, the committee will recess until 1 p.m.

The committee recessed at 12 noon. After Recess now about in the civil service or in the school? The committee resumed at 1 p.m.

101 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April l9 , 1996 Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 25 5, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the commi ttee last sat, it had been considering item l. (b)(

l) on page 34 of the Estimates book. The honourable minister to complete her response-how about if we just continue on. I believe the honourable member fo r Wolseley was going to have some questions on this line until the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) comes back. Ms. Friesen: I want to try some questions under the auspices of this

section of the department providing policy and implementation advice to the minister . The minister is probably aware that I asked to look at the submissions, the written submissio ns, to the Norrie commi ssion, those that were made to the second Norrie commission over the swnm er. Our staff was told on two diff erent occas ions, and I was indirectly told by a member of the Archives staff on a third occasion, that these re ports, these written submi ssions, were confiden tial. When I spoke to Mr.

Masters later on, I was finally, I think, told that they were not confidential, except fo r one or two items , and I am not sure in fa ct that those were actually removed from the set of documents . I wondered what was behind that because it seemed to me that there was a policy issue here that the minister then continued in the issue of the Enhancing Accountability, that the written submissions to Enhancing Acco untability were not to be available to the public except under Freedom of Inf ormation.

If the minister may remember, I asked her this question in the House and in the Ho use she said that, of cours e, they were available, and it was not a question of Freedom of Inf ormation, that is, the Enhancing Accountability written submi ssions . But, in fa ct, the minister had written to me with a letter that seemed to say the exact opposite, that written submissions would only be viewed under Freedom of Inf ormation, and I believe that letter has been published, I think, in one of the northern newspap ers, perhaps in The Pas. I remain puzz led, and I am looking fo r two things .

One is the whole issue of the confidential ity of the Boundaries Commission. Are they open generally to members of the public? Secondly, what is the minister 's policy on the written submissions to Enhancing Accoun tability. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not recall having written to a northern paper and if the member would be good enough to provi de me with a copy of that letter I will recall what she said, but I do not recall writi ng to a paper on this issue of reports or letters or whatever being publ ic or confidential .

So if you could provide me with that letter I am positi ve I did not write-the only letter that I have written to the editor as minister was one letter correcting some misinf cnnation that was given out about the arbitration paper indicating that we had no place in the paper nor did we intend to eff ect rol lbacks to curr ent collective agreements of 10 percent. That letter was sent out in March to newspapers, but it was not on this topic. So if you could provide me with that, I will have a better sense of what you are talking about.

In the meantime, I should indicate that there are two kinds of submissioos or two kinds of correspondence that will come to the minister on the topic that she is ref erring to, the Norrie commission and the arbitration paper. There are those written sub miss ions that were intended to be p resen ted publicly, so it might be someone who put a submission in because they could not appear in person or whatever, but they intended it to be a public presentation. Those there should be no trouble whatsoever in obtaining without having to go to Freedom of Inf ormation.

Then there are letters that come to the minister that are written to the minister by individuals who might say something in terms of an opinion on these topics but that were clearly written in such a way that I am convinced that those individuals would be extremely upset if they thought I then turned around and kind of gave them to someone who could then turn around and give them to the Winnipeg Sun or put them on the record at H ansard or somethi ng.

So there are two cate gories in writings, and then there will be ones that are in between that you are not quite sure about when you read them if they were intervied to be personal. letters that the writer expected to have in confidence or written docum ents that they expected to be released and made public. So I think in the beginning with a venture of this sort, the department took the side of caution rather than

April l9 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1015 inadvertently release something that was written confidentially. They considered as personal correspondence those things addre ssed to me and sent to my office and, clearly, those that were sent to the Bmmdari es Commission or sent as official responses to Norrie or to the arbitration panel would be in a far different category from those.

So I do not know if that indicates in terms of intent-if there is some confusion, I am quite happy to have that confusion clarified in some way, because we do not want people who had submissi ons that they are quite happy to be public to have their subm issi ons withheld from the public if they have no objection to them going out.

On the other hand, when people write a confidential letter based on their own experience, drawing conclusions about either the arbitration paper or the Bmmdaries Review, and it is clear from the nature of the letter that they are sharing a personal experience that they really would not want public, and they have given no pennis sion to make it public, all of those are considered third-party correspondence.

The Freedom of Information Act, which the member I believe would be familiar with because it was drafted by her party, indicates some very clear comments about third-party correspondence or third-party writings, that they can only be released with the permission or at the request of the third party itself.

So we are simply applying The Freedom of Information Act exactly the way the NDP drafted it, applying it according to the way in which the NDP drafted it, and I think the NDP drafted that legislation consciously the way they did to make sure that no Manitoba citizen inadvertently had his or her privacy subject to any risk.

Now, if it has happened that in trying to abide by the intent of the legisl ation which was to allow private citizens to gain access to information that might be on record about themselves or to allow people access to governm ent documents that they think might be in the best intere sts of the public to know, if that intent is to be followed, then it is prudent of us to make sure we do not inadvertently-we would rather err on the side of caution and not release people's writings than inadvertently release it, but that is not to say we are not willing to make public things that are written that we think were intended to be public or that the writers maybe do not mind having go public.

There might be someon e who wrote to me privately who would have no objection to it being made public. * (13 10) There is also the issue of cost, as the member knows, and that is why Freedom of Information Act legislation which her party drafted makes statements about paying for things, because there is the issue of cost. It is no problem; we can always add to the cost of governm ent to photocopy reams of paper for the public if it is somethi ng that Freedom of Information allows us to do.

So there is no desire to withhold information that people wanted to go out, and if there is some confusion in messages going out, and if there is any way we can clarify it, we would be pleased to do that. If you have any suggestions in that regard, I would be most pleased to consider them because it is not our intent to keep people in the dark at all. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think there are two different issues here. One is correspondence to the minister which is dealt with in a particular way, and the minister has outlined the principles that she follows under that.

But I think there is a second issue here, and that is submissions to a public commission of inquiry. That is really my concern with both the Enhancing Accountability and the Norrie com mission. Both of those com missions held hearings over a relatively short period of time and encouraged written subm issi ons in order to compensate for that, and I am speaking specifically of the second Norrie commission and the recent Enhancing Accountability.

It seems to me that when submissions are submitted to a public commiss ion of inquiry or a consultation, is there not, and I am looking for some guidance from the minister and her staff on this, an assumption that those are public documen ts? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, I think the member raises a very good point in her comment s, and it might be of assistance if we indicated that the approach that we are currently taking with the accountability paper we fe el is the approach that will addre ss the balance that she is seeking.

With the Norrie report, as the member may recall, while the department took the side of caution initially, the department did eventually come to the conclusion that anything that was addressed, that had on

1016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 19 96 the front, you know, to the Norrie commission--even if it was sent to me as a letter, we did forward them on to Norrie-should be available for public perusal . With the accountability paper we were taking the approach that anything submitted in writing that said, this is a submi ssion to the hearings, anything that was addressed to them would be considered to be deemed that the writer intended to have it be public. More than that, if letters were sent to me that appear to be in that cate gory where they woul d write, you know, Dear Mrs.

Mcintosh, I have these views on what should be done in terms of the questions raised in the paper, and they do not cite any personal involvement with a student or a child or anything like that, that they were simply sort of factual, objective things sent to address the panel 's concerns, that those types of items could also be made public and that we would only retain as confidential those very clearly personal letters where they cite problems they have had with an existing process that affects them as individuals. Those we will still consider private.

But I think that approach will addre ss what the member is seeking to have addressed. She raises a good point It is a legitimate concern, and hopefully if we take the approach that anything written that either says it is to be considered a submi ssion or appears to be written in such a way that one could logically draw that conclusion would be seen then as, in fact, official response to the hearings and therefore available for public perusal.

There is one other category and that is if someone sends in something, no matter what its content, if it is stamped personal and confidential , even if it appears to be a written submission, if it has got personal and confidential, for your eyes only, then I would consider it to be that out of respect for the writer. Ms. Friesen: My concern is that there be a public discussion in Manitoba and that people in Flin Flon, for exam ple, know what is being said about the same issue in southern Manitoba or in western Manitoba.

I think, pe.rilaps, one way to address this in the future is to ensure that public discussions of this kind have an introduction at the be ginning that says, written submi ssions are accepted, alwa ys. Written submissions are part of the public record. I think that would be helpful . I think the second thing that is important is that that discuss ion be reflected back to the people.

When we did the constitutional committee, and admittedly that was much longer, and it was certainly a great deal more expensive, we prepared summari es of the discussi ons that could be distributed to public libraries, and they were, and they were read. Has the minister prepared summaries of the Boundaries Commis sioo, first of all? Then, we will look at accountability. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Norrie did a s umma tion in his report, and I believe that he made every effort to sum up the contents of the submission as accurately as he could.

I understand what the member is saying, and I think it is important that as much information as possible go out, but there are some problems, and I will maybe just indicate what a fe w of them are so that it might help in understandin g. For example, if we take the fact that the Manitoba Teachers ' Society had an official position on the arbitration paper, and most of the submissions to the panel , of course, would constitute a reflection of that position.

It would be the rare teacher who fe lt differently, who would have enough courage to come forward and take a public position indicating a difference, although some did.

It is entirely possible, and I am not indicating any break in confidentiality here, that there may well be many educators who disagree fairly strongly with their union, who would choose to write a learned dissertation of some sort to the minister that, when read, woul d appear to be a strai ghtforward learned dissertation on the issue, who most often in their correspondence would indicate that they would like it to be kept confidential, but, who, for the sake of the fact that they all have to belong to the same association and work together, would pref er that their comments that may take a different position from their unions and offer advice in contravention to the union position, that they would prefer that that not then be released and be made available to the Manitoba Teachers' Society; or, conversely there may be trustees­ although maybe there are not as many trustees as there are teachers so the imbalance might be for that reas on.

Let us say there was a trustee who disagreed with the trustees association position and would pref er not to have to go to the next meeting of trustees and have to

April l9, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1017 wotk with peers when that person came out in opposition to their board's corporate position. So there are those kinds of reasons that people who would prefer that they want to get the inf ormation to the minister and yet they desire confidenti ality. I am reluctant to reach that expectation of confiden tiality for two reaso ns. One, I think it will stop the people from writing to me with what they really think. If people think that everything they write to the minister is going to be immedi ately turned over to the pub lic so that (

a) it can appear in the pages of the newspaper or (

b) more meaningful to some of them, that it be sent back to the particular organizations of which they are members to cause them tension maybe with those with whom they interact on a regular basis might prevent me from hearing some personal opinions and private thoughts of people.

Secondly, I gues s just on prin ciple, for all my life, I have always taken the attitude that unless someone gives me permission, I do not take lette rs that have been sent to me from anybody and give them to anyb ody else unless I know that they are comfortable with me doing it. * (132 0) So I think the approach we are taking now which will make assumptions that if there is no confide ntiality requested and it appears to be a straightforward offering of opinion on a subject and we are confident that the release of this will not get the individ