MG-8048 Third session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 42 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocsn Speaker VOL. XLII No. 698 • 8 p.m., TUESDAY, MAY 25,1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBL Y Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARREn, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEE MA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim , Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Ste.

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

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

3355 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 25,1993 The House met at 8 p.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (continued) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1 .(d )(1 ) on page 34. Shall the item pass? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, when we were last together, I said that I would table this evening the de partme ntal af firm ative action guidelines on recruitment and selection. I would like to table those now. They are interim guidelines. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I wanted to ask about the aborig inal represen tation in the department, particularly the two areas where they are concentrated, PDSS and PACE, and to ask the minister what kinds of positions those people occupy. * (2010 ) Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am happy to start discussing.

On our K to 12 side, as the member knows, we have a Native Educ ation branch. The director of the Native Education branch, Jul iette Sabot, is a Metis. Then we have a native awareness consultant, Garry Robson, who is a Status Indian, native studies consu ltant Dan Thomas, who is also a native individual. We have an early childhood education consultant, Florence Paynter, who is a Status Indian. We have also an English lang uage development consultant in Dauphin, Betty-Ann Mcivor, who is also Status. We have a community liaison consultant in Dauphin, Lillian De Ia Fuente, who is Metis.

Then, in terms of our support staff, we have Nancy Trimble who is Status, Ina Lynn who is Metis, Marcy Richard who is Metis, and Barb Sutherland, in Dauphin, who is Metis. In the Student Support Branch, we also have one aboriginal consultant. I will just take a moment for the information on the post-s econdary side. Then, in the New Careers, we have a regional co­ ordin ator, Glen Cochrane, and also a trai ner, Clayton Sandy. As I look at the information which was tabled this evening, we have throughout the department, of those people who have declared, 26 individuals who are of native background.

However, we also, I am info rmed, have people, particularly Metis, who have not necessarily declared their background. Ms. Friesen: I note that this is as of March 19 , '93, so this predates, I assume, the reorganization of the department. Mrs. Vodrey: No, this is after the reorganization. I beg your pardon, but I am informed that the 26 number is before the reorganization. Ms. Friesen: So the whole thing then, the 26, represents simply the addition of the numbers in this column. Does it not? Three, four, five. One, twcr--yes- 25, 26. * (20 15 ) Mrs.

Vodrey: The number, 26, is the number before the reorganization. Ms. Friesen : Does the department have the numbers after reorganization? Mrs. Vodrey: The number following reorganization is 21 . Ms. Friesen: Does that mean 26 plus 21 , or 21 ? Mrs. Vodrey: It is 21 totally. Ms. Friesen : So that in fact today in the department, after you have New Careers, you have actually fewer aboriginal employees. Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, according to that list and of those people who have declared, the number would be fewer. Ms. Friesen: Well, could the minister then explain where the drop came?

3356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 (Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the staff reduction was ach ieved or was carried out accord ing to the government employee master agr eemen t, and accor ding to that master agreement, it is the most junior employees who then would be those who are laid off. I understand that the numbers did primarily come from the New Careers area. ..

(2020) Ms. Friesen: I am really quite confused now. I wonder if the minister would agree to table a real document that is up to date that tells us how many aboriginal employees there are in the department, how many there were before the reorganization, including the areas that people came fr om. It seems to me, first of all, we have lost five right away out of this document. Where did those five come from? [interjection] But that does not even add up. I mean, if you have got 26 and you lose five? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chair, the number according to the document, which is the latest compilation, and as the member will note on that document, it is not just a compilation of employees who are of native background; it also includes numbers which relate to other affi rmative action programs also. I believe you are looking at the document that looks at women and native people and dis abled indiv iduals. In that parti cu lar document, that was the most up-to-date document we had relating to the affirmative action issues which we had been discussing.

If we are looking at very specifically any changes, yes, I can tell the member that there have been some changes as a result of reorganization in the area of employment for native people. As I was explaining, there has been a reduction of five from 26, with a reduction of five to 21 . I believe those numbers do make sense and do add up in terms of the actual arithmetic. The member asked where those five aboriginal individuals, what part of the department they came fr om. I had just explained to her that they did come from the post-s econdary side of the department.

I am informed they came from the New Careers area and that the layoffs occurred according to the government employee master agreement which states that it is the junior members who will be laid off first in this type of reduction. ..

(2025) Ms. Friesen: I think we have got apples and oranges here. The only column I am looking at is the co lumn which says native , so the minis ter's introduction really is not relevant. I am only looking at the native column. I am looking at a date which says March 19 , which says there were 26 people of aboriginal-declar ed descent. Now, as I understand the min is ter, that was before anybody was transferred. So on top of this 26, we would expect to have people out of a variety of programs from Apprenticeship to New Careers to a number of other programs transferred into the department.

We also see a drop of five people. Mrs. Vodrey: I am looking at the list that was tabled for the member. This list, as I said in my last answer, does provide to March 19 , 19 93, the nu mbers of affirm ative action em ployees who have declared themselves to that date. Now, the member has also said that with the changes and the restructuring in the Department of Education and Training, with the introduction into Edu cation and Training of programs which were previously in the Department of Family Serv ices and which wer e in the Department of Labour, would these numbers have changed?

At the moment, I am informed that we do not have the up-to-date numbers with those new changes. However, what I have explained to the member is a change from the total number of 26, which was listed on here. However, if we could look to seeing if those numbers would change and would be increased in total across all of those areas of affirmative action, with the introduction of staff who have come from the other programs which were previously housed in other dep artmen ts, we do not have that information at the moment. Ms. Friesen: Sorry, it is still not clear.

On March 19 , 19 93, before changes were made, there were 26 aboriginal-declared people in the department. Today, after changes have been made and additional people have been brought into the department from a wide variety of areas across the government, there are 21 aboriginal people. Do those numbers still stand? Mrs. Vodrey: The number 21 does deal with changes which occu rred in one area, in the area of New Careers. However, in terms of a total number, I am informed that we could certainly have that information available for the member at the next

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3357 sitting. That would include then the inclusion of those people who had decla red abor ig inal background in the programs which have just been included within the Department of Education and Training. Ms. Friesen: We are still not clear, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. What does the number 21 refer to? Where does it come from ? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, the number 21 comes from a number of 26 on March 19 that is the total of those people who had declared themselves as individuals of aboriginal background and five who, through the budgetary process and then eventually the reorganization-but if we look strictly at where staff reductions came from in that particular area, five individuals of aboriginal background from the number 26, bringing the number to 21, if we use that number of 26. *

(2030) However, the member has also asked us: With the in trod uction of pr ogr ams and wit h the introduction of areas which were previously housed within other departments, will that number change again? I have said to her that we will have a look at the people who have now joined Education and Training from those other departments, and we will have that information for her the next time that we are sitting. Ms. Friesen: This base line 26 refers to the department before any additions. So you cannot simply take away from that additions which have not yet been made to the department.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. You have 26 people in the department before New Careers is added. You cannot sim ply take the nu mber of people­ [interjection] On March 19 . That is what I asked at the beginning. Mrs. Vodrey: New Careers has been a part of the Department of Education and Training. That was not a part of another department, but there has been added, as the member knows, services which were previously part of Fami ly Services and also Department of Labour. Ms. Friesen: Okay. So I understand now. So the five that were lost were from New Careers. They all came from that program? Mrs.

Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, using the No. 26, if we look atthe reduction offive, the five reductions did occur in the area of New Careers, as I was explaining to the member, according to the government employee master agreement. If we are to look at what the total number is now as a result of reorganization, that number, I understand, we will be able to have available; however, we are still, I am told, having the transfe r of files from the Department of Family Services and the Department of Labour.

So we are still looking at exactly the background of individuals who have come over, but again, as the member knows, not all individuals do declare. Ms. Friesen: I wonder if the minister could tell me why, when I asked her this same question in the House on the loss of aboriginal staff in New Careers, she refused to answer, because I asked this question specific ally. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairpe rson, again, the member has asked questions that have related to staffing which it is obvious we are best dealing with here in the Estimates process, when we are looking at the detailed number of staff, where the staff have been employed and where changes have been made in terms of staff . Ms. Friesen: I do not think that excuses the minis ter's response in the House. I asked specif ically. There has been a loss of six people in the New Careers Program.

I identified the line in the Estimates, and I asked, were all of those people aboriginal, or how many-in fact, I think my question was: How many of those people were aboriginal? Well, it seems to me that the minister knew how many were aboriginal or declared aboriginal and simply chose not to answer that in the House. Now why is that? *

(2035) Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the details of staff ing and staf fing decisions are best managed and best discus sed here in the Department of Education and Training's Estimates, and we are discussing this line, the area of Human Resources. The details are available to provide the information regarding the huma n resources and the staffi ng for the Department of Education and Training. Ms. Friesen: I understand the minister has her staff here, and she does not have them in the House.

Would it not be more straightforward and more appropriate in a legislative setting to say, I do not know the answer to that and I will find out? Why did she not do that? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly the answers that have been provided to the member in the House are answers to the questions.

3358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 I have made every effort to provide her with the information that she feels she would like to have and based on the questions that she asks. Mr. John Plohman {Dauphin): Well, after that revelation, I guess it is no surprise that the answers in the legislative Chamber are very often unclear at best and certainly not straig htforward from the minister. I think it is clear that she was aware of this information and chose not to provide it in the House at that time because it was rather embarrassing for herself and the government.

Is that why the minister did not provide that information? Mrs. Vodrey: Really, I wonder if this is a point of order of attempting to speculate on motivation and attempting to attribute motives to a member. I think it is very important for the member to understand that answers that have been given in the House are answers to questions and information which we believe will assist the member who is answering the question. Mr. Plohman: The more the minister says, the more ridiculous it becomes.

The answers to the questions that are asked in the Legis lature before the public-although the committee is public as well, it certainly does not have the same scrutiny as the legislative Chamber. The minister gives some garbled answer about how these answers would be helpful to the member. The fact is that the minister has a responsibility to the public to provide clear answers and straightforward and honest answers to the public. That is her responsibility in the House, not to try to cover up inform ation and keep it from the public. If that is what the minister is saying she did, well, then she can clarify.

Point of Order Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, I believe the member is making accusations about the issue of honesty, and I think that is a point of order which I think is not acceptable. The Acting Deputy Chairperson {Mr. Reimer): On that point of order, the minister does not have a point of order, but I would remind all members that we are all honourable members and the implication of attitude and decorum should be maintained at all times. *** Mr. Plohman: Well, then, is the minister saying she did not know at the time that she answered the question in the House? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chair, again, the answers which were given in the House were answers to the questions that were posed, and we now have an opportunity in Estimates to look in further detail at some of the questions which the member would like to ask. We are attempting to provide the information to the member for the questions that are being asked now. Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that she is trying to correct the record at this time and hoping that we will accept that. Is that correct, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson? •

(2040) Mrs. Vodrey: There is not a sense of correction. There is an opportunity here to discuss at greater length the questions which the members wish to pose, and we are making every effort to provide the information that the members require, as has been done in the House at any time that questions are asked by members. Mr. Plohman: Is the minister saying it would have required a lengthy answer to indicate that those five were all aboriginal people that were laid off from New Careers? Mrs.

Vodrey: It seems to have taken us some time this evening to deal with the issue of the numbers of aboriginal individuals who are employed in the Department of Education and Training. This is our opportunity for discussion around that issue so that there can be clarification if the members are not clear on the answers given. Mr. Plohman: So is the minister now saying she did not understand the question in the House when it was asked? Mrs.

Vodrey: The questions which were posed were answered, and now we have an opportunity to look at answering in more detail and to answering more questions than we have at the time of Question Period. This is an opportunity for our discus sion and an opportunity for fu rther questioning. So the answers which are being provided now are answers which I hope will provide the information that the members are looking for. Mr. Plohman: Does what the minister means in more detail mean a little more straightforwardly that

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3359 she can now provide a little more straightforward answers in committee? Mrs.

Vodrey: The answers which have been provided in Question Period and which have been covered over some time are answers to the questions which are posed, but we do have an opportunity in the Estimates process to discuss more fully, members on one side have the opportunity to ask a question and ask it again and to discuss it, and we on this side have the opportunity to provide the answers, to provide explanations should the members not understand the answers fully that are presented to them.

We have an opportunity to provide clarification for them, and in the Estimates process that is what has been happening over the past while, providing additional information to the members and providing for their benefit clarifi cation where they require it. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, did I hear the minister correctly say that there are answers that are covered over in the Chamber? Mrs. Vodrey: I am not sure what the member is getting at with that question.

The answers which have been covered within the Chamber and the answers which have been given in every attempt to answer the question, and as I look at the Hansard, I look at May 13 , the question from the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). I look at the answer which I gave, and I will quote from Hansard: "Mr. Speaker, again, when we are in the Estim ates of the Department of Education, I will be happy to look in detail at the staffing of the New Careers

section of my department." So on the record there was an answer provided to the member regarding staf fing. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister gives a selective quote. Is that the whole and total answer that we are getting from the minister now?--because we can get that Hansard very qu ickly if the minis ter is omitting some important information. If not, that is fine; she has an opportunity now to clarify that, but we can get that answer. Mrs. Vodrey: Well, let me read the question from the member for Wolseley: "Mr.

Speaker, will the minister tell us how many of those people who have already been," in her words, "cut were aboriginal?" My answer: "Mr. Speaker, again, when we are in the Estimates of the Department of Education, I will be happy to look in detail at the staf fing of the New Careers

section of my department." Mr. Plohman : Is the minis ter saying now­ [interjection] Well, now we are getting some talkative backbenchers and ministers here. I want to ask the minister whether she is now saying that she did not know the answer on May 13 . Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as I have been describing for the past while, the details of staffi ng are often best covered within the Estimates process when we can look very fully at the staffing across the department, and that was exactly what I had recommended in that answer. That is exactly the point that we are covering here this evening. Mr.

Plohman: So the minister chose an evasive tactic rath er than ans wering this qu estion straightforward . Is that correct? Mrs. Vodrey: I provided an answer for the member which described when we would be able to look in detail at this particular issue, and that is exactly what we are doing this evening. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell me how many increments clinicians have on the pay scale that were laid off from the Child Care and Development Branch? Mrs. Vodrey: For clinicians, they can make one step per year and there are a total of seven steps in the scale based on merit.

Mr. Plohman: The minister is saying that there are seven steps based on merit. So these are not automa tic increases, but mus t receive the endorsation or recommendation of the superior. Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Plohman: Can the minister indicate whether the Huma n Resou rces branch has received any information from school divisions as to whether they are hiring graduating clinicians as opposed to those who are working with the department who are obviously at a much higher pay scale in many cases? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, as we discussed this afternoon, the matter of hiring of clinicians has been a private matter between the clinicians and the hiring authority. So clinicians have not necessarily reported to us whether or not they are being employed by school divisions. *

(2050) In terms of reporting by school divisions, school divisions are independent in terms of their hiring and they will be making their decisions about whether

3360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 they will be hiring new graduates or clinicians who were previously employed. Any information which we might have at the moment is really hearsay information as we have not received direct information, nor are people required to report that information to us. Mr. Plohman: Well, is the minister interested in surveying school divisions to find out exactly what the situation is with regard to the hiring of clinicians? Does she intend to do anything, any follow-up there? Mrs.

Vodrey: The matter of who school divisions hire as their clinician is in fact their business as employers. We will know that they do hire clinicians by virtue of their receiving funding through our school funding form ula. Mr. Plohman: The minister is not particularly interested in finding out whether her former staff who were laid off, who are going to be laid off effective June 30, are hired or not hired by school divisions. Is that correct? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that our human resources director has asked clinicians if they have been offered employ­ ment.

The response has been from clinicians that that is really a private matter for themselves and that they do not wish to discuss it. Mr. Plohman: Yes, I understand that. I was not asking whether the minister was asking clinicians. I asked her whether she was interested in following up with the school divisions to find out whether her staff, her former staff, unceremoniously dumped as of June 30, were of any concern to her as to whether they were still working in the school system in Manitoba. Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, the member is concerned about what he would see as a lack of interest.

I can certainly say to him that in terms of any follow-up with school divisions who are employer�ertainly does not imply a lack of interest. In fact, we have at the moment a process in place which will assist our staff in the process of transition. So there certainly is concern and interest on behalf of our staff. We also will know in the fall the names of the people who have been hired because they will be requi red to receive certification through our certification branch, but some people may already by certified.

If it is someone who is not certified, then we would cer tainly know the newly certified individuals. Some individuals who have not been hired by school divisions or may, for whatever reasons, not wish to be hired by school divisions, as we discus sed this afternoon, they will be on our re-employment list. So we have the re-em ployment list in which we are attempting to assist staff, and we also have our certification branch. In terms of our assistance to employees who have received layoff notices, where possi ble, case managers are available to persons who have been notified as a layoff.

This may include times outside of working hour s whe re Individuals req uir e assistance, and it also includes counselling and referral services. It also may include dealing with the counselling of family members as well. (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) In addition, the efforts have been made to place a person in a position of equal pay and classification and may also look beyond pay issues in attempts to ensure that a person may in fact gain from this process of change and may have an enhanced career path.

They may learn some new skills, or they may use talents and explore interests that had previously not been considered. Our Human Resource Services is committed to work as colleagues with other agencies for the benefits of those who have received a layoff notice. Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that. So she is saying no surveys will be done. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have said two parts. I said, first of all, clinicians themselves have told us that this is a matter between them­ selves and their employers and they do not feel the need to give us a reporting of where they have been hired.

School divisions, as the member knows, are also the employers and they are able to bring into their employ those individuals that they wish, and our role would be to be sure that those individuals are certified. Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying she will not be doing any surveys with school divisions to determine whether they have hired outside or from the clinicians laid off by her department. Mrs.

Vodrey: At the moment we do not have a plan to survey the school divisions about who it is that they have hired, but as I have explained to the member, we will know that clinicians have been hired because the funds will be accessed through our ed funding form ula.

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3361 Mr. Plohman: So the minister will not be following up to survey those school divisions. How many of the individual clinicians have availed themselves of the counselling services that the minister spoke about a few moments ago? Mrs. Vodrey : Mr.

Depu ty Cha irper son , I am informed that out of 50 clinicians approximately 35 have availed themselves of the counselling service, and also divisions will be contacting us at the start of the school year if they have not been able to hire a clinician by that time, because we did make the commitment that we would assist divisions in the hiring of clinicians. Mr. Plohman: Is the minister saying that 35 asked for counselling services or that 35 contacted Human Resources to find out what their rights were with regard to redeployment and salary severance and so on?

Are we talking about personal counselling services for individuals and their families, 35? Mrs. Vodrey: Th ir ty-five co ntacted Huma n Resources for a variety of reasons, for a whole range of reasons. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I dare say that probably the number was quite low insofar as the actual counselling. The minister can clarify that if she wishes. How many indicated they wished to be redeployed up to this point in time? * (21 00) Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that three individuals have been looking at redeployment to this point. Mr. Plohman: Yes, was this offe red as an avenue to all employees?

I know that this was pursued in some detail this aftern oon, but I am not sure that specific question was asked as to whether there was an offer for redeployment or whether it was just a matter of indicating that was one of the options if spaces were available and so on somewhere else in the government. Was it offered as a direct option for all employees? Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, each of the employees and cer1ainly any employee within our department, these employees in particular, yes, did go on the redeployment list, did have the offe r. Mr.

Plohman: Is the offer of going on the redeployment list a guarantee of a job offe r or is it just, we will do our best to find one for you? Mrs. Vodrey : When individuals go on the re-employmen t list, there is not a 1 00 percent gua rantee tha t indiv iduals will become re-employed. However, the government has a very good record at re-employment and, in addition, they are given priority, I am informed, in terms of their job applications. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, how many signed a letter of permanent layoff so that they could get a severance package from the government, therefore forfeiting any eligibility for re-employmen t? Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of the process, our clinicians have atthe moment received verbal notice. They will receive the formal letter, I understand, on the 31s t of May. Therefore, we cannot know until the 30th of June how many will have signed the letter which the member has spoken about. Mr. Plohman: So, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, the minister says they have a mandatory 30 days before they have to respond or they could respond in a week if they wish to? Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the employees can respond, if they wish, as soon as they receive the notificati on, or they may choose to wait for the four-week period. Mr. Plohman: Can the minister indicate when new employees are hired whether the minister makes the final decision or the deputy minister? Mrs.

Vodrey: Until the 1st of March it would have been the Civil Service Commission who had the final say in the employment decisions, and as of the 1s t of March, 19 93, the Department of Education and Training appear ed before the Civil Service Commission and received its deleg ated hiring authority back. Under that delegated hiring authority it is the deputy minister and/or the director of Human Resources who will make the final decisions regarding the hiring. Mr.

Plohman: So the hiring processes, what we could say, normaliz ed for the Department of Education after the Civil Service Commis sion removed the hiring jurisdiction from the department a couple of years ago, I believe it was. Maybe the minister could tell us how long it was in the hands of the Civil Service Commission exclusively. So the minister is saying now that there was a presentation made and the department now has its own hiring authority back. Is this a permanent designation until further notice? Is it a probationary thing or is it something that will come up for a review in a six-m onth or a year period?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the delegated hiring authority was removed from the Department

3362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 of Education and Training on November 25, 19 91 , and that delegated hiring authority was returned to the Department of Education and Training March 1, 19 93. It was returned under normal conditions. There are no conditions specific to the Department of Education and Training, and the hiring authority will be reviewed annually as it is reviewed in all other departments. .. (21 1 0) Mr.

Plohman: The minister is saying that she has been told it is the deputy minister or the director for Human Resources that makes the final decisions on hiring, it is not the minister. The minister could clarify whether that is the normal process for all departments at the present time. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, under The Civil Service Act, obviously, the minister is responsible for what happens within the department. However, it is a normal part of the process that the decision making in terms of the hiring tends to rest with the de puty minister and/or the dir ector of Human Resources. Mr.

Plohman: Does the mi nister prefer that personnel matters be kept out of her hands and in the deputy minister's and the director of Human Resources' hands? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I can tell the member that I have a commitment to follow the rules and to ope rate according to the rules. In addition, we have made a commitment to the Civil Service Commission that we will in fact be following the rules, and that is the way that this department is operating. (Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Mr.

Plohman: So the minister understands the rules as that she, as minister, should not be making the decisions on hiring as to who is hired and on other personnel matters. Is that what I read from what the minister said? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, let me say that I recognize as minister that the minister is responsible for what happens within the de partment. The minis ter is the ultimate aut hori ty in terms of wha t happens in the department.

However, my direction is that I am wanting the Department of Education and Training to operate according to the rules, that I have made a commitmentthatthe Department of Education and Training will operate according to the rules of the civil service and that is the way that we have been proceeding. Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that the way the department is dealing with personnel matters now is consistent with the rules of the Civil Service Com mis sion and consistent with the way all departments, as she understands it, deal with personnel matters . Mrs.

Vodrey: I can tell you in the Department of Education and Training that we are following all acts regarding hiring, that we are following the provisions requiring equity and fairness in hiring and I believe that we are operating according to the rules of the civil service in our hiring practices. Mr. Plohman: Yes, and could the minister add, and consis tent with how she under stands other departments are dealing with these matters. Mrs.

Vodrey: Again, it is very difficult to speak for departments other than my department, the one for which I am directly responsible, and I can say though that, as the member knows, departments are subject to audits by the civil service and we are certainly subject to that, as are other departments, and that would be a system of checks and balances. I speak again with the greatest knowledge about the Department of Education and Training. Mr. Plohman: Well, I would hope that the minister would speak with the greatest knowledge about the department that she is now responsible for.

I just asked the minister if it was consistent with the way other departments handle personnel matters, as she understands it. I asked the minister if that is fact. Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I believe that to be true. But again, I have to say to the member that the area where I am directly responsible, and that is the Department of Education and Training, is the department that I speak with, obviously, knowledge about. Mr. Plohman: Yes, we kind of assumed that since we are on those Estimates, Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson.

Is the minister talking about permanent staff only, or is she talking also about term appointments in terms of the procedures? Are they differ ent with regard to what the civil service requires of the department? Mrs. Vodrey: The member may know that some departments do have more delegate authority in some areas than the Department of Education and

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3363 Training, or than the way in which we operate. In addition, the Department of Education and Training ope rates som ewha t dif ferently than other departments in that we do have secondments from school divisions. Mr. Plohman: The minister is very vague on her com ment about del egated authority. I asked specifically about term appointments. Is the minister saying that the depa rtment, under the newly dele gated author ity from the Civil Service Comm ission, does not make any dis tinction between term appoi ntments and permanent employees? Mrs.

Vodrey: I am informed, and in response to a very specific question, the answer is that in the Department of Education and Training we handle the term appointments in the same way that we handle the permanent appointments. Mr. Plohman: I want to thank the minister for that clarification. Can she tell me exactly how secondments are handled? *

(2120) Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of secondments, I can tell the member that our secondments are being done by competition and that by and large they are now always being done by competition. I am informed that there may be a case at some time where there is a very specific type of expertise which is required, but we are, in terms of secondments, certainly now making every effort to do those by competition. Mr. Plohman: How many secondments are there presently in the department? Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have the exact numbers of the secondments with us this evening.

We could have those numbers available to the member at the next time that we are sitting together. I can tell him that the secondments occur in two areas of the Department of Education: the PDSS area and the BEF area. The first is the Program Developm ent and Support Services, and the second is BEF de bure au. Mr. Plohman: Just one ot her qu estion for clarification. Did the minister indicate earlier that the delegated authority for her department was not fu II and complete? In other words, some departments have more dele gated authority from the Civil Service Commis sion than the Department of Education.

So even though the Department of Education now has delegated authority, it does not have as much delegated authority as other departments. I assume that that means limitations on term hirings as well in terms of the process. So if I am correct, the minister could indicate so. Mrs. Vodrey: We have the fu ll and complete hiring authority which has been returned to us. I understand, and I am informed that in some departments-and I am not able to provide the member with a specific example-there has been occasionally some further delegated authority for day-to-day management within that department.

However, the del egated authority which was returned to the Department of Education and Training is that authority which would have been expected to have been returned to us. Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that. Can the minister indicate the status of the diagnostic centre? Is it now closed or will it be June 30, and what is happening to the staff there? Mrs. Vodrey: The diagnostic learning centre is due to close on June 30. However, two staff will be retained, one to look at emotionally behaviourally disordered young people and another, a specialist in the area of learning.

In terms of the other staff, we have two of those staff who were seconded to the Department of Education and Training. They will return to their divisions. Three staff have been placed and there is just one staff individual yet to be placed. Mr. Plohman: Are these all fu ll- time staff the minister is talking about? Mrs. Vodrey: The positions that the secondments were in were term positions. Though the individuals, during the time of their placement with Education and Training, worked full time, the positions in fact were term and, as I have said, those individuals now will return to their home school divisions.

Mr. Plohman: Two staff retained-are they going to work out of that centre or are they going to be housed somewhere else? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the two staff who will be retained will work from the Child Care and Development branch from the central office. Mr. Plohman: Did the minister say that they will be doing assessments of emotionally disturbed or disordered young people?

3364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 Mrs. Vodrey: The positions will ensure that the department is still able to provide some leadership and assistance in these areas. As I said, one will be retained to deal with emotionally, behaviourally disordered young people. Another will be a learning specialist, and they will become part of the core staff who will remain in the Child Care & Development Branch.

As I said, one position will be utilized to provide service to children with the most extreme learning problems, and the other will be used to provide service to children with the most severe emotional and behavioural disorders. Mr. Plohman: I guess I would ask, if it is appropriate here, are all of the staff being moved out of the diagnostic centre? It is being closed down and sold off, the equipment and so on or rented out to somebody else-is that the intention? Mrs. Vodrey: The diagnostic learning centre, Diagnostic Support Centre, is housed within the building of the Manitoba School for the Deaf.

Theref ore, the building certainly does remain. The equipment which had been used will now be housed in the resource library, and it will be available to be borrowed by schools. •

(2130) Mr. Plohman: Can the minister indicate how many clients were being served by the eight staff there? Mrs. Vodrey: Again, we are getting into some of the details which may be best covered under the Child Care & Development Branch, but I do have the numbers. The total number is 79- Mr. Plohman: Per year? Mrs. Vodrey: 79 in this past year. Mr. Plohman: We will have an opportunity to deal with this, as the minister has said, under the Child Care & Development Branch. I just want to make one observation.

I find it kind of interesting that the minister says that out of 79 that somehow one staff is going to be retained to deal with the most extreme learning problems. It is going to be interesting to find out whether the minister thinks thatthat kind of token staff ing is sufficient to deal with the worst situations out of the 79 that were there , which are in themselves extreme situations. That is why they are there in the first place, but I will not pursue that with the minister right now.

I wanted to ask the minister about the staffi ng changes in Distance Education, how many were staff reductions, what the fate of those staff is at the present time. Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of Distance Education, there were 11 people in the reductions. There were 12 positions. One position was vacant. Two of those individuals received their layoff notices, and their last day of work was April 2 6. They are currently laid off. In terms of the other nine individuals, they will have a last day of work on June 30.

They have not yet received their layoff notices; however, I am informed that six of those individuals are already placed in terms of a new position, and there are three individuals who would, in fact , be laid off on June 30, who are yet to be placed. Mr. Plohman: Does this mean that this branch and the expertise of these people are lost to the department? Are they being redeployed to areas where they will still deal with distance education? Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, we have been discussing the reorganization that is taking place within the PDSS

section of the department, and what we are looking at is to reorganize again for effi ciency and, through that reorganization, to integrate the work that had previously been done by the Distance Education area into the work being done by PDSS so that curriculum design and development, for instance, is nowdone within PDSS with a consideration for the area of Distance Education, and not to have Distance Education, as was seen before, as a completely separate area where there was not necessarily the integration of the concerns for Distance Education within the PDSS and the regular curriculum design and development area, by way of example.

Mr. Plohman: The minister did not answer the question. The six that are being placed, they have been placed in the department, other departments, or are they being placed in areas of curriculum development where their expertise can be utilized in an integrated fashion, as the minister says, with the other PDSS staff? • (21 40) Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that one of the individuals has been placed within the Department of Education and Training and the other individuals have been placed elsewhere in government. Mr.

Plohman: Still dealing with personnel matters, is the minister not concerned about the-it is one thing to disband a branch and say the service is now going to be integrated into the department. It is

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3365 another thing to say that none of those staff that were the experts in dealing with that whole area are going to be included except one, and we do not even know yet whether that one is in the branch where they would be working with their expertise that they have developed. So I am rather shocked at the minister's answer. 1 just wonder whether the minister is concerned about the capacity of her staff to deal with an initiative in this area in the Program Development section. Mrs.

Vodrey: One of the individuals, the one in dividual who has been placed within the Department of Education and Training, has been placed within the curriculum area. Other members who have been replaced are supports who have been employed within government; they are support staff and have the skills which would allow them to move to other areas of government, as also the media technician who has moved elsewhere in government.

We certainly look through the restructuring of this area to make sure that this area is, in fact, as integrated and as efficient as it can be, and that it will provide, but in an integrated manner, for the development of distance education as it is a part of the work that is being done by PDSS. Mr. Plohman: What the minister has said then, I guess, and she can correct me if I am wrong, is that of the six Prof essionai!T echnical people in this area, one has been redeployed within the department, and five are gone. The Administrative Support people are all-the five there are gone as well.

Only one of the Profe ssionai!T echnical people out of six has been redeployed in the Curriculum Branch. Mrs. Vodrey: Again, some of those people, as the member has said, have been redeployed, and they ha ve been redeployed to othe r areas of government, but we have been speaking about the restructuring. We believe that the restructuring of branch programs will focus resources on the integration of technology into the instructional process across the curricu lum.

The technology training for educators will be targeted to the needs identified atthe school level and delivered in the field using the school facilities. Distance Education program development and deliver y services will be integr ated with other curriculum development and instructional support services of the Program Development and Support Services division of the department. This change in focus, we believe, will better position the department to adapt to the rapidly changing technologies, No. 1 , and also to adapt thes e changing tec hnol og ies to educ ational instruction. Mr.

Plohman: The minister has just said that she thinks this elimination of this branch and the staff here, with their expertise, will better position the department to deal with the changing technology. I find that hard to believe. The minister-co uld I put words in her mouth, and she could indicate if she does not agree with it. Is the minister saying that she does not have any concerns about the ability of the department to be able to initiate new challenges, new programs in this area, and she has no concern about the ability of the department to do that without these experts? Mrs.

Vodrey: The memb er uses the term "elimination." What we have said is that this is an integration. We have been looking at integrating the services, the work that had previously been done separately by Distance Education into the PDSS

section of our department. We will be looking to continue, as I have just explained to him, under the restructuring, and how we will look to focus our resources on the integration of technology into the instructional process across all of curriculum. Five areas of technology that reflect current activities across the province are things such as com puter-assis ted learning and telecom muni­ cations, interactive instructional television, satellite del iv er ed cours es, and newer, em erging applications of existing technologies.

As I said, the focus, as a result of that, will be on enabling divisions to move ahead with the areas that I have just spoken about. Mr. Plohman: The minister is saying, then, that the loss of the five out of the six Profess ionai!T echnical people in that area will not prove to be a problem for any initiatives in this area. Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, we believe that through this restructuring it really will lead to very effective changes. We believe it will lead to a new approach. We believe it will be beneficial in terms of the work in the field.

We believe, as I have said several times, it will integrate the work of distance education and the challenges of distance

3366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 education into the challenges which we are looking at in terms of our curriculum development and our curricu lum delivery and the use of technology. The branch does continue to have staff which does have some of this similar expertise, and it will allow us to develop in this area, being conscious of Distance Education as a potential application for our curricu lum areas, for example. It will also, we believe, assist us to be responsive to the field. Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, we under stand the integration approach that the minister is talking about.

That is not really what I am questioning at all. I am just wondering whether the minister feels it is regrettable that she has to lose the staff, six staff, with expertise in this area, and whether she will in fact be able to carry out the mandate with this loss of expertise. It seems that the minister does not want to deal with that very sensitive issue, and that is her choice. I want to ask the minister­ * (215 0) Point of Order Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, just on a point of order, in terms of carrying outthe mandate, I believe that I have said over the past several answers that I have given, that we certainly believe that we will be able to carry out the mandate and we believe that this mandate will be carried out in a very effective way. *** Mr. Plohman: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, could the minister indicate, from her staff, how many reclassifications have been made in the last year by her Human Resources department?

I understand that position classification issues are a part of the jurisdiction of this branch of her department and they are done in conjunction with the Civil Service Commission. Could the minister indicate how many have been initiated and carried out, and of those, how many were reclassifica tions upward and how many were reclassifications downward? Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that there have been very few of those reclassifications initiated, and I can have for the member when we are sitting together the next time the exact number and the details. Mr.

Plohman: Yes, could the minister also include in that informati on any red-cir cling, so to speak, of staff, rather than those that were not reclassified downward but red-circled instead, as a result of transfers or whatever? Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we will provide that information the next time we are together, as I said. I am informed that the number is very few, where the reclassifications had been initiated, and extremely few in the area of red-cir cling. Mr. Plohman: Yes, my colleague has some questions before we move on in this area, Madam Acting Deputy Chair. Ms.

Friesen: I wanted to get back to the loss of aboriginal personnel in the New Careers Program. Could the minister tell us how many aboriginal people are left in the New Careers Program? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, it seems to me it is very difficult for us to give an exact number at this point in terms of the number of people who have declared. At this moment, I can say that we would say that there are three individuals for sure who are of aboriginal back­ gr ound re mainin g in the New Careers area.

However, I did say that, when we were discussing this area earlier, we would look at a reconciled list in terms of the post-s econdar y part of my department in the Advanced Education and Skills Training area. Of the numb er s of aboriginal individuals, that would include only those people who have declared. Ms. Friesen: We can only deal with those who have declared. That is true.

So the minister is saying then that here is a program which deals with approximately 70 percent aboriginal clientele, that puts some store by peer counselling, in that sense, by culturally sensitive counselling kind of programs in effect which the annual reports and discussions of this program make a great deal of, and the minister loses five out of eight of those aboriginal people in that program.

This is not a program, in that sense, like other programs, and the minister is still going to maintain that, when asked that question in the House, she had no idea that all of the people she had lost, or at least that five out of those, were aboriginal. Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the layoffs , I can tell the member again, as I have told her earlier this evening, that the layoffs were conducted according to the rules. It was the junior employees who were laid off. We followed very carefu lly the rules of seniority which are laid out

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 3367 within the collective agreement. That process was one in which I know has been of importance to the member in terms of the following of the rules of the collective agreement. I would also say in terms of the New Careers Program, one of the important features of that program has been that it is a-1 would use the words -com munity-based program in that individuals do have the opportunity to work within their home communities and where individuals also receive support within their home communities and in areas where they are also doing their work.

That is the feature that seems to be the distinguishing feature for the New Careers Program. The member is attempting to draw another distinguishing feature, but the main distinguishing feature is, in fact, that it is a community-based program and that individuals have received a great deal of the support from those areas in which they live and they work. Ms.

Friesen: Yes, I understand the minister was following the principles that are laid out in the book, but here is a program which aims at further education and job training for aboriginal people and depends to considerable extent upon culturally sensitive counselling and training. So could the minister tell us how she weighed up that policy? How did she decide in a program which aims at affirmative action and which had at least got to the point where it had at least hired eight aboriginal people, all of a sudden decides to get rid of five of them? What entered that kind of policy decision? *

(2200) Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is speaking very particularly about New Careers as one program. As I have said to her before, the layoffs, the reductions were done according to the government employees master agreement, where seniority rules. The questioning this evening has been on a line to determine if in fact we were following the rules set out by the civil service. We have been discussing over this evening that the Department of Education and Training, now that we have received back our delegated authority, has been very carefu l to follow those rules.

The member is now asking: Would this be a special circumstance in which the rules would not be followed? I have said to her that in this case we did follow the rules, but I think it would also be important to let her know that within Advanced Education and Skills Training there are sti ll aboriginal staff who, I am inform ed, would be found in all levels of the organization. As I have said also, we will look to provide her the next time that we are together with as much detailed information as we are able regarding those people of aboriginal background who are employed in this area.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs. Render): It is a little after 10 p.m. What is the will of the committee? An Honourable Member: Carry on. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Carry on. Okay. Ms. Friesen: The issue that I am addressing here is a policy issue on reduction. Why did the minister choose to reduce the aboriginal staff in this area when they are such a high component of the entire aboriginal staff of her department? I mean, five people is a considerable number.

They are coming out of one program that is supposed to be culturally sensitive and where they would presumably be an integral part of that program . (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) The minister may choose to answer it, to consider it, in another way. What are the implications for that program of having lost such a high proportion of their aboriginal counsellors? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair , again I am informed that the union does not allow for affirmative action under this

section of the general employment master agreement. Therefore , it does not allow for us to look at the issue in terms of layoff, in terms of particular affirmative action rights. So the layoffs were done and the reductions were accomplished according to this

Section 23, and all of the employees did have less than four years of seniority. When we look at the staffi ng, the staffi ng was done according to the rules, and according to the rules of the collective agreement, and those are the ones that we are working within. However, we also recognize, as does the member, in looking at the New Careers Program that students do receive support in other areas. They may receive support in the places in which they are working. They may rece ive su pport in the areas of their home communities, and the distinguishing feature of this program is that it is a community-based program.

3368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, well, it seems to make a mockery of affirmative action if the minister-and I am emph asizing this, not the collective agreement but the minister�hose to cut in this area. I mean, that is the issue, is it not? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we did discus s under the policy area some of the changes that occurred regarding New Careers Program and the restructuring which is being done within the Advanced Education and Skills Training area. So that

section and that area have been discussed partially, and I am sure the member may wish to discuss it again when we actually get to that budget line. Under the line that we are discussing now, which is the Human Resource line, the member has been asking questions about how that was accomplished.

I have been letting her know throughout the discussion this evening that under this line, Human Resources, where it is very important for us to outline how we provide for staffi ng within the Department of Education and Training and any changes in that staffing, we have done so following the rules set out in the master agreement, the rules set out according to the civil service, the rules set out according to the collective agreement.

I have explained to her, those reductions did occur in line with the master agreement, that that does not provide for the issue of affirmative action, which I know that she would, perhaps, like to see raised with the union. It is not provided for. In the area of policy decisions, I also have described to her, and am prepared under the budget line specifically for New Careers to discuss more fully, if she would like to go over those answers agai n, the res tructuring that is occurring in Advanced Education and Skills Training.

In addition to that, to remind her, as I have said, there have been very difficult budget decisions which have been made across government not only in the Department of Education and Training but within this area of New Careers. Yes, there has remained programming in this area. There has remained funding to support this particular program area, and there has been a continued support through this budget line for this community-based programming. I have discussed several times that that is the distinguishing feature for this particular type of programming, and the commitment has remained. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I was wondering if there might be the will of the committee to take just a 1 0-minu te recess to stretch one's legs? Mr. Plohman: If we could just wait about five minutes, we will be finished with this area and we can move to the next line, and then that would be an appropriate time. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: That would be fine. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess what the minister is saying, then, Is that we as opposition and the people of Manitoba should be thankful for small mercies. There still is remnants of the program left.

But the minister chose to cut an area of her department which effectively purges years of affirma tive action. The minister made that decision, not the collective agreement, not the union, but the minister, by her decision, to eliminate five of eight positions that were affirmative action positions. Would she not agree that this will largely destroy the program because she has lost staff, critical staff, to this culturally sensitive program? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, it was not my decision to specifically reduce the positions or these particular people.

Holding the position, however, the member appears to be saying that he would like me to raise with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), to raise at the next union negotiations that there would be an affi rmative action policy in relation to layoffs. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that might be a consideration, but the minister is saying today that she did not even take into consideration the impact of her decisions on cuts on affirmative action. That is a shocking revelation by the minister.

I would hope that the minister would have considered all ramific ations of her decisions before these cuts were made, instead of just hastily throwing them together as it seems the minister has done, without any forward planning or consideration of the impacts. Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said several times this evening, the collective agreement does not provide for af firma tive action in the area of layoffs . Therefore, in this area of reduction, we were not able to look at, particularly, issues of affirmative action. The reductions were done according to the collective agreement.

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3369 I think it is important that the member understand that the collective agreement and its terms were respected in this area. If he would have it any other way, then perhaps he should say so. Mr. Plohman: The minister is being mischievous now. Knowing this, that there is no affirmative action on the layoff side, why did the minister choose to make the cuts in this area that effe ctively destroy years of af firma tive action efforts in her department? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, again, I have explained that across government there were difficult budgetary decisions which had to be made. We are looking at a restructuring in the Advanced Education and Skills Training area. As we were looking at that restructuring and the accommodation of the kinds of skills training that Manitobans would require, we did have to look across all of our programming. But, as I have said, there are, and there have been, som e- ag ain, there ha s been this restructuring, which is taking place now, but the distinguishing feature of this program has been that it is community based.

As the member notices, there is still a budget line. I have just received some information from staff now which is an update in terms of the number. The update that I have now is that there are seven aboriginal staff who are remaining in the area of New Careers. Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister stated earlier that it was not her intention to lay off aff irmative action employees. That was not her intention.

Well, what kind of commitment did she have to affirmative action if she did not even know that she was dealing with af firmative action staff when she made the decision to cut these positions in New Careers? What kind of commitment can we interpret this mini ster has to affirmative action in her department? Does she have any commitment at all, or shall we interpret that she does not have a commitment, that this is a low priority? As a matter of fact, it is such a low priority, it is being reduced, not increased in terms of aff irmative action efforts in the Department of Education. Mrs.

Vodrey: I have explained, during the cou rse of the evening, the affirm ative action which is taking place in the area of the hiring, and I have also distributed, for the member's information, the interim policy on the hiring in the areas of affi rmative action. We have also made a commitment to the numbers to providing the most up-to-date numbers in the area of affi rmative action.

However, as we have spoken about this evening, the collec tive agr eeme nt does not allow for affirmative action to be considered in the area of layoffs, and, as I have said, if the member thinks that is an important area and would like to have that raised to the union, then that would be an important message to provide to my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, since the minister should have known that the collective agreement does not allow for affi rmative action insofar as layoffs are concerned, and since the minister should have known that if she made the decision to cut New Careers, she was going to target affirmative action employees, why did she make that decision? Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can start at the beginning for the member in terms of saying that there are, and there were, some very difficult budget decisions which had to be made all across government.

We did look to the need to do that, but we also recognized the fact that we were looking at restructuring in the area of Advanced Education and Skills Training, so we had to make some decisions. Some of those decisions were made based on the kinds of programs which would be within the area of Advanced Education and Skills Training. We did look at the opportunity to restructure and to improve effectiv eness. In doing that, yes, some staff were affecte d. In terms of the staff affected, we then had to look to the collective agreement as a way then to deal with the staff who were affecte d.

As I have said to the member as well, in the area of New Careers its distinguishing feature is that it is a community-based program, and we have retained the program. The member can look at the budget line. Yes, there were some difficult decisions to be made in that program as there have been across government. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is nice to see that the minister always manages to deal with the distinguishing feature. I do not know what we would do with her answer if she did not have that distinguishing feature of this program.

Now that it has been mentioned 15 times, or whatever, the fact is, what we have seen as the

3370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 distinguishing feature here of this program is that the minister cut the program without any consideration for the impact it would have on affirmative action employees in her department. She obviously has no commitment to affi rmative action if she could made this callous, hasty decision without considering its impact on affi rmative action, knowing that she would not be able to protect those employees under the collective agreement. Obviously, the minister had no com mitment to the program, makes a farce of affi rmative action in her department.

With one fell swoop in this particular decision, it is crystal clear. No matter how much she wants to say that black is white, or any other colour, it is obviously clear that the minister has no commitment to affirma tive action. It is crystal clear for all to see. No amount of evasive discussion about the redeeming features of this department will change the minds of the public when they see this minister's decisions. The implications are clear, crystal clear. The record shows that now. This minister has no commitment to the program. We can recess, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, if you would like, at this point for a short break. *

(2220) Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me say, the member is wrong. One only has to look at the discussion that has taken place this evening to see that the member is wrong. The issue of the community-based distinguishing feature of the New Careers Program is important to raise, because when the program was discussed by one of the other hono ur able mem bers in questioning, the iss ue of specific peer counselling within the program was noted as a main featu re. I just wanted to make it clear that that program actually has another feature that is a very important one. We have gone around the issue.

We have gone around the issue from the hiring side. We have gone around the issue from the side of affirmative action not being included within the layoff clauses for the master agreement. We stand by the fact that we look for the integration to provide continued support in the area of New Careers, and we have retained a budget line in the area of New Careers. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The committee will recess for 10 minutes. The committee recessed at 10 :21 p.m. After Recess The committee resumed at 10 :34 p.m. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Bob Rose): Order, please.

We will resume consideration of 1 .(

d) Human Resource Services (1 ) Salaries $329,200 -pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $54,900-pass. 1. (

e) Financial and Administrative Services (1 ) Salaries $903,800. Shall the item pass? Mr. Plohman: The office of the assistant deputy minister being who-the minister introduced some of her staff. Is she prepared to indicate whom the assistant deputy minister is, how long he or she has been employed in this particular area, and what part of the department or where did this person come fr om? Mrs. Vodrey: The person who is now in this position, Mr. Jim Glen, came into this position from his previous position of director of Schools Finance.

He has been the acting assistant deputy minister for approximately six months, and he moved into this position because the incumbent moved into the position of assistant dep uty minis ter in the post-secondary area because that person had moved on to become a deputy minister in Industry, Trade and Tourism . (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) Mr. Plohman: So the director of Schools Finance, is this an acting or is this a permanent appointment? Mrs. Vodrey: This is an acting appointment at the moment, and currently there is a competition underway. Mr.

Plohman: Can the minister indicate when the department is planning to have this completed? Mrs. Vodrey: The scr eening process has been initiated now. We expect to begin the interviewing shortly, and we expect to have completion of the competition by the end of June. The current person who is holding this position in an acting capacity is currently at the table. Mr. Plohman: Is the acting deputy minister going to apply for this position? Mrs. Vodrey: That is a private matter of the individual who is in this position in an acting status, and he may choose to discuss whether or not he is applying for the position.

May 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 3371 Mr. Plohman: I kind of wonder whether he would want to do that considering one of the Expected Results in this area is: "Effective schools funding program meeting Its objectives, including program results, real and perceived equities, and satisfaction of school divisions in other educational organi­ zations." It would seem to me that he might have a couple of strikes against him right now, and with that kind of an impossible expected result at this point in time, he would want no part of that job.

Now that is said with tongue and cheek, but I want to ask the minister about that particular expected result. Would the minister not agree that she is a far cry from meeting that particular expected result at the present time, particularly the part about • ... sati sfact ion of sch ool di visions and other educational organizations"? ..

(2240) Mrs. Vodrey: The area of school funding has been a very important area, and part of the work in that area has been with our new ed finance model, or the ed funding formula. That ed funding formula, as we said from the beginning, is one which will look to be a dynamic one, and this year it did experience some changes. Those changes came on the recommendation of the advisory committee. They made recommen­ dations to assist and to make that formula more responsive to school divisions, and we accepted their six priority recommendations in that area.

So, in terms of the funding formula and the mechanism, we are in a process which, we believe, provides much more certainty to school divisions than the time without the funding formula and the time before the new funding formula when there was not a degree of certainty and there was a great deal of funding by way of an ad hoc method to school divisions at that time. Mr. Plohman: Would the minister characterize her 2 percent cut as effective school funding? Mrs.

Vodrey: Again, and we have discussed this, and it is a fact that is an important one and perhaps needs to be restated that there were very difficult budget decisions to be made in the past. When difficult budget decisions were being made , Education and Training did not have to experience the same reductions that other departments had to experience in other years. This year we had a great concern regarding the deficit and regarding the debt and had certainly understood that we had a responsibility to bring that under control.

One of the ways that this government looked to bring the deficit under control and the debt under control was to look at controlling spending. When we looked at controlling spending, we had to look at all areas of gove rnmen t, areas of government which, in the past, had not had to look at any kinds of reducti ons, wher eas other departments had, in the past, looked at reductions. This year Education and Training did experience some reductions. They experienced reductions as this government looked to control spending as one way in which to look at controlling our deficit. Mr.

Plohm an: Notwiths tan ding the diffi cul t decisions that the minister persists in going over with members of the comm ittee, I asked the question. The minister could alter her Expected Resu lts if that is what it would take to more accurately reflect what the minister has done with her difficult decisions. I am asking whether the 2 percent cut constitutes effective school funding in the minister's eyes this . year. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Cha ir person , this government had to look at what the deficit was in this province. We had to look at where a continually increasing deficit would place this province.

In looking at those concerns, we did make decisions which, we believe, were difficult decisions. They were made to assist Manitobans. One thing we had to do was look at controlling our spending, so we did make decisions. Some of those decisions were made based on controlling our spending. In the area of Education and Training we had not, in the past, had to deal with that area. We had, in fact, been receiving increases while other departments were not receiving increases.

So this year we did have to look at Education and Training now, looking to control spending in order to reduce the deficit and to reduce the debt. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wondered if I could ask a question on the new funding formula as opposed to the old funding formula. The funding formula that existed during the NDP years was-- the old funding formula, it seems to me, was based on the theory that the more frugal the school division was, the Jess money they got.

I am wondering if there has been a complete change in that funding formula so that the funding formula

3372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 more accurately reflects the size of the division and the needs of the division. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, we believe that the new funding formula does more accurately reflect the foundation of educ ation expenses that divisions encounter, and it does provide, also, a much greater degree of certainty to divisions and does, in a much more accurate way, reflect and also ensure that there is a way for divisions to access funding.

I look at the area of Library, and I look at the area of Guidance and Counselling that in the past, when funding was offered in a different way, we did not necessarily have any way to know if, in fact, funding did go into those areas and now we are able to look at how the funding flows and divisions are able to access funding under a number of diff erent areas. Mr. Gllleshammer: Does the department have information on the surpluses that school divisions have?

I ask that because I have seen in the media that some school divisions can accommodate increased costs in the coming year through the surpluses that have been ac cumulated over a number of years- Point of Order Mr. Plohman: I am a little bit concerned about allowing this questioning, on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I have to raise this for the record whether the Chair rules in my favour or not, but I think this is, from my experience, highly unorthodox that a minister of the government would be questioning another minister on her spending Esti mates . It is just not done in com mittee .

Backbenchers have done it, but ministers have not done it, to my recollection. On that basis, I think that this questioning should be ruled out of order as inappropriate by one minister to anothe r. It is just a waste of the committee's time at the present time. We will get to the issues that the Minister of Fam ily Services is raising in due course, but this is the opposition's time to question, and backbenchers on occasion, but certainly not ministers of the Crown to question their colleagues. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr.

GIII eshammer: It seems to me that the member for Dauphin is a little testy this evening. I would think he would be interested in the surpluses that exist throughout the province, where school boards are indicating that they can fund this year's increases and maybe even next year's increases with the surpluses that they have accumulated. Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we are aware that school divisions do have surpluses. It does vary from school division to school division.

As of June 30, '92, we are aware that surplus was in the area of $68 million, and that surplus amount of money is available to be used by school divisions in terms of funding within their own school division. *

(2250) Mr. Plohman: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has persistently referred to the Department of Education and Training not being subject to cuts in the past and therefore was a candidate for reductions this year. We are not talking about the department at this particular point in time. We are talking about this funding to school divisions, which the assistant deputy minister is responsible for.

One of the Expected Results is: "Effective schools funding program meeting Its objectives, including program results, real and perceived equities, and sati sfaction of school di visi ons and other educational organizations." I would think that the minister has clearly failed to meet that expected result. r· want to just ask the minister to elaborate on how she feels she has met that exp ec ted re sul t, as she li sted in her Supplementary Estimates book? Mrs. Vodrey: The newfundi ngformula, we believe, does meet the needs of students.

It does identify a foundation of education by which the department and which the government is able to flow funds for those particular activities. It also meets the equity of the taxpayer, and in addition, in the development of that funding form ula, the Department of Education and Training and the government worked with the represe ntat ive grou ps, the re prese ntative educational partners, to arrive at that funding form ula. As I said, when that funding form ula was fir st put into use for the school year '92-93 , that funding form ul a would then be lo oked up on for recommendations and revisions.

School divisions, in the first year of application, did submit to the

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 3373 advisory committee areas where they believed that there could be changes and developments. As I have said to the member, we did then look at adjusting the funding formula. There have been six areas in which there were rec ommend ations accepted, six priority areas in which there were recommendations accepted. So we believe that, first of all, it was developed to meet the needs of students. It was developed to provide a greater degree of certainty. It was developed in conjunction with our partners in education, and it remains as a dynamic model.

The advisory committee does continue to work on the recommendations that come forward from school divisions for their consideration. Mr. Plohman: I think what was the key here in the question I asked the minister that she seemed to avoid was the issue of the 2 percent cut, not the model, the 2 percent cut this year. This is what I was speaking about. Maybe the minister missed that portion of my question, and that is the 2 percent cut across the board manifesting itself at three, four, five percent, six percent and even higher in some school divisions.

How does that constitute in any way, shape, or fashion, meeting the expected result the minister stated in her book? Would she not have been more accurate to have just removed that expected result under the circumstances for this year, considering that she was not even going to come close to meeting it? Mrs. Vodrey: I believe the member's questions did look at the funding formula as a way of accom­ plishing that funding. When we were speaking specifically of the reduction, the reduction was, as was stated in the announcement, a 2 percent reduction in the funding for the school year.

The funds available, then, had to flow through the ed funding model to each school division, and how it was applied in each school division would depend on a number of things, including issues such as declining enrollment, and also the incorporation of the six areas of change and priority that were requested by the advisory committee. (Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) So the actual funding was across the board.

The 2 percent reduction was in the total amount of funds available, and then funds had to flow through the funding formula, and were very dependent upon issues such as declining enrollment or in areas where adjustments were made, in the areas where the funding fo rmula was modified. In that way we still had, through the use of the funding form ula, looked at applying, in what we believe to be at least a fair way, a way in which school divisions could at least look at a refe rence point through the funding fo rmula as a way of actually accessing the funds. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think it might be appropriate at this time to follow up on the minister's colleag ue's question about surpluses which he raised. Can the minis ter indi cate how many school divisions had surpluses? Out ofthe $68 million, how many school divisions were included in those? Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that all divisions except one had surpluses. Mr. Plohman: The mini ster mi ght care to characterize the surpluses to make this relevant.

If a surplus of $1 00 or $1 ,000 or even $50,000 was present, it would be, generally, a very small portion of the total budget, although some school divisions would have relatively small budgets compared to others. In terms of significant surpluses, say, over 5 percent of the total budget tor the school division, how many divisions would there be in that category? Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that overall the surplus is approximately 6.4 percent of the expenditures. Mr.

Plohman: Yes, and I asked if we want to use that figure, then 6.4 percent-and that is on total, how many individual school divisions would be at that average or above? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that over 30 school divisions exceed that number. Mr. Plohman: So the 6.4 percent figure, in addition to being the average, is almost the median for school di visions in the pro vi nce . There is about-what?-25 or more that have less than that? (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the answer is yes. *

(2300) Mr. Plohman: So there is a point to be made here with regard to the surpluses. It is kind of misleading to bring out a figure of $68 million. Is that the figure? I think it was $68 million that the minister answered

3374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1993 to her colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) earlier, and when we explore it further we find that 30 divisions have at least 6.4 percent of their expenditure budget in place as a reserve, and the remaining divisions having varying amounts less than that. Therefore, the ability of school divisions to tap into that reserve to any degree is very limited for those school divisions that have smaller than 6.4 percent.

We could use a figur e of 5 percent or whatever relevant figur e we want to use, but the fact is it is a small number of dollars available to them, and it is misleading to talk about that money as if it is equally available to everyone. There are many school divisions that have significant reserves, others who have very little reserves and some right in the middle.

So I would ask the minister to clarify for the record, in light of her colleague's questions, this issue, that in fact it distorts the ability of school divisions to draw upon other funds in light of the minister's capping in Bill 16, and that many school divisions are treated in an inequitable fashion as a result of this emphasis on reserves by this government. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the issue of reserves was not ever characterized by myself as equally available to all divisions. The issue of surplus, however, has been an issue which has been raised publicly on a number of occa sions.

There ha ve been a number of Manitobans who, I believe, have made inquiries of their school divisions regarding any surplus that those school divisions may have. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister would agree then that it is unfair and distorting of the facts to use a broad- brush approach when talking about reserves. Would the minister agree with that? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the point to be made here is there are a number of issues which are to be considered in the funding for school divisions. The issue of surplus is one issue which has been raised publicly.

Another issue which is to be considered is the phase-in funding. We also are aware of certain exceptions to the cap on the special requirement, depending upon enrollment also. There are a number of areas in which there is flexibility available to school divisions. The surplus is one area which was raised here this evening which has been raised publicly. There are others. Mr. Plohman: Could the minister just table the list of the divisions with surpluses and those without; in other words, a list of all school divisions and their status with regard to surpluses? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, we believe that is information which the divisions would wish to release and would themselves determine how they would like to share that information. Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister has it, and she answers questions on it. Why will she not provide it to the committee? It is not providing it to any competitor here or some other sinister reason for it. We would like to see what the distribution is. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Orde r, please. Could I ask the honourable members in the committee to choose their words very carefu lly?

So far I have had the words "distort, misleading" and now "sinister." It does start to lead us into a little bit of a problem when it comes to the decorum of the committee when members start to choose these words which are on the very borderline of unparliamentary. I would ask the honourable member to choose his words very carefully at this time. Mrs. Vodrey: Just in answer to the member's question. He has been asking some broad and general questions, and I have been answering him in terms of broad statements.

I have not released during our discussion, or we have not discussed this evening, the specific numbers available within each specific school division, and I believe, as I answered previously, that the specific amount within each school division would be discussed by that particular school division. Mr. Plohman: I had indicated to the minister that it was not for sinister purposes that I wanted to have this information. There is certainly nothing wrong with using the term in that regard. I was not saying the minister was sinister or anyone else was.

I said, I was not asking for the information for sinister purposes. I believe it is important that the minister be prepared to share all the information with regard to school financing with the committee. There is no logical reason why the minister has to feel that she has to hold back on any traditional grounds or whatever other reasons for not providing full and complete information to the committee. Now is the minister drawing on some precedent that she is getting in terms of advice from her staff that this should not be provided? What is the reason

May 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3375 for not being complete and open with information with the committee? The sheet is right in her staff's book there. I can see it from here. Jus t provide a copy of it to the committee. What is the problem? Mrs. Vodrey: We do provide information on the revenue and expenditures of school divisions and make every effort to provide as much information as possible regarding the funding of school divisions and regarding information about school divisions.

However, we have not ever provided the surplus; that is information which school divisions them­ selves will determine how they wish to discuss that information publicly. There have been times, I understand, where, based on the revenue and expenditu res inform ation, various groups have attempted to calculate what the surplus would be, but I think it is very important that the member un de rstand the de partment does receive information from school divisions. We do work with school divisions. School divisions do provide us with some information on trust.

What I am saying this evening is that, if the member wishes to have that information regarding a surplus, it would be important for the school divisions to release that particular information. We are prepared, certainly under the budget line, when we look at schools funding, to look atthe information which we do make public regarding the revenues and the expenditures of school funding, and we are very prepared to speak about how that school funding is distributed. * (231 0) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not raise this iss ue. The minister's colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) raised this issue about surpluses. Now I want to follow up on that information. Since the Minister of Family Services thought it so important that he asked his colleague about it, even though he should have heard about it in cabinet or in Treasury Board or wherever, he chose to ask it in committee. So I would assume from that that the minister has used this information to make decisions on funding. Therefore, it is completely within the jurisdiction of this committee to ask for informa tion upon which the minister has based decisions.

Now the minister has utilized this informa tion to justify the decision she has made with regard to funding. She did it even tonight in answer to her colleague's question when he asked about the surpluses. She referred to those surpluses and answered the question that he asked in relationship to the financing of public schools in Manitoba as a result of the line dealing with the assistant deputy minister responsible for funding. So it is entirely within the purview of this committee. The minister has the information and should be providing it to the committee upon request. Why will she not do it? Mrs.

Vodrey : Mr. Dep uty Chair pers on, the member's question, as I recall it, was simply a question of, do school divisions have surpluses? That is information which has been put forward in various news reports and so on, that divisions do retain surpluses. Some school divisions have chosen to release publicly if they have a surplus and what that surplus would be. The answers that were given earlier this evening simply focused on a very global, a very general question about surpluses and a total surplus amount. Again, I qualif ied the answer that I gave to my colleague based on a date.

That date was not for this school year, but rather at the end of last school year. So the information that we have discussed so far has been extremely global and also was based on figures from last year. l, again, cannot speculate on the reasons for asking the questions, why the questions were asked, other than to say that members of the public have asked, do school divisions have surpluses? The amount of the surplus, I have said to the member, is something which school divi sions would be discussing.

However, I am more than prepared under the Schools Finance line to look at issues of revenue and expenditures of school divisions, and I know that the member has indicated that he will be interested in looking at that regarding school divisions. Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister's colleague raised this matter in the committee. The minister has referenced it in response to questions that I have raised. The minister used global figures, and it is misleading to the public and almost irrelevant in terms of the arguments-- Point of Order Mr. Deputy Chairperson : Order, please.

I think I have asked the honourable member to choose his words carefu lly once now. This is the second time, third time, fourth time the honourable member has used the words "misleading to the public," and I

3376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 19 93 would ask the honourable member to withdraw that word from the record. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the Chai rperson will consult with the rules of the committee, he will understand that when a member accuses a minister or any other member of deliber ately misleading, there is, perhaps, a difficulty in terms of parliamentary language. It is not an issue when it is not deliberately misleading, and I have not accused the minister, up to this point in time, of delib erately misleading.

I just said it happens to be misleading to the public to have global figures thrown around on surplusel:r- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. At this time, I am going to take the matter under advisement, because just the other day the Speaker of the House had made a ruling to the word "misleading." I want to refer to exactly what the Speaker had ruled to on this one, because it is at the option of the Chair to not only choose the words, but in the way the words are chosen to be used. I will be refe rring to the Speaker's Ruling, and I will come back to the committee with that at that time.

I will ask the honourable member to choose his words very caref ully. It does aid myself as the Chair in my job of keeping the decorum with in a committee. So, if the member would choose his words carefully, I will bring back my ruling to this matter at a later date. The honourable member for Dauphin to finish his question, please. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I think I would, with all respect, also implore you to consider, when you are looking at this ruling, for the record, that the context of the statement is very important, and the Chair has to consider, I bel ieve, in considering this issue, whether, first of all, the member has accused the minister of deliberately misleading or the minister of misleading. I did neither. I said, it is misleading. Mr. Deputy Chai rperson : I will thank the honourable member for that, and, as I have told the member, I have taken this under advisement.

Let us carry on with the comm ittee meeting tonight, and you can get on with your questioning. * * * Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Dauphin to continue, please. Mr. Plohman: I would like to point out to the minister that by providing only partial information, in other words, the global information, and not the total information, a very different picture can be drawn, or conclusion, by the public.

So, if the minister says the public is interested in knowing about this issue, about surpluses, then it is important to provide it, division by division, not in a global sense, because it has very little relevance and can lead to misconclusions, if I could. That is why 1 used the term "mislea ding," because it leads to other conclusions than that which should be drawn, with regard to the relevance of surpluses. So I think it is important that the minister, if she wants to be forthright, and I do not know that- well, the Chair could say perhaps that is not a kind inferenc e to the minister.

I would say if she wants to be forthright that she indeed should provide this information. I can tell her, we are going to ask for it under the Schools Finance, under 16.5, in any event, and we were going to ask it on other occasions as well. The minister could make life easy for herself by providing the complete and total information now. Does the minister feel that this is confidential information, that this is not public information that the public should be aware of? Mrs.

Vodrey: This evening, in an effort to be as clear as possible on this matter, I did discuss the global total, which again I qualif ied by saying it was a total as of June '92. I did also say that we are aware, and I have been informed, that a total of 52 of 53 divisions have a surplus. Also du ring questioning, I discussed the fact that approximately 30 divisions have surpluses in excess of 6 percent of their budget.

This is a fair amount of information which I think would allow individuals, who wanted to put the issue of surplus into the mix of the other issues affecti ng school funding, a way and a context in which to do this. However, I would say that school divisions do reveal to us some information, but their process and the direct information which they reveal to us is theirs. It is information which I believe the member should approach school divisions with and to ask school divisions regarding their process and their numbers. *

(2320) What I have been able to speak about this evening is again more global numbers, however

May 25, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 3377 numb er s which I believe do provide some background and some context to the issue of surplus. I have been willing to speak about it in this more global way, but I have been able to speak about it, as I have said, in relation to other factors as well. Surplus is one area. I have also spoken abut the issue of phase-ln. I have also spoken about other reasons in which there may be an exemption in some area to the 2 percent cap on the special requirement.

I could provide for the member, if this would be helpful on Thursday or the next time that we discuss this budget line, the numb er of divisions in percentage ranges, those number of divisions in the range of zero to 2 percent of surplus and 2 to 5 percent, 5 to 7 percent, and so on, but I am of the belief that the specific names of divisions, the information by name of division should be released by the division itself. However, if the numbers are important in terms of constructing a picture, I am prepared to look at the numbers of divisions within certain ranges. Mr.

Plohman: The minister is bordering on playing games with the committee here in terms of providing availed information. The minister's reluctance to provide this information perhaps tells us a great deal, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I can only ask the minister why would she want to hide this information from the committee? Mrs. Vodrey: I am not sure why the member believes that he needs a specific division name. I have offered him what I believe to be a very good picture and I am prepared to offer him some additional detail In terms of numbers of divisions who have surpluses within certain percentage ranges.

I believe that in our discussion of schools funding that this may be the information which would be helpful to him in terms of looking at a context and looking at the use of funds. Mr. Plohman: Would the minister just provide the list to the committee without the names of the school divisions then? Mrs.

Vodrey: I am able to provide to the member a list of the percentages by divisions ifthatwould help, without the names of the division, without the division number attached, because as I have said that the information specific to the process of each division is information which I believe that the division should be able to provide and should provide to the member should he believe that that is what he needs. However, I have offered through this process to look at the numbers of divisions in certain ranges and if the member believes it would be helpful, to offer him a list of percentages. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, that is a step in the right direction, but why will the minister not include the actual dollar amounts for each of those divisions as well? Mrs. Vodrey: I believe that the percentage relating to the expenditures would be helpful in terms of what the member is asking and In terms of looking at what the surplus is. That is how we also began to look at the issue. That is where his initial questions had focused in terms of percentage in relation to expenditures, and that is the information that I am able to provide him. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, the minister is obviously wanting to withhold public information on these details, and the record will show that. Would the minister- Point of Order Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. This information is public when the school divisions decide that they will make it public. In terms of our funding to schools, this is not information which specifically is ours to provide in a public way.

What I have said to the member is that I will look at the percentages and the percentages of expenditures which may be helpful to him as he looks at the issue of surplus in relation to school funding. However, again, the information, as I said, would be made public by the school divisions if the school divisions wish to do so. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Plohman: I thought the minister was answering the quest ion. I did not realize that she was attempting to make a point of order there.

Can the min ister ind icate wha t kinds of information she considers to be private information or information she cannot divulge unless she has the permission of the school divisions? I mean this is rather novel of the minister to be protecting the privacy ofthe school divisions in the province on this

3378 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 25, 19 93 issue. Why this issue of the surpluses? What other issues or pieces of financial information does she feel falls into the same category? Mrs. Vodrey: We do make public anything which is published under the frame reporting and that, as I have explained to the member, is details of revenue and expenditures. However, that frame reporting does not include a release of information regarding assets and surpluses of school divisions, and that information is available through the school divisions themselves.

Other information which we do not release pub licly is information about specific students and also specific personnel information, information regarding specific salary lines, that there is some information which again is part of the working on behalf of students within the Department of Education. But as I have said, that we do publish under frame certain details, and that information we are certainly able to discuss and able to provide information to the member. We will certainly do so. Mr.

Plohman: I imagine the minister is saying that specific salary lines and personnel matters dealing with specific students, that kind of thing, is not released in committee. Of course, I would not be asking about the specific students or personnel matters of that nature. What we are asking is financial information, and is the minister saying the only financial information that she would exclude from the committee because of the past practice �hat traditi onally the school divisions' assets and surpluses have not been released?-that seems to be the only reason.

I do not think the minister is indicating she would get sued by a school division if she released this information. So I can only assume that she wants to abide by past practice. Is that the only piece of financial information that falls within that category? •

(2330) Mrs. Vodrey: The issue of the surplus does not affect how funding is flowed to school divisions under the school's funding form ula. I know that is an area that the member would like to speak about, and I believe we will speak about more fully when we reach that budget line . The surplus issue is information which school divisions use within their divisions in terms of making their decisions regarding the setting of their mill rate and so on.

That is why that particular information is internal to the school division, and the school divisions are the best ones to speak about any surplus which that division may have. Yes, it is a matter of past practice that we do not release that information, but we do release the information which we publish under fr ame, and that some information, again, which is provided to us by some school divisions is in fact information which the school division themselves would be the one who would release further and to a wider group than simply to the Department of Education and Training. So it is a past practice.

It was a past practice when the honourable member's party was in power also, and it is a practice that currently we are respecting. Mr. Plohman: Is the minister indicating that she would be violating some element of trust with the school divisions if she did provide this information or released it to the committee? Mrs. Vodrey: I will tell the member that I do have some concern around a breach of confidence with the school divisions based on past practice.

The past practice has not been to rel ease that information and there has not been an expectation by the school divisions that that information would be released . I would feel that there may be this breach of confidence to simply release it without inform ing the school divisions or without allowing the school divisions the options that they may wish to release this information themselves on behalf of their school trustees and to their own taxpayers. Mr. Plohman: Then the minister has no plans to release this publicly and in any other format either. Is that correct? Mrs.

Vodrey: Again, I have said that the past practice has been not to release this information and that the school divisions have by past practice not expected us to release this, though they may themselves wish to release it. The information which we release is information accord ing to the frame budgeting. ln terms of discussing school funding, we will be happy to provide the member with as much information as possible. However, in order to assist the member, I have also made the offer that I could release to the member on percentages of expenditures what the surplus is.

I could release it to him in categories of numbers of divisions based on, for example, zero to 2 percent, 2 percent to 5 percent or, as the member has asked, a list of percentages of expenditures by school division. However, it would be without the school division's name and number.

May 25, 1993 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3379 Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that

summary, once again, of her answers up to this point in time. Can I draw from that that the minister will not be releasing the information I have asked for for this committee in terms of the precise dollars for each school division of the surpluses in any other format as well, that she is not intending to release this in another foru m? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are not intending to release the actual dollar amount in another foru m. The member may know that certain amounts were released not by government, but by another organization who did some calculations around this issue.

School divisions have then been the ones who.have responded to those calculations. Mr. Plohman: Is the minister saying that her department has not been the source of specific information as to the dollar value of reserves for any specific school divisions in the province? *

(2340) Mrs. Vodrey: We do not supply those numbers to other organizations, though through the information that is released through the frame, which is public information, some other organizations have been able to do some calculations which have led them to some numbers which may be the surpluses of various school divisions. Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that the information that has been made available by organizations has been quite accurate insofar as surplus is concerned? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, in total the amount was somewhat accurate, the total amount which was released by another organization, not by the Department of Education and Training. In terms of the specific school divisions and the amounts, again, it would be up to the school divisions to confirm if that was in fact the amount of a surplus within their division. Mr. Plohman: Is the minister attempting in anyway to claw back these surpluses? Mrs. Vodrey: I can say to the member that certainly today the surpluses have not been taken into account in terms of our fun ding policy.

They were not considered in terms of the funding which was announced by this government in terms of schools funding. Mr. Plohman: It seemed the minister's colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) thought they were pretty significant. That is why he asked the question here. l cannot attribute any other motives to it. Is the minister saying that they were not of any consequence in decision making for funding for school divisions in the province? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, it is very hard for me to speak completely specifically on behalf of my colleague and his reasons for bringing forward the surplus issue. However, that amount was released, as the member knows. The issue of surpluses was raised, as the member knows, by another organi zation; it was not raised by the Department of Education and Training or by the government. However, when the issue of surplus was raised, it was raised within a context.

As the member is aware, the context it was raised in, the member was speaking of what he believed to have been an underfunding of education and my colleague raised the issue which occurred to him that, in a case where there is underfunding, was there in fact a surplus retained by school divisions? Mr.

Plohman: If the minister has indicated here tonight that the surpluses were not considered in the funding annou ncemen ts or level- of- funding announcements for school divisions up to this point in time, then I have to ask the minister whether she is considering or planning to include the surpluses in future funding announcements. By include, I mean consider the surpluses when she arrives at a funding level in futur e years. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I can tell the member that these have not been considered as part of the funding announcements in the past.

They were not considered as part of the fundin g announcement this year. It is very hard to predict the future. I am not sure what the future will hold. However, at the moment we have not considered the issue of surpluses held by divisions in the matter of school funding. Mr. Plohman: So, as they exist right now, does the minister consider them terribly signific ant or even relevant to the issue of funding? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, in terms of consideri ng the issue of sur pluses, ce rtainly taxpayers may ask the question about surpluses, and school divisions may answer in terms of how they have achieved a surplus and why a surplus would be seen as important by school divisions and

3380 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 25, 1993 what level individual school divisions may decide that they wish to retain surpluses and why they have chosen that number. Surpluses may be indicative of the spending patterns of school divisions. They may also be a sign of the type of funding which has been provided to school divisions and which was not expended.

So the issue of surpluses is one that, again, school divisions may be the best ones to comment on, because they will have an understanding of how they have arrived at that surplus and how they have arrived at a number which they might determine is an important surplus, and whether or not their surplus at the moment is over or above that particular amount of money.

I think it is important to note, again, when the member speaks of the issue of underfunding-my colleague did mention the issue of surpluses-to say that in a case where the member has been concerned about underfunding, that in speaking in a very global way, 30 divisions had what the member, by the use of a percentage, would have considered to be a fairly significant surplus. We are aware, too, that since this government came into power that there has been an increase in surpluses for school divisions in terms of a global number of funds available.

In terms of surpluses for individual divisions, as I have said, they may be indicative of a number of issues and a number of reasons. That particular school division may be the best one to describe how it is that there is that surplus within that division. Mr. Plohman: I would submit to the minister that school divisions probably sensed that the squeeze was still to come, and that is why they were very careful to ensure there were some surpluses, not because the minister was overfunding over the last couple of years.

She is certainly trying to leave that impression that there was more funding even than required by the school divisions. Surely the minister does not consider surplus as a factor primarily of provincial funding. Does she not believe it to be more a function of management decisions at the local school level? Is that not a major factor here? •

(2350) Why would she try to leave on the record that the surpluses are due to some generosity in surplus funding, extra funding, additional funding beyond what was required to provide the education at the local level by the provincial government, by her government? Surely that is not representing an accurate picture here. Mrs. Vodrey: The member has been leaving on the record an issue which he Is concerned abou1- underfunding. Therefore, the Issue of surpluses was raised by another member who was observing in the committee this evening, and who raised the issue.

But each time I have spoken about the issue of surpluses, I have said that they may be a result of several issues I have spoken about, and the member can check the record, spending patterns within school divisions, efficiencies within school divisions. They also may reflect the funding that flowed to that school division. There have been, as I have said each time, a number of reasons which may account for the surplus.

I have also said to the member that the amount of the surplus may vary according to school division depending upon what that school division determined would be a surplus that is important for it to maintain, whether or not the amount of money is above or below that amount of surplus. Mr. Plohman: Well, yes, as long as the minister does not try to leave the impression here that the primary factor is provincial funding. I would not think that would have a great deal of credibility amongst school divisions in this province if she were to go out and say that.

I think she knows that, so it is better to play that one down quite a bit in this committee, rather than playing it up as a major factor, if any factor at all, insofar as the school divisions, ensuring that they had surpluses. I think what is much more a factor here is the fact that school divisions were wary of this government, wary of future cuts in education funding, and preparing themselves as best they could to