Manitoba Hansard — 5 August 1986 (Sitting 60B, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-60b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 5 August, 1986. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITT EES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: We are on Item No. 7., Resolution 52, Bureau de L' Education Frarn;:aise. The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister tell us the grants per pupil for the different areas, the franc;:aise, Immersion, Basic and Conversational? I saw it somewhere, but I can't remember where. MR. CHA IRMAN: The Honou rable Minister of - Education. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Chairperson, the grants are as follows for each full-time equivalent: $250 for each Immersion student; $100 for the Core Basic French; and $50 for the Conversational. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Has there been an increase since last year in the Immersion? HON. J. STORIE: Not in the grant, no. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Have there been any increases in the Immersion and in the Basic in any other area? HON. J. STORIE: No, the only increase that would be reflected, I suppose, in the categorical grants would be as a result of volume, in other words, more students. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Looking at the Basic French, exposure and re-entry, the exposure I take it, is that � the Conversational? Is that what they're calling it? It's , on Page ... HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, the exposure package is actually the K-3, it's called the exposure package, and I guess is actually the forerunner of the Basic Program. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Is that the same as the Conversational, or is the Conversational something different again? HON. J. STORIE: The Basic is replacing the Conversational. Some school divisions are still offering a conversational program, but I'd indicated earlier I had some ... MRS. G.

HAMMOND: From K to 3. HON. J. STORIE: Pardon me? MRS. G. HAMMOND: From K to 3. HON. J. STORIE: Oh, the Conversational Program is offered by varying divisions at a variety of levels. Essentially the Basic Program is the one that we see starting at Level 4 or Grade 4. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Will the department be starting the Basic? Are they aiming to start it at the Grade 1 level? HON. J. STORIE: No, the program generally is from Grades 4 to 12, although some divisions do offer, again, Conversational or the exposure package at the level K to 3. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Is there any reason that it won't be started?

I ask this question every year. HON. J. STORIE: It's a good question. MRS. G. HAMMOND: It's a good question, but it keeps getting answered the same way. I was hoping with the new Minister that we could get it down to - at least they were looking at starting it at the Grade 1 level. HON. J. STORIE: If you could just indicate what answer you'd expect, I could certainly give it to you. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I'm expecting a yes, and if you'd like to give it to me, I'd hold you to it. What is it, a promise made is a promise kept? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The reason it is a promise made and a promise kept is because we don't make foolish promises. I can certainly indicate that the answer is yes, but - and there are at least a number of serious buts - and that is that the research that is available to both the bu reau and to the department and which is supported, essentially, I guess across the province and across Canada is that it is most effective at being introduced about the Grade 4 level.

Now, I suppose one could argue about whether it should be 3.5 or 5, but there is some research to indicate that it is most effective at that period and that introducing it earlier does not bring about correspon di ng increases in qu ality levels of un ders tanding capability, I guess, that one would anticipate by introducing it three or four years earlier. So there is some rationale and perhaps you've been getting a consistent answer over the years because the facts consistently support that position. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: I guess as a lay person I find it difficult to understand how in the Immersion Program, 75-25 is more sound than 50-50, and yet Basic French is better started at the Grade 4 level, rather than the Grade 1. The other point I would like to make is that the Basic French Program is a program that allows parents to feel that their children are getting a good grading in French without having to put them in the Immersion 2609

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 Program. I have said this time and time again, that there is a lot of pressure on parents to go to the Immersion Program because they see it as the only way that their children are going to attain French.

Now, while I know that Basic French is not going to make them bilingual when they finish, they have got, if they start in Grade 1, or even at the Grade 4 level, but if they start at Grade 1, you've got kids who have had 40 minutes a day right through school and they're going to have a very sound basis in French, if the program is kept at a level that it started out at, which I know is good. I would ask the Minister if he wouldn't consider starting to move that program back, so that it does start at the Grade 1 level. HON. J.

STORIE: I can only indicate, I supp ose, advice - if we are asked, if the Bureau is asked, the government is asked, the department is asked - that we provide the best advice we can in terms of when it is appropriate to start what programming. Certainly the Basic French Program is considered, I am told by staff, one of the best in Canada, that it's a well thought-out comprehensive program. I think if the member will recall that prior to 1972, I guess or perhaps even later, I guess it was pre-1970 when French was part of the curriculum for Grades 7 to 12 - that it did provide the same kind of basic instruction.

It wasn't as well thought out as the current curriculum, but the principles were still the same. The member acknowledged that the goals of the Basic French and Immersion are substantially different and I think that's reflected in the instructional approach that's taken.

I point out as well that if a division includes K-3 in its programming, the program support that's offered by way of categorical grant is also provided, so there is no penalty or there is no disincentive, if you will, not to provide it; that while we feel the decision to suppo rt it from 4 to 12 is based on sound research and appropriate instructional practices, that if divisions choose to do otherwise, that there is nonetheless support available for those years as well. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: I notice that there are 47 divisions now participating in - it says - "Basic French exposure and re-entry." How many divisions are starting it at the Grade 4 level, the first level? HON. J. STORIE: I'm told that it's close to 80 to 90 percent start Basic instruction at the Grade 4 level. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Are the other levels of entry just there to accommodate the schools that didn't come in at the beginning or are they planning to continue that or discontinue? HON. J. STORIE: A combination of both.

It is also believed that there are appropriate entry points in terms of what you can accomplish in that period of time. But certainly there is some recognition that some divisions chose later than others to get involved. I guess the entry points are perceived to be educationally sound, but also practical. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Perhaps the Minister can refresh my memory. I didn't write it down and I haven't got a long retention right now. How many divisions did he say were starting at the Grade 4? HON. J. STORIE: I said 80 to 90 percent of them start at 4. MRS. G. HAMMOND: 80 to 90 percent.

Well, then, how many divisions would be starting at the late re entry, the grade - what is it? - ten that they start? HON. J. STORIE: The re-entry point would be at 10, I guess; and, while we don't have the number of divisions, I guess we could give you the number of students - 226 students, six divisions, I'm told, have that as a re-entry point. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Then what I want to ask the Minister, I guess, is: are they planning then, when everyone gets into the Grade 4, when it works its way through - in other words, will they plan to drop those re-entry points? HON. J.

STORIE: I would assume that the re-entry point will become redundant if the majority of the students are enrolled at the K to 4, which most divisions seem to be assuming. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I want the Minister to know that I wasn't pushing to keep them open because I think that it's better that more of the money goes into the whole program as it goes through and hopefully that most of the students will stay with it right through.

When the Member for River Heights was asking about the little booklet for Immersion parents and mentioned that there was something that could be supplied by the department that came through for French. Is there anything similar for the Basic French Program? HON. J. STORIE: No, I didn't indicate that brochure that was produced by the Canadian Parents for French was available through the department.

I simply indicated that was one brochure, one sou rce of material, for parents wanting to look at the options and what factors to consider and whether they wanted to enroll their students, in particular, in Immersion Programs. The department has no parallel offering. We do produce a number of brochures, I suppose, one of them being, I guess it was "In Conjunction with Canada," basically cataloguing, if you will, all of the programs that are available, areas where support is available, etc., etc. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Would the department consider putting out a brochure on the merits of the Basic French Program?

The reason I ask that, I must say I'm not usually in favour of brochures and a lot of advertising, but I think in this instance, what we have are parents whose children are starting school, who are very nervous that their children are going to miss out if they don't go into an immersion program. If they knew that there was something of quality in French - because I think most parents want their children to learn another language and a good many of them want them to learn French, so I think it would be of great benefit to divisions and certainly to parents who have pre-schoolers, to 2610

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 know that there is something there for their children that is worthwhile. I would ask the Minister to consider using his office to give a little push for the Basic French Program, to get it the kind of public ity that the Immersion Program gets. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, I appreciate the comments and I don't think it's out of the question that the department could produce that kind of brochure, perhaps outlining the various programs and what they're designed to do and their benefits and then their limitations, I suppose.

I'm not a big fan of producing glossy publications, because I find that they're not always the most effective means of communicating. I want to indicate, as I did before, that representatives from the Bureau, as with the rest of the department, are available for public meetings, parent meetings, to discuss these kinds of issues in an informal kind of way, which sometimes provides more information and gets questions answered. But the member raises a good question and perhaps it would be timely.

I think the programs are better established now than they were, and perhaps some public ation would review the programs and their merits might be useful. Just by way of statistics, certainly the Basic French Program has increased fairly dramatically since it was introduced, I guess in 1983-84. It's gone from some 14,0 00 students to some 41 ,000 in 1985-86 and we're anticipating I suppose an increase again in 1986-87. So it has been very well received and it is receiving the approval, I guess, of both teachers and parents. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Isn't the Basic French Program, where you mentioned in 1983-84, isn't that the Core Program that was started in the late Seventies? HON. J. STORIE: It is to some extent a follow-up on the Core Program which started in the early Eighties but the Basic French was introduced as an identifiable program, I guess, in 1983-84. MRS. G. HAMMOND: The department used to pay for subs titutes for professional development in Basic French and I understand that's been cut out. Can you explain the reason? HON. J.

STORIE: Yes, I understand that it was some years ago when that was a practice and it had been originally funded out of the Canada-Manitoba Agreement that I spoke of earlier but that has subsequently been dropped. So we have not in fact for a number of years now provided substitute fees in those kinds of situations. MRS. G. HAMMOND: How many in-services does the province hold on a province-wide basis for teachers for Basic French? HON. J. STORIE: I'm not sure whether the member was referring strictly to the Basic French Program, or generally. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Well, Basic French. HON. J.

STORIE: I understand there are six in-service days per teacher provided for those involved in the instruction in Basic French. 2611 MRS. G. HAMMOND: Are these put on by the province, the in-service days? HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you. With respect to moving the Basic French Program back to Kindergarten or Grade 1, are there any plans at the present to start the program back in Kindergarten or Grade 1 in the future? I didn't hear the Minister respond to that. HON. J.

STORIE: No, I said that generally it's viewed that the 4- 12 Program is viewed as adequate. Some divisions do provide it earlier and I pointed out there is no disincentive divisions. If they are asked advice in terms of the educational sound ness of providing it at Level 4 and beyo nd, we'd certainly provide that information. But if a division provides the Basic French from K-3, they are still eligible for the provincial support grants. MR. L. DERKACH: What is the long-term plan in terms of expanding the French Immersion area? HON. J.

STORIE: I think the member is aware of what generates the decision of a school board to create an Immersion class. It's generated by the interests of parents throughout Manitoba. Certainly given, I guess, the past few years and the proliferation of Immersion classes, one could expect that there is a continuing interest in Immersion on the part of parents. As long as that continues, I suppose divisions will be faced with the prospect of providing that service to students. MR. L.

DERKACH: Should that French Immersion area expand greatly in the near future, has the department the resources to provide the necessary facilities, teachers, etc., for the French Immersion Program? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, most of those questions were asked this afternoon. I appreciate you can't be in two places at once. The answer essentially is that right now the province, through its universities, really has the capability or very near to the capability of providing adequate teaching staff to meet the need.

It's estimated that we're going to need approximately 100 teachers per year to fill the need for French language instruction, and that we are meeting that need. So on the level of providing the teaching staff, the answer is yes. In terms of the grant, obviously the grant system is in place and the need will be met. We have experienced significant growth, and we anticipate that continuing for some time. So the only question that remains to be answered is the question of whether school boards are going to be able to facilitate the classroom space, etc., provide the classroom space for the instruction.

Certainly our experience to date is that, yes, they will be able to. It requires sometimes some fast action, but they have been able to meet the demand. MR. L. DERKACH: According to the number of students who are enrolled in the Basic French Program, we see

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 that the numbers have increased dramatically from 1984-85 to 1985-86. We see some increase in the French Immersion as well. Now, is there an emphasis to encourage more school divisions right at the present time to get into the French Immersion Program, as compared to the Basic French Program? HON. J. STORIE: Both of these programs are really dem and-driven, if you will. In some areas of the province, there is a continuing high level of interest on the part of parents. If that's so in a division, then I would expect that the division is feeling pressure.

It is not up to the department to indicate to a division that they should or shouldn't be providing those services. The Public Schools Act says that, where 23 parents indicate that is their preference, the school board is obliged to do so. The increase in Immersion is entirely driven by the interest in French language instruction by parents. I think the Member for Kirkfield Park has indicated that's an understandable desire on the part of parents. I think it is, and I think it's something that has tremendous value for young people. I expect that's why we're seeing increasing parental interest in it. MR. L.

DERKACH: What kind of money does the department allow for a student who has to take up residence in a different area in order to be able to get the French Immersion Program? HON. J. STORIE: We've gone through that a number of times as well. No, I had indicated previously that there is a grant available which is in lieu of transportation. In the event that the individual had to move from his primary residence or her primary residence, the student had to move from their primary residence to another residence, a grant is available of up to $4,000.00.

Now that would be true in the case where the progra mming desi red was francais or vocational education or in the case of remote students such as Frontier. That grant is available in those instances. I think I indicated as well that some 20 students in the entire province are currently receiving that grant. MR. L. DERKACH: You indicated that it's available to students from the Frontier Division as well as - who else? HON. J. STORIE: Essentially it's available for primary programming where that is not available in the division in which the student attends. It's available as a grant if there's no school at all.

It's available if the student wishes to have a vocational education program, and there is none available, but recognizing that it means really a residential situation for the student. MR. L. DERKACH: Okay, let's suppose a student has to move more than 80 kilometres away from his home in order to take the French Immersion Program. Does he then qualify for the assistance, or does the division qualify for the assistance? HON. J. STORIE: I think this question has been answered before as well. Assuming that the requirement is, in terms of making available the grant, that they be beyond the 80 kilometre guideline.

However, the division is free to negotiate with the parent. If the parent chooses to change the place of residence, in other words, board their student in another location, that grant is made available beyond the 80-kilometre line. That's correct. MR. L. DERKACH: Is that grant for $4,000.00? HON. J. STORIE: Yes it is, up to $4,000 or the actual costs, I guess. MR. L. DERKA CH: Does the division get a grant then to help in the transportation of these students below the 80 kilometres?

If the distance is not enough for that student to move to another location and if that student is transported on a daily basis, does that division get a grant from the government, from the department, to help offset the costs that are incurred in the transportation of that child? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, they're eligible for the per pupil grant of $410, yes. MR. L. DERKACH: Nothing beyond the regular? HON. J. STORIE: Nothing beyond that, no. MR. L. DERKACH: Okay, thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(a)(1) to 7.(e)(2) were each read and passed.

Resolution No. 52: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,499, 700 for Education, Bureau de L'Education Francaise, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1987- pass. We are now on Resolution 51, No. 6., Universities Grants Commission - the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C BIRT: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to the Minister. Some th ree or four years ago his governm ent imposed a health and education tax on the Province of Manitoba and I'm wondering if the Minister can advise us what portion is allocated to his departmental funds for education? HON. J.

STORIE: There is no specific allocation within the funding provided to the UGC ; it is simply a dollar figure. MR. C. BIRT: But the financing for UGC comes through the departmental Estimates which is allocated by the Provincial Cabinet, is that not correct? HON. J. STORIE: That's the process. MR. C. BIRT: It is estimated that some $123 million are being raised this year in the education and health tax, and I'm curious to know what portion, if any, is being allocated to the Department of Education for its expenditures. HON. J. STORIE: I can only indicate what kind of grants were allocated to the universities.

I think the member has the numbers before him. 2612

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, the increase in the health and education tax over last year is projected from growing from $11 6 million to $12 3.5 million this year - a 6.5 percent increase - and I'd like to know why there is only a 3.5 percent allocation to the UGC considering that the tax is supposed to be financing education in the Province of Manitoba. HON. J. STORIE: I can't tell you what the proportion of that increase would be for the university. There may be upwards of 5,000 people employed by the university in varying capacities.

That represents the fairly small fraction of the total employment in the province which is, I believe, over 500,000 for the first time in history; and recognizing within that the increase on that would be fairly marginal because the staffing has not increased significantly at the universities over the past few years, and if anything, there may have been a reduction. So I don't think it's safe to assume that there is a tremendous amount of money built in, in terms of cost.

Those costs were incurred some years ago now when the Health and Post-Secondary education levy was introduced, part of the costs of operating the university. MR. C. BIRT: Some $6 million additional were granted to the universities which represent some 3.5 percent increase over last year. What it really boils down to, it's slightly less than 3 percent of an operating fund.

But I'm curious to know why the Minister was not able to get additional funds tor the universities when you consider that the tax generated some 6.5 percent increase in additional education and health monies, which increase on $7 million, if the allocation to the universities was only $6 million out of the total budget. Why the department, at least the universities are getting short shrift in the education portfolio? HON. J.

STORIE: I think you have to recognize where most of that increase in payroll levy, or Health and Post-Secondary Education Levy was received and, of course, that is because of the tremendous growth in employment in the province, not from anything specific. The overall contribution of the province to help in post-secondary education was some $81 million and that, of course, comes from general revenue to support both health and post-secondary education. I had mentioned previously that post-second ary education from the province's point of view, entails more than the operation of our three universities.

There are community colleges; there are many other programs, funding that was allocated, for example, to the Limestone Training Program which is, in effect, post secondary adult and continuing education training, post-secondary training. So the actual increase in fu nding to post-secondary and adul t training will substantially be on the amounts that are shown to the universities themselves. The universities received some 3.8 percent increase.

They received an approximate 1 percent increase in terms of additional tuition fees, something which they govern; and an additional 1 percent increase by way of increasing grant in lieu of property taxes. Tha t's not to mention the capital grants, the debenture that was made available to the University of Manitoba for some of their ongoing needs as well.

When you total that, the overall increase if you're going to roll in all of the different aspects and areas in which funding assistance is provided, you're more likely talking about 6 percent; and if you roll in the $10 million you're talking again more like 10 or 11 percent. MR. C. BIRT: The Minister can't have it both ways. When he and his colleague, the Minister of Health, were making a great hue and cry about the amount of funds that were being transferred, or not being transferred, to the Province of Manitoba, they always lumped education in the same area as health.

But when you look at the monies for education in this province, especially as it applies to the post secondary field - and I'm talking now universities and colleges although we have discussed colleges - the amount of funds that this government has allocated to the universities has been declining over the last several years; and I would like to ask the Minister, what percentage of the cash and tax portion of the EPF trans fers coming from Ottawa to Manitoba, are allocated to the Department of Education? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, there is no specific breakdown.

The member references the EPF transfers and we have debated ad nauseam, I suppose, to some people's point of view. The fact is that in cash trans fers the Federal Government increased the cash tran sfers to the province by $7.5 million. That is less than 10 percent of the increase that this government provided to health and post-secondary education.

The discrepancy in the figures that is reported and continues to be reported by representatives of the Federal Government is an absolute distortion of the reality and it is partially based on the continuing notion that the province's post-secondary education costs are limited to certain items. The Leader of the Opposition raised in the House, some time ago, inaccuracies which he felt the province was perpetrating or perpetuating. He indicated that he felt his information was that the province spent some $220 million - I can't remember the exact figure - but roughly $200 million on post-secondary education.

I'm sure that he received those figures from the Federal Government. In tact, the province spends more like $360 million on post-secondary education. So the arbitrary breakdown division that the Federal Government makes with respect to health and post secondary education is not the way the province does it. The arbitrary way in which the figures are calculated in terms of post-secondary spending are not the way this province, or to my knowledge, any other province arranges those figures.

The fact is that it has been pointed out to the Federal Government and I'm sure has not been missed by the Federal Minister of Health that the federal estimates of post-secondary education spending in Canada is und erestimated by $1. 8 billion, and those are not my figures. This is not my argument to su bstantiate the province's case. This case has been made by each of the Ministers of Education in each of the provinces, and through our council, the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada, it has been made by the Finance Ministers. That isn't even dealing with the question of 2613

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 the impact of Bill C-96, which is a further erosion of the federal support to those two important areas of programming. So I acknowledge that the universities have received less in the last two years than they did previously. The overall record, however, supports our contention that universities need to be funded at inflation and not 2 percent minus inflation; and our support to universities over the last four years, five years, has amounted to some 40.6 percent, and inflation, the five-year average, has been 32.9 percent. So we're at inflation plus 2.

The Federal Government's C-96 is saying inflation or GNP minus 2. MR. C. BIRT: What the Minister is missing in all of this is the priority that his government is placing on post-secondary education in this province. It's a diminishing priority.

His predecessor allowed it to slip as far as budgetary allocation is concerned, as part of the total budget, and is continuing to do th at, notwithstanding the amount of funds flowing into this province either in direct taxation, or transfers from the Federal Government have been increasing at a faster rate than what share of funds the Minister and his colleagues are allocating to post-secondary education. For example, in 1985-86, there was $190 million transferred to the pr ovince for post-se cond ary education.

The province contributed 156 million for universities and $59 million for colleges, for a total of $215 million. This year the 1986-87 post-secondary transfer is $202 million and a total for universities and colleges, according to the Estimates, is $16 2 million, plus $61 million, for a total of $223.5 million. So the amount of money is increasing to the province. It increased some 6.5 percent on the federal transfer payments for education, yet the amount of funds being transferred are allocated within a budgetary allocation of the Province of Manitoba have been going down.

In other words, the gap has been narrowing. The Minister can argue all he wants that, well, we've got it in other pockets and over here and over there and everything else, and when you look at the total scheme of things, using their Estimates, his actual numbers, his percentage of sup port to the post-secondary education, in particular the universities, is declining and declining dramatically. HON. J. STORIE: Well - (Interjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me one second. Could we have a little order in the back, please. The Minister of Education. HON. J.

STORIE: I'm pleased to see that the Member for Fort Garry continues to be an apologist for the Federal Government. I have indicated to him that the figures that he just quoted are inaccurate, totally inaccurate, have been refuted not only by myself but by the Minister of Finance. I would be more than happy to sit down with the Member for Fort Garry and edify him as to the facts.

I want to indicate very clearly that the Province of Manitoba does not accept any arbitrary distinction set upon us by the Federal Government and in fact the transfers do not occur in that fashion whatsoever, that the real facts are that the Federal Government has increased their cash transfers. Their budgetary cost has been $7.5 million in the current fiscal year. The rest of the transfers are a representation of the fact that Manitoba's economy has been doing better and the Federal Government increased some taxes. But there is no such breakdown as the Member for Fort Garry would have everyone believe.

That is a figment of the imagination of the Federal Government. That was pointed out at the parliamentary hearings and I point it out again. In terms of the university funding, it is true that we have seen a decrease in percentage terms of fundings to the university. I point out again that our contributions to the University of Manitoba, the three universities, has been in excess of 40 percent increase over the five years in which this government has had control. I want to indicate that inflation has been some 32 percent.

The member referenced the fact that there has been a decrease in percentage terms of the allocation to the university. That is quite true. If the member will refresh his memory at what inflation was in 1981, he will understand the reason for the 13 percent increase that went to the University of Manitoba, much beyond inflation. I'm preparing some figures to indicate what happened during the previous administration when inflation was rampant and funding was much, much below the rate of inflation.

If the universities have experienced any difficulty, certainly the first three years of increases that came by way of this government, in terms of the University of Manitoba of 13 percent increase in 1981- 82, a 15.8 percent increase in 1982- 83, and an 11 percent increase in 1983-84. Subsequent to that, obviously, inflation is eased, and this year we are seeing increases to the university in excess of inflation if you consider all of the factors and in terms of operating close to inflation. MR. C. BIRT: I would like to read a copy of a letter sent to Mr.

Tim Sale of the Federal-Provincial Relations in Research, Department of Finance, on February 20, 1986, that doesn't seem to support the Minister's contention. It goes on to the effect that: "The effect is to yield a surprisingly low and misleading figure for the increases between 1983-84 and 1984-85." It's relating to some figures that Mr. Sale used in a letter to the President Farquhar, at the University of Manitoba, dated January 17, 1986.

It says: "Using'81- 82 as your base year ignores substantial increases in some sectors between'80-81, '81- 82, the first year of your current government's mandate." It then goes on to say: "Please note that a five-year percentage increase for public schools is significantly greater than for the universities, rather than being less as your analysis indicated.

Moreover the percentage of total provincial appropriations allocated to the universities has declined progressively since'80-81." Going to the bottom of the page: "However, the un iversities are also faced, and continue to face, increasing demand for services and pressure of advances in technology. The phenomenon are, in themselves, insufficient as explanations for a differential treatment of health care and higher education. I believe it would be more appropriate to state that Provincial Government places a higher priority on responding to 2614

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 the demands of health care in public school sectors than it does in responding to the demands for and the needs of higher education." It goes on, on Page 3 it states: "I am concerned about the tenden cy in your anal ysis and in the statements by provincial officials to link Manitoba's financing of its universities to EPF transfers in a pro rata fashion. It would be highly inconsistent for the Minister to tie its support of the universities to a Federal Government transfer and, at the same time, contend that it has exclusive jurisdiction over and responsibility for higher education.

"The supp ort of the universities in Manitoba should depend on the total resources available to the province and its policies and priorities with respect to higher education. The fact that the percentage of provincial appr opriation allocated to univ ersities has been declining steadily, despite growing responsibilities, must be a matter of serious concern for all Manitobans." That's signed Arnold Naimark, President of the Un iversity of Manitoba. A copy of that can be obtained from Mr. Sale in the Federal-Provincial Research Office.

The head of the University of Manitoba has just refuted what the Minister has stated . He has unde rfu nde d the uni versity. The percentage of educational funding since he and his colleagues took over office in 1981 in this province has declined from 20 percent of the gross budget down to 18 percent of the budget, and the issue before us today is the priority that this Minister and his colleagues place on post secondary education and the funding of same, and it has gone down steadily since they have been in office since 1981- 82.

So the Minister can try and tie his argument all he wants to some federal argument, but it's the amount of monies coming into this province, the amount of taxes he's raising, yet the allocation to the post secondary schools is not there. HON. J. STORIE: I can only indicate that Mr. Naimark and I have discussed part of his contention, and I can indicate that the factual presentation that was made to members of the Legislative Assembly gives you an idea of Manitoba's position, factual representation.

There has been no question that there have been attempts to distort the facts, to put a good face on the Federal Government's unwillingness to participate in post-secondary education. I point out as well that the universities are not the sole body responsible for post-secondary education.

The member and perhaps the president of the university, the one in question, chooses to ignore the fact that there is some $10 million of provincial funding or funding going in - not just solely provincial - but $10 million worth of funding going into Limestone training, which is post-secondary training; some $8 million into post-secondary programming such as the ACCESS programs that we were talking about. If that is thrown into the mix, it totally refutes the figures that were quoted, and I think puts a different connotation on the question of post-secondary funding.

I can indicate to the member now that from 1977- 81 in which this member's colle agues were in government, inflation was approximately 34 percent, and the universities' funding was 30 percent. If you 2615 compare that to 40 percent funding increase versus 32 percent inflation, I think it gives some indication of where the commitment lies. The second argument is again rather specious, because of the fact that the percentage of money that is allocated to post-secondary institutions, of course, is very much related to the general funding of the government.

Over the last few years, there have been significant deficits. This government has chosen to fund, for example, $200 million on the Jobs Fund to create employment. Of course, it reduces the percentage of allocations to universities or to other institutions simply by virtue of the fact that the base is that much larger, and other priorities have been assumed. So the arguments have to be made on the basis of whether the university is receiving adequate funding, not whether it's receiving the funding that they would like.

I believe that the government, even in its relatively restrained period over the last few years, has provided funding at inflation levels. We're still amongst the lowest tuitions in the country. Certainly, amongst other Canadian provinces we have been rich funders of our post-secondary institutions including universities. I think that, if you ranked us in terms of Canada, you would find we ranked in the upper percentile rather than the lower. So I'm not sure what the member's point is in defending the Federal Government. He only has to go across this province and look at the devastation.

Go and wander through the empty National Research Council. Go and talk to the universities about the new funding for Social Science research. The devastation is everywhere, and it cannot be laid on the shoulders of the Provincial Government. MR. C. BIRT: While the Minister is checking his funding requirements, I think for the same period he indicated that the funding to the universities went up 40 percent. He'd also find that the funding increases on expenditures for the same period of time went up 48 percent.

So it just confirms the fact that the funding for post-secondary education and, in particular, the universities and colleges has been declining under his period in office. A question to the Minister, does he believe that the funding to the universities should be tied to the amount of transfer, either tax or cash equivalents, under the EPF that the Province of Manitoba gets? In other words, if they get a 6 percent raise, then the universities should get a 6 percent raise in their funding? HON. J. STORIE: Let me answer that question with a rhetorical question.

Does the member believe that funding universities at more than 8 percent above inflation is acceptable? Or would he rather buy the federal formula of 2 percent less than inflation into the foreseeable future? MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister can't handle any questions dealing with education, then perhaps we could just adjourn and get someone who can because, quite frankly, I've asked a question on whether or not the funding for universities should be tied to transfer payments to this province. HON. J. STORIE: No, Mr. Chairperson, and no one has ever suggested that it should. What we have

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 suggested is that the Federal Government has, by history and in some respects statutory obligation if not constitutional, an obligation to provide an adequate funding to post-secondary and health institutions in the province. While certainly the province has, as you can see by the figures, attempted to provide adequate funding to the universities, we want people to be aware of the fact that there has been a withdrawal and there is continuing to be a withdrawal of federal participation in health and post-secondary funding.

That drop has been from a high of 51 percent or 52 percent to the current 43 percent, and it is projected to drop to 36 percent by 1991. That is not by accident, but by willful design. That reduction in funding is inevitably going to have one of two impacts. It is going to put the province in a position where the curr ent level of suppor t to universities is not going to be possible; or that other services that are provided, other obligations that a government has are not going to be able to be met in order to maintain the level of funding for universities.

That is the problem, and that is why this question has been raised. I indicate again, if you think that I am the only Minister who is raising these questions and has raised this issue, then the member is dead wrong. MR. C. BIRT: I just remind the Minister of the letter that I quoted from from A.

Naimark, head of the University of Manitoba, who seems to totally and absolutely reject the position that the Minister has been putting forward and, quite frankly, his attempt to cover up his inadequacy as far as funding the universities in this province are concerned, because he can't escape the fact that under his regime and his predecessor's funding is a percentage of total budget has gone down from 20 percent to 18 percent of the budget in this province, and that's long before this red herring of the so-called federal debate and transfer payments took over.

To see how adequately the Minister is funding the universities, one only has to quote from the latest Faculty Association Newsletter of July 9 of 1986. It states: "In the wake of the 2.76 percent increase to the university's operating grant, budget cuts across the units in the university have been swift and brutal." Hardly what you 'd call a generous response to a large increase to funding to the university. It says: "86 courses have been eliminated, 50 full and part-time seasonal and one-term lecture in the Faculty of Arts have lost their jobs." It goes on to state: "Students will suffer larger classes.

There will be loss of laboratory sections in the first-year science courses." I'd ask the Minister, has he or his staff had a chance to assess what the total impact will be on the University of Manitoba and the other universities as a result of the small increase in funding that he's granted to the university through the Grants Commission? HON. J. STORIE: I point out again to the member the facts of the matter. The facts of the matter are that we have funded beyond inflation.

If that isn't acceptable in the Member for Fort Garry's mind, then he should seriously have a talk with his federal colleagues who don't seem to accept that principle at all. So we have the Liberal left of the Tory party talking on one hand and we have the reactionary right actions of the Federal Government on the other. Secondly, I point out that Dr. Naimark has also been involved in the coalition on health and higher education funding where he has also expressed and written to the Federal Government expressing his concern about the level of funding.

In terms of the letter that the member referenced, in terms of his continual quoting of the fact that as a percentage of overall government spend ing, less financial resources have been allocated to the universities. I point out that the base of the provincial budget has expanded substantially and that was done on an intentional basis and it reflects some other priorities that the government has and probably the No. 1 concern of Manitobans and that was jobs. So the fact that it's reduced marginally in terms of the overall allocation of financial resources is a reflection of those other priorities.

I point out, as well, that the University of Manitoba, while acknowledging, albeit not with a great deal of enthusiasm, the 2. 7 percent increase in operating chose not to acknowledge the increases in other areas which they were obtaining, namely the support for other specific programs the un iversity felt were important, the tuition increase which would give them an additional 1 percent. They were not acknowledging the contribution, the action of the government in making available the $10 million debenture for their purposes.

So we haven't seen all of the facts placed on the table in terms of how the government has dealt generally with the universities. I put on the table the fact as well that the University of Manitoba, unlike the University of Winnipeg, for example, chose to make some statements about potential reductions. I can only speculate as to how th ose announ cements were made or what their purposes were.

I can indicate that the president of the Un iversity of Winni peg ind icated that they had appreciated the circumstances the government was in and by prudent management over the last few years have enabled them to maintain their operations and not provide any course reductions. The fact of the matter is, as well, the reductions which were talked about and appeared, the scenarios which appeared in the press, have not come to fruition; in fact 17 courses out of the hundreds that are offered, if not thousands, were cut.

About half of the 17 courses had less than six students in them and the original talk of 250 sections, or whatever it is being cut, the actual case is that 54 now are tentatively scheduled to be reduced in terms of sections and certainly students will have alternate sections available to them so that the programming changes which come about have not at all been as dramatic as originally suggested. I acknowledge that the Un iversity of Manitoba is a large institution. They do have difficulty in controlling their costs.

The government has recognized that and, despite the fact of modest funding, I think it is certainly unfair to suggest that they have not received the appropriate attention. I know they, like any other institution, would want more and certainly the Provincial Government would like to be in a position to offer them more. But 2616

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 the fact of the matter is that, while they are certainly a priority, they are not the only priority. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister spoke of giving funding above the inflation level, but if you look at either his figures of 3.8 percent or the university's of 2. 78 percent, that falls below the inflation rate for the year which is approximately 4 percent. I would draw the Minister's attention to a letter dated June 26 issued by D. Naimark.

I presume that he has received a copy of it, but in it he talks about the so called extra funding that the university is supposed to have received from the Minister, one of them was a new nursing program, one was the Earth Sciences Program and there was some miscellaneous capital.

But, basically, when he adds it all in and it works through onto the com puter, it shows a 2.81 percent increase which is awfully close to that 2. 76 percent that we've talked about and still is dealing with the reduction of services, the loss of teaching positions at the university and no matter how the Minister cuts it, it would appear that there is a reduction of service being carried on at the University of Manitoba. I'd like to know what steps, if any, the Minister will be taking to remedy this problem. HON. J. STORIE: I've indicated what the result of the earlier announcement has been.

To my knowledge, there have been no layoffs as the result of any of the changes that have been made; that in fact without wanting to overstate the situation, whether there was some posturing or some initial reaction which was not as well informed as it should have been I guess is a question, but the negative consequences which were originally predicted have not come to fruition. So all I can tell the member is that the funding that has been provided and that will be provided in the next fiscal year, will be in line with the needs of the university and the capability of the province to provide those dollars. MR.

C. BIRT: Is the Minister saying that there will be no staff layoffs or termination of teaching employments at the university now? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, as the member knows, I do not control that. I have indicated that another president of another university has indicated that with prudent management this crisis has not been precipitated by the funding levels provided by the province. I have indicated that I recognized that there are some special circumstances in the Un iversity of Manitoba.

However, given the scope of a budget that is in the neighbourhood of $16 5 million in total, they should be able to find resources to make sure that their priorities are maintained, whether it be Women's Studies courses or maintaining the accreditation of the Engineering Faculty . MR. C. BIRT: Has the Minister or his staff met with representatives of the universities, in particular of the Un iversity of Manitoba to see if there are going to be staff layoffs? HON. J. STORIE: Certainly staff of the Universities Grants Commission have made inquiries about the 2617 specifics of the changes.

I can indicate that the latest information that we have has just been provided, and there has been no indication from the university to date that there are, in fact, going to be layoffs. As well, I have met with the university presidents and certainly intend to increase my contact and my consultation with them, because I think it's important that they understand the government's position, not only with respect to their institutions but with respect to the provincial financial situation and our ability to meet all of their needs. MR. C.

BIRT: Does the Minister know the number of faculties that are presently being reviewed or on sort of almost a credit watch type of situation for accreditation, how many faculties may be in potential of losing their accreditation? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, it may come as a surprise. That kind of information is not reported to the government. In fact, we had no knowledge of a question even being raised about the accreditation of the University Faculty of Engineering.

Those are matters within the university's jurisdiction and, although I guess they're made public from time to time, what sometimes seems inappropriate at inopportune moments, those decisions and those concerns are first addressed in the university community and, I presume, at the board of governor's level, although I have no knowledge that in fact occurs. But those would be questions, it would seem to me, would be in the rightful domain of the University Board of Governors.

It seems to me that is their role in fact, to ensure that the university's priorities are consistent with the best interests of not only the university but the community and the province as a whole. The fact that the province isn't informed or the Minister or the Universities Grants Commission, I guess, raises alarm bells in my mind in that we certainly anticipate that our universities are going to be accountable, that they are expenders of huge sums, large sums of public funds, and yet certainly at the political level, at the legislative level, there is sometimes a feeling that the Minister isn't in charge.

That's probably an accurate perception. Our control results, by and large, through funding that's allocated and any conditional funding which may be attached to that, but that's rather a limited role in terms of providing overall assurance that there is accountability and so forth at our universities. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, surely the department and government must be concerned as to the types of universities that we have, the types of programs that we're offering.

I don't think the Minister lives in a vaccum, and I don't think he's trying to convey the idea that he does, because there are all kinds of interprovincial agreements where you don't dup licate services, where one university will develop an expertise and, for cost considerations, there are agreements made and entered into where you can transfer people and resources back and forth. But certain basic things, if they're essential to the training of young Manitobans, have to be there, whether it be the Faculty of Agriculture which is the area that the province or the University

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 of Manitoba first got its expertise and world reknown in, whether it be the Faculty of Medicine or divisions in that faculty, whether it be the Engineering Faculty or any others, I can't believe that the Minister would ju st say that it isn't our responsibility , it's the responsibility of the university. Now, I could appr eciate th at the allocat ion of resources within the jurisdiction of the university is one thing, but the province has to set priorities. It has to make determinations, and it has to set certain standards for its educational institutions.

The province has played a very active role in the community colleges, and I find it surprising that there wouldn't be some sort of watch or review kept on the universities to ensure that some of the basic programming that's been there has always been there. If it's a problem of accreditation, why is that? Maybe there isn't enough money being entered into. Maybe some special agreements have to be entered into. There's a whole host of things when you try to solve some of these problems.

So I take it from the closing comments that the Minister made that he would like to become more informed and know what is going on and what is happening there, especially as it affects accreditation of faculties, because they may very well be on the Minister's doorstep with cap in hand, saying please bail us out or give us extra funding for this particular project. How do you say no when the university Engineering Faculty is going to lose its accreditation? I mean, that's just not something you argue politics over. If it's going down the drain, you take steps to try and solve the problem.

So I would just like to have the Minister's assurance that he will keep a watch on it. Whether the amount of funding that one gets is adequate or not, the important thing is the basic structure of the university being sound and continuing to give good education to young Manitobans. HON. J. STORIE: Well, certainly I think our universities do excel, and the member referenced the fact that universities, by accident or by design, across the country have become reknowned for certain specialties.

Certainly, there is exactly the same phenomenon developed in Manitoba where the University of Manitoba is well-known for its Faculty of Agriculture, its Faculty of Medicine. Brandon is well-known for its Music and Education, and CUSB is known for its French language studies. It is true. The problem that I raise is one that I'm reasonably certain other Ministers of Education have felt. The Member for Fort Garry raised an interesting phenomena in the 1980's in that he said the government has to set its own priorities. Cer tainly in terms of post secondary education, we have.

Not all of those priorities have been reflected directly by the wishes of the university. I have indicated that we have spent tens of millions of dollars in post-secondary education outside of the university community, something that did not happen from the years 1977-88, reflect ing this government's priorities. In addition, over the course of the last four or five years, there have been programs implemented on the basis of conditional funding. In other words, the governments had said, yes, here are the priorities. Here's what we're going to do. Here's the money to do them.

I shouldn't make that sound as if the government established those without the interest of the university community. By and large, there was interest expressed, and those priorities were established in consultation with, in cooperation with the universities, whether it's the nursing program or Native studies or whatever. So the government has done that, but the unfortunate and the difficult part of that is that has been done by additional funding. In fact, I am sure most Ministers of Education have felt somewhat at a loss in terms of re-establishing the priorities of existing funding.

Within the universities, the priorities are established by the administration and board of governors. That's as a result of long-standing tradition that universities are seen as autonomous bodies. It is easy to be, I guess, innovative and imaginative when the resources of the government are unlimited. It's easy to add programs. It's much more difficult to redefine priorities within constrained financial resources, and that's what makes the curr ent situation so challenging. It's not only a challenge for me.

I am very well aware of the fact that it's also a challenge for the university presidents themselves and the university communities. All I can assure the member is that the board of governors and the presidents of the university, their goals are no different from this government's. We want to provide quality university education. We want the universities to be accessible and at the same time we have to be aware, both of us, all of us have to be aware of the constraints that we face in terms of resources. I'm not copping out; I'm not blaming any other level of government.

It's simply a fact of life, and we have to deal with it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: The Minister made reference to this earlier, and I'd like to deal with it for a moment. There is an indication under The Loan Act that the University of Manitoba is going to be able to borrow $10 million. Is this the first time the university has borrowed money? HON. J. STORIE: No, Mr. Chairperson. MR. C. BIRT: Is this something that they do on an annual basis? HON. J. STORIE: In the mid-Seventies, the university had a large debenture for renovations previously. MR. C.

BIRT: Why is the university borrowing 10 million through this route? Why is it not coming as a capital grant or miscellaneous grant through the Province of Manitoba? HON. J. STORIE: I understand the university requested that. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the annual report for the university and also in the report 2618

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 for Universities Grants Commission - I think I'm reading it right - that the province then gives the university both capital and interest to pay off this debenture or loan over a period of time. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, that's correct. MR. C. BIRT: Is there a limitation on the amount that the university can borrow imposed by the province? HON. J. STORIE: There is no limit per se, other than the amount that's negotiated. MR. C. BIRT: The Minister indicated that it was a similar loan back in the Seventies. Does that mean it took from then to now to pay it off, so they' re now reborrowing?

Is this what they're doing? HON. J. STORIE: No, they are not related, but it was paid off. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, what does the university intend to do with this borrowing authority? I mean, did they have to come to the UGG or the Minister to provide a basis on what they intended to do for it and how they were going to finance it? HON. J. STORIE: I understand it's for a variety of purposes, the upgrading of the plant, purchase of major pieces of equipment, those kinds of capital projects. MR. C.

BIRT: In allocating the amount of funds or the monies that will go to the university next year, certain items are taken care of and not dealt with in sort of operating. You know, specific salary increases, things like that, I believe, are covered by the province. There is a certain increase in discretionary funding. Will the amount of monies allocated by the province for principal and interest be fixed, or will that be included in their discretionary funding allocation for next year? HON. J. STORIE: No, that would be an allocation apart from the base. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, are the other universities able to borrow capital like this for local improvements or renovations, repairs, etc.? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, they could. MR. C. BIRT: The Minister also indicated that there was an increase, I believe, in the amount of monies paid to the university as grant in lieu of taxes. Does that money just not flow right through then to the municipality? Is that amount not determined then by the Provincial Government as how much money the public institutions in Manitoba are going to pay to the various municipalities? Once that is made, then is that money not just allocated into the budget?

HON. J. STORIE: Yes, it does flow back to them. MR. C. BIRT: So actually the amount of money then allocated for grant in lieu of taxes paid by the university is really not money in their budget. It's just a flow through mechanism. HON. J. STORIE: It would have to be paid by them obviously. MR. C. BIRT: But it's put in specifically by government policy to flow through to the municipalities. HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: Okay. I think it was in 1985, a draft of The Brandon University Act surfaced and was circulated to the University of Brandon and also to, I think, people in the community.

Can the Minister advise what the status is of that draft bill for Brandon University? HON. J. STORIE: It is one of two, I guess, that are under consideration. The University of Winnipeg is also considering the possibility, I guess, or are interested in having their own act to establish themselves in a formal way. It will be considered; they will be considered quite seriously. I indicated that it wasn't going to be possible to do that in this current legislative Session, but that it is something that I think I want to raise as a possibility for the next Session.

I should point out that the four universities in the province are quite disparate in their history and their curr ent status in relationship to the Provincial Government. The University of Manitoba, for example, has 23 members on their board, 12 of which are appointed by the Minister, the Government of Manitoba. The Un iversity of Winn ipeg has some 32 board members, 10 of which are appointed by the Provincial Government. The College Universitaire de St. Boniface has no appointments from the Provincial Government. The infamous Board of Governors from Brandon University have 10 appointees out of 17.

So they are quite a diverse group, and I have been contemplating the advisability of producing a universities act which would establish them, provide some semblance of order to the institutions. They're all publicly funded. They are treated identically in terms of their ability to receive public funding. It's something that certainly raises some interesting questions about why that divergence. There is, I think, a rationale for reviewing them in their entirety. I think there are a number of questions that could be answered by a review of that kind of legislation. MR. C.

BIRT: The University of Manitoba has its own act or cha rter, I guess it was, when it was first incorporated and there is a Universities Act which I believe both Brandon and the University of Winnipeg operate under. Is the Minister attempting to say that you're going to create one major universities act legislation, so that the same rules would apply to all of the institutions? HON. J. STORIE: No, the University of Winnipeg and Brandon University actually operate under O/C, Order in-Council. MR. C. BIRT: Under The Universities Act though. Where do you get the authority to give the Order-in-Council? 2619

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 HON. J. STORIE: The Universities Establishment Act. MR. C. BIRT: Okay, that's The Un iversities Act. All right. HON. J. STORIE: But they want their own act; and two universities do have it and two don't. So the point I'm making is that they all receive the same kind of provincial funding and it would make sense it seems to me, superficially, to have them structured in a similar fashion and to have them accountable in similar fashions and it's simply a question that's raised when we start talking about the Universities of Brandon and Winnipeg wishing to establish their own act.

Like I said, given that they are receiving large sums of public money, I think it makes sense to review that whole qu estion and see if you can't bring some uniformity to the way they're established, the way they operate and it's something I will be reviewing over the coming months. MR. C. BIRT: If the Minister or his staff could turn to Page 20 of the Annual Report, 1984-85 of the Univ ersities Grants Commission, and it's the explanatory notes, when you see academic staff full time, there are the four colleges mentioned and then there's a Roman numeral I under St.

Boniface College and it says, "An additional 109 full-time academic staff are paid from non-operating funds. Now does that apply to the total staff complement of the four universities mentioned there or is it just to the St. Boniface College? HON. J. STORIE: I'm told that it's for the total. MR. C. BIRT: So the other two explanatory notes then would also be for the four colleges, not the . HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, in the grants to the universities, you gave me a breakout as to the sum of money that is going to the various universities and the University of Manitoba got $129 million, which is an increase of 3.2 percent; The University of Winnipeg, 17.3, which was an increase of 4.9 percent; Brandon University at 11. 4, which gives you a 6.1 percent; and St. Boniface College at 2.9, giving you a 5.5 percent increase. The general formula, and I think the figures used by the Minister or at least during the Budget Debate, was that some 3.8 percent increase in funding was going to the universities.

Why do you have different amounts and different percentages going to the universities and what was the criteria for giving them different amounts? HON. J. STORIE: The difference can be accounted for in terms of the targeted funding, $100,000 for a targeted program. A conditional grant to a small university obviously means a much larger percentage increase. There were also some ongoing or previous commitments. The Earth Sciences Building is one for the University of Manitoba; the University of Winnipeg, a catch-up grant because of some inequities that were related to funding at the University of Winnipeg.

There was some community programming as well, additional dollars for some community programming at the University of Winnipeg. The University of Brandon received some additional operating dollars for the Music Building, so there are some specific dollars attached to either previous commitme nts or addition al commitments that the universities made. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, the Annual Report shown by the University of Manitoba, - and I don't have the other ones available - they've shown their operating status over a number of years and it would appear that they try to come in with surpluses.

What happens to those surpluses? Are they taken into consideration for the next year or is that refunded to the university? Are they free to spend it within their own milieu? What happens? If they make a surplus, what happens to it? HON. J. STORIE: I understand that surpluses are not uncommon. In fact, in the previous year, I understand there was a small surplus. Again, that is within the domain of the university themselves to rearrange funding within the budget or to allocate additional funding to specific programs as they see fit. So once the allocation is made, there is no attempt to recoup surpluses.

I guess some would find it surprising there would be surpluses in these so called tight times. MR. C. BIRT: But if there is a surplus or a deemed surplus - and I can appreciate often it's just a paper figure it's not a real surplus because you may not have filled staff roles completely or whatever - then is the Minister saying that for the next year's budgeting any surplus is not taken into consideration in allocating an operating grant? HON. J. STORIE: That's correct. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman. That's all my questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Yes, there's a number of things that I'd like to discuss, but the first one I'd like to discuss is the basic statement of the minimum amount needed to maintain the existing level of program activities at the universities that will require an additional 5. 7 percent or 8.890. 1 to the operating base. Why did the universities take such a beating in the overall Estimates process, if in fact it started off with a 5. 7 percent increase and ended up with a 3.6 percent increase? HON. J.

STORIE: I'm certainly shocked and quite taken aback by the Member for River Heights' excessive use of a motive language with respect to this issue. I think clearly the government has been most judicious and fair in their allocation - as they are wont to be, I understand - in their allocation to the universities. I think if you actually look at all of the sources of revenue, the conditional grants, the miscellaneous capital, capital grants that are provided to the 2620

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 universities, actually the figure is very much like 6 percent. I had given the Member for Fort Garry a breakdown of the different sources of revenue that the universities had and I would just review those, if I can find them. There was a 2.76 percent increase in base funding, which applied to all of the universities; then there was additional funding offered to each of the universities for specific pr ojects, which brought it up to approximately 3.8 percent.

The universities, by virtue of the fact that another major source of revenue is tuition fees, obviously received approximately another 1 percent increase as a result of increasing tuition fees; an increase in provincial support by way of a grant in lieu of taxes to offset increasing taxes of approximately 1 percent; and I've already mentioned the specific categorical grants. So you come to a figure that's close to 5.76 percent or 6 percent, the 5.8 percent that's mentioned or the 5.5 percent.

In addition to that, the University of Manitoba which is the largest, and obviously bud get-wise significantly the largest, also received authority for a $10 million capital debenture. The cost to the province in meeting the interest, and the principal and interest of that, will be an additional sum of money which will be the responsibility of the province.

So, I think while certainly perhaps from the university's perspective we have not provided enough, I think provided essentially what we believed was necessary, recognizing as well the Universities Grants Commission received substantially more requests than what were included in their recommendations. Requests from the university foresaw the need of an increase in the magnitude of 10 percent to 11 percent.

I suppose if you include the $10 million that has been provided by way of debenture, that we're almost there, but in terms of straight grant, obviously, the recommendations of Universities Grants Commissions are tempered, if you will, by the resources of the province and our ability to fund the university's needs along with the very real needs of our health system and the needs of post secondary training in other parts of the province through other instituti ons and other venues. If that's an explanation, I guess that's it. MRS. S. CARS TAIRS: With all du e respect, Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister, I'm really not interested in all the other kinds of funding. I'm interested in the grants received th rough the commis sion for the universities. The Minister in his answers to the Member for Fort Garry threw out things like we have one of the lowest tuition fees in Canada, while in fact that's not entirely true; McGill has a lower one than the University of Manitoba.

We throw out things about the money we give to education and, quite frankly, the provincial Tories are equally guilty of having badly funded our universities - as you are unfortunately becoming, as this government - but Nova Scotia provides far more per capita to education than we do in this province, simply because they place an extremely high value on the education process. If you, in fact, deal with the reality of the situation, our universities in Manitoba - not this year - but in the very near future are going to be in serious difficulties 2621 at maintaining a high level of academic excellence.

One only has to go through the number of faculties that have been in danger of losing accreditation and funding had to be found rapidly in order for them not to lose their accreditation. Architecture, dentistry - now we're looking at internal medicine - engineering - we lost ophthalmology. It goes on and on.

That may well be the purview of the Board of Governors, but since the vast majority of the monies that go to the Board of Governors come from the Province of Manitoba and the government of this province, then we must do something to either make a decision that we're going to have excellence at our universities or we're going to make the decision that they are going to be less than excellent. I maintain if we continue this level of funding that was provided last year and this year, we're going to have a serious excellence crisis in this province. HON. J.

STORIE: I guess two points, one, I think the universities and certainly the government are concerned with excellence. I think it's recognized that for a small province, really, we have three fairly large university communities, four universities, and certainly I think a sizable responsibility for a province of a million people. It is true and I've indicated we have reduced the level of funding over the past couple of years, but I think it should be recognized it was on a fairly substantial base where increasing was substantially beyond inflation, and over the five years our record is pretty fair.

I don't think we need to feel any shame in funding universities at 8 percent beyond, 9 percent beyond inflation over the past few years. Clearly, that should be enough for them to maintain their mandate and provide excellence. I think our funding of universities has been comparable to the public school system and I recognize there are many school boards out there who would also, as the Un iversity Board of Governors, want more funding.

But I think if you compare our level of funding to other provinces, we have done a better job in terms of clearly establishing universities and post-secondary funding as a priority than other provinces, that we have tried to maintain our system. Clearly, the government, by virtue of its relationship with the university, cannot establish the priorities, cannot - and I've indicated to the member previously - does not have the kind of the information that would allow it to intervene in perhaps a more timely way to prevent the loss of accreditation.

Those decisions are within the purview of the university and have been, I guess, guarded rather jealously by the universities for some time. If the member is suggesting the university's autonomy should be jeopardized in some way, then obviously that's another ball game entirely.

The universities, I suppose like other institutions, have had a difficult time over the last few years coming to grips with the fact that they needed to repriorize; that no institution however important, however based on tradition can remain static forever, and there have been significant changes at the universities, and some of them brought on by the fact that funding was at a premium and new ways, better ways of doing things had to be found. Some universities have been able to accommodate the current reality better than others.

Although it has been painful, I'm only aware of the possibility of the loss of accreditation for one faculty

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 and, again, something that was brought to my attention through the media and indicates, to my way of thinking, a lack of planning, a lack of foresight at some other level. While I share the responsibility and certainly will do, as has been indicated, will work cooperatively with the universities prevent those kinds of things from happening, perhaps it can only be prevented in the future by a closer cooperation and more sharing of information and I think that's desirable. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Quite frankly, Mr.

Chairman, I'm appalled the Minister of Education would say he learns about accreditation problems at his major universities through the media. I don't think it is any threat whatever to the autonomy of the university for the Universities Grants Commission to ask for a report on the status of faculties and any difficulty those faculties may be encountering because of a lack of funding. I would think that would be an obvious question to ask prior to budgeting for the Grants Commission. HON. J.

STORIE: Certainly, the universities have within their budgets the ability to deal with, for example, the accreditation problems that may or may not face the Faculty of Engineering. They may choose, for their own reasons, to deal with it without acknowledging there has been a problem, and I presume that has happened in the past. The member does raise a good question about our ability to ask questions, but it also raises other legitimate questions about the need, if you will, for the university community to share that kind of information in a more timely fashion. It is a problem; I agree that it needs addressing.

As I've indicated previously, I will be meeting with the university presidents and do intend to work much more closely with the university presidents so that I can understand their needs better and so that they can appreciate our position as well. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: I don't like to pit one university president against another university president; however, since the Minister in fact brought them both into the conversation, I think it would be very appropriate for the University of Winnipeg to be less unhappy with his grant of 4.9 percent than it would be for the University of Manitoba to be happy with his grant of 3.2 percent. I think it's also fair to say that the University of Winnipeg, several years ago - and I think one of the reasons why they're now getting catch-up grants, was that they made massive cuts in courses three years ago.

That was the same period of time in which we were dealing with closing libraries a year or so later and limited hours and access of students to those library hours. I think that there are many students at the Univ ersity of Winnipeg who are still complaining about the lack of availability of courses that used to be available in the calendar of that university. HON. J. STORIE: Just for the record, they didn't close the university library but there were in fact some reduction of courses. I don't see that as an entirely negative phenomenon.

I think that universities have to revamp the courses they offer from time-to-time as well; that they in fact have to reflect more broadly the needs of the students and that if that means reducing sections, changing the ratio of one faculty's offerings versus another, that that's an appropriate thing to do. I can only indicate what I've heard from the university president and that is that they saw the necessity for changing in a rather dramatic way some of the things that they were doing; and they did them. That may be necessary.

Again I don't see that as all-negative; that change is sometimes a positive force and it can be at the universities as well. Whether that means that we can expect fall-out, I guess, from a process at the University of Manitoba or other universities, is open to question. MRS. S. CARST AIRS: Has the government and the Grants Commission in particular ever thought in terms of long-range planning for our university institutions because it appears to me that this is where the real difficulty occurs.

I mean the first two years of your government being in office, no question, gave subs tantial increases of money to the un iversity community. They expanded in courses; they built new buildings; they introduced new faculties; and then all of a sudden when they have been used to that level of funding, the crunch hits. They are then left with the dilemma of having hired more staff; having put programs into place. Would it not be more advisable to put them on some kind of a five-year plan so that they had some knowledge of where they were going over the years of a government? HON. J.

STORIE: Yes, I think the member raises an excellent idea, not only for the universities, for the public school system, in fact for our other major institutions which are funded by government. Although that is a desirable thing - and I believe that the First Minister and the Minister of Finance have indicated that we will in fact be moving in that direction - that we would like to table a longer-term perspective of the problems and the opportunities that we face in terms of our fiscal financial picture, it does pose some problems.

I'm reminded of the initial term, the initial year of the NDP Government in 1981- '82, when we had as a matter of course, invited several experts in to discuss the future economy of Manitoba, the directions that the Canadian economy, world economy was going to take and received assurance from many quarters that the recession was in fact over, that the prospects were thus and so. These were recognized economic experts from other parts of the country that in fact many of the leading economic forecasters were predicting the same kind of thing and it never came to pass. In fact we went through a severe recession.

So it leaves one with a very difficult scenario where in fact while it's desirable, it has some potential pitfalls in that if you indicate that this is going to be the scenario and the economic circumstances of the province, the country turnaround, you may have set in place some planning and the implementation of some programs that will be negatively affected. I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and I think in fact that kind of planning should be taking place and what we've got to do is make sure that the planning isn't carved in stone.

But it's an excellent idea and if we're really going to get some priority-setting, I believe particularly for the university community, they need to have that kind of assurance. 2622

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 MRS. S. CARST AIRS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicated earlier that there was not going to be the kinds of staff cuts that had appeared the faculty association felt there were going to be. Did his Grants Commission also look into other types of staff because I understand that in fact it will end up being a support staff that will be cut? Quite frankly, I'll give you my own bias there in that if I had to cut a secretary rather than a lecturer in one of the sections of the course, I'd cut the secretary and no questions asked.

I still believe that a library and a good teacher can create a degree of excellence. HON. J. STORIE: I can only indicate that we have had no indication that there are going to be any layoffs, whether they would be staff, teaching staff or support staff. Those priorities have to be determined by the university in the event that layoffs are necessary of any kind. It wouldn't be unusual to see support staff laid off where that was possible and wouldn't jeopardize the longevity, the safety security of the buildings, I suppose. MRS. S.

CAR STAIRS: I was amazed when we first discussed the University of Brandon and again tonight, quite frankly, that the government would have 10 appointees out of 17 and I would hope that while he's looking at new acts, he would not use Brandon as his guide. I think that if we are really serious about the autonomy of universities that in fact the government, while it should have representation, should certainly have less than 50 percent. HON. J. STORIE: I appreciate the member's candid comments.

I'm sure that the current Board of Governors at Brandon University will take no offence at that thought; it was the concept I think that's important. I guess that is a question that needs to be reviewed fairly careful ly. In my own mind, it is a qu estion of accountability and how does one best achieve that. I can only indicate that I had not thought of Brandon Un iversity as a model necessarily. MRS. S. CAR STAI RS: If we're talking about accountability, I don't think that there's anywhere been proven that College St.

Boniface is any less accountable than any other of our universities, yet they have no appointees. I don't recommend that as, quite frankly, the model either, but I do think that autonomy at universities is extremely important, and I think that a 40 percent government participation is perhaps a more reflective and realistic goal for university participation from the government. HON. J. STORIE: I appreciate the comments. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to deal with this question of long-term planning for the university, because I think that's extremely important. The Un iversities Grants Commission Annual Report on Page 32 refers to, with respect to the University of Manitoba, a multi-year plan to 1989-90 which was to be presented in June of 1985. Does the Minister and the Univ ersities Grants Commission have that multi-year plan? HON. J. STORIE: The university, as with many I guess agencies, has a five-year rotating plan. It is not something that is tabled with the Universities Grants Commission. It is simply an internal plan and a rotating one.

It's part of their budgeting sequence, I presume relates more to the capital and operating projects. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, this reference in the comm ission report is contained unde r "Financial Planning ." Why would the Univ ersities Grants Commission be commenting on a multi-year plan that is internal to the Un iversity of Manitoba if they do not have access to it or have knowledge of it or be aware of it? HON. J. STORIE: It is referenced merely to indicate that the university is doing longer-term planning.

In fact, the five-year rotating plan is a relatively new phenomenon for the University of Manitoba. I gather all of the universities now have some form of longer term planning, the five-year rotating plan or whatever. The University of Manitoba has been at it for several years now, and it's again a device that assists them in preparing in a longer time frame. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister saying that the Universities Grants Commission does not have access to or is not aware of the contents of that, what he refers to as an internal five-year plan for the university? HON. J.

STORIE: I understand that there is no formal plan that is tabl ed with the Un iversities Grants Commission. Some portions of the plan are discussed, I gather, in detail with the commission, but there is no overview by the Universities Grants Commission of the full plan. As I indicated, basically the Universities Grants Commission encourages the universities to undertake this kind of planning just for their own purposes, so that they could have a better appreciation for what was on the horizon and what kind of costs were anticipated. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister has just acknowledged the Member for River Heights, and I agree with her concern about the benefits of some longer-term planning. We have a situation where apparently the University of Manitoba, for example, has prepared a multi-year plan, a five-year plan which obviously would express some objectives and some ideas about where the university would like to go over the next five years. The Minister is telling me the Universities Grants Commission does not have that plan presented to them.

You know, I find that very difficult to accept that if the university has gone to that extent to prepare a long-term plan, why the Universities Grants Commission would not be reviewing that and, through the Minister at least, be giving some advice to the university on the objectives and the projected funding, etc., and making some determination as to whether government will, through the Un iversities Grants Commission, be agreeing with the long-term planning of the university. 2623

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 HON. J. STORIE: I think we're talking about two different plans here. This is really a fiscal financial plan of the university, which outlines in a rather logical way what costs are anticipated to do in each of the categories of their budget. It doesn't deal with the planning issue of policy priorities. It doesn't deal with the whole range of planning possibi lities for the university, and certainly doesn't deal with the funding policy of the government over the next number of years.

So when I was talking about planning and encouraging that kind of planning and indicating that I felt that it was useful and something that we should be doing, I was talking about the more all-encompassing kind of planning, not just saying here's our secretarial costs and we calculate that by five years they're going to be this. That's the kind of five-year rotating plan that they have, but it isn't a setting of priorities for the university. It isn't saying, here's where our costs are going in terms of this particular area of this faculty. How can we control them?

So it isn't the kind of detailed policy planning, the detailed kind of budgetary planning in terms of funding that's needed to support the activities at the university. It's much more basic than that. MR. G. MERCIER: If it's a fiscal plan, I believe the Minister referred it to, can he ind icate what the projected increases in expenditure at the University of Manitoba are for the next five years then on the basis of that? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out, for voting purposes, it is now 10:00 p.m. I assume we wish to continue. The Minister of Education. HON. J.

STORIE: I understand that the projections are now that the universities would need somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4 percent over the next five years. Now that again, as I have indicated with any five-year plan, even though we're talking about strictly the financial planning of the university, there are a whole bunch of "ifs" built into that plan. If the winters are short, the costs are lower. If student enrolment drops, costs are lower. If liability insur ance continues to escalate, costs are higher, many of those costs. But that's the kind of financial planning we're talking about.

It's at the very specific level, and deals with the costs of staffing in each of the categories, costs of operating maintenance projections, but it isn't the kind of policy planning that immediately springs to mind when you talk about a university's five-year plan. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Minister have any long term plans or objectives for universities in Manitoba? HON. J. STORIE: Well, it would be a little bit premature to tell you my goals. I've indicated generally, broadly what I feel the universities are about. I feel that there needs to be a greater degree of public accountability.

I believe that we need to increase the accessibility of universities. I don't believe that we should react to the crisis, the difficulty that we have funding the universities, by limiting access. I believe that many of the concerns of the university have to be addressed in much more detail between the government arid the university body themselves by dialogue and consultation. I'm not in a position after being Minister of Education for three months to say in detail all of the things that do or don't need changing. They'r e important institutions, and they very much reflect the quality of life in Manitoba.

So having said that, they are going to continue to be a priority. There's no question about that. MR. G. MERCIER: Having said that, does the Minister agree that first-year Science students should not have labs available to them? HON. J. STORIE: Again, I'm not a science professor, so I can't say categorically whether they should or shouldn't. I think there is probably an argument that can be made that the quality of education would not suffer unduly without them in some instances. I know that there are science courses offered with and without labs.

I think you probably would find a difference of practices between the universities, and difference of practice between universities amongst the provinces. So, you know, I don't think there's any easy answer to that. It depends on the objectives of the course. I certainly do believe that there is room for change in the way that some of those things have happened. Changes occur in the classroom and I'm sure changes can be brought into effect at the university level. MR. G.

MERCIER: Has the Univ ersities Grants Commission during the past year approved any courses which are duplications of courses in other universities in Manitoba? HON. J. STORIE: Staff say they can't recall any. The member raises a good point though. Certainly, if there are going to be any efficiencies had in a relatively small province, that is one of the areas that you would want to make sure there isn't duplication. MR. G.

MERCIER: Are there any discussions being held with, say, other western provinces with respect to, along this line of efficiencies, perhaps it would be, I suppose, similar to the Veterinary School which is in Saskatoon where they have that course. Are there any similar discussions being held now with respect to a specialization by one province in one field in lieu of another province specializing in another field? Would those kinds of discussions be held firstly by the universities, or are they handled by the Un iversities Grants Commission? HON. J.

STORIE: I understand that there are, and increasingly have been over the last few years discussions at the Deputy Minister's level and the Council of Ministers of Education. So the same issue has been raised at the Council where Ministers are discussing those kinds of issues. I had indicated to the member for - I can't remember which member - one of the members opposite earlier, that discussions were now taking place with respect to the establishment of an institute for training teachers of hearing impaired on an interprovincial basis. It's a significant specially, and obviously wouldn't be a viable 2624

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 enterprise if one province were to go it alone, but it may be if it was done on a Western Canada basis. So those kinds of discussions do go on from time to time. MR. G. MERCIER: Have there been any discussions with respect to speech therapy, which I understood at present they attend school in North Dakota? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, I recall some year ago, year and-a-half ago, that one of the items - in fact, I attended a meeting with Governor Sinner where the whole question of sharing of expertise and establishment of centres of excellence would be a possibility.

I don't know that those kinds of discussions have gone on interprovincially. The one area that has been raised by staff is the question of training of Native medical students. MR. G. MERCIER: Just a few more questions. Could the Minister indicate, through the Un iversities Grants Commission, how many courses did students drop out of during the past year and request a refund of tuition?

I raise the issue because it's being presented to me and the suggestion has been that a significant number of students drop out of courses prior to the eligibility date and then receive a refund of tuition, and it's becoming somewhat of a problem. There's no question that no one would dispute dropping out for health reasons or medical reasons, but with university being so competitive, the suggestion has been that a number drop out because they feel they're not going to do well enough, and pick it up in summer school or the next year.

The Minister may not have that figure but I wonder if he would take the question as notice and advise me perhaps of the number of courses that students have dropped out of during the past two academic years and received a refund of tuition, and what that amounts to in terms of dollars for each academic year. HON. J. STORIE: Staff have noted the questions and I'll respond back to the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: The last area, Mr. Chairman, that I raise in regard to the Canadian Nazarene College, which is one of four church colleges that the Minister will be familiar with. They are constituents of mine.

Certainly, the president is. The school may be on the boundary. The Minister may well be aware that they've been making a number of requests to governments over the years that do involve the Minister of Municipal Affairs in their assessment.but, as well, they have pointed out that a major part of their curriculum coincides with that of the universities and that religious studies have now become a part of the universities' program and they're funded through the Universities Grants Commission.

They have pointed out to me and, I believe, to perhaps the previous Minister that courses from these church related col leges are transfera ble to un iversity departments. I know mostly about the Canadian Nazarene College because they're located on, I believe, Lee Boulevard in my constituency. There are a number of students who attend university who also attend their college and receive a credit for the religious education courses that they offer. Yet the college itself, as I understand it, receives no financing through the Universities Grants Commission.

I wonder if the Minister could tell me what he is prepared to do about it. HON. J. STORIE: I am aware of their request. There are a number of options that have been raised with myself and the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs. We are looking at that issue and I understand we'll be meeting with representatives of the four colleges in the very near future. Certainly I will be made aware of the issue and will be discussing potential solutions, I suppose, to some of the problems. MR. G. MERCIER: I take it from that answer the Minister has no positive response that he can give at this particular time? HON. J.

STORIE: I may have a positive suggestion. I guess positive is sometimes in the eyes of the beholder. But I certainly am aware of their problem and I believe we'll be discussing the issue and may have a suggestion that may be worth consideration. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Minister not, specifically within his portfolio, agree with the legitimacy of the argument that if they're providing the course of which students attending the University of Manitoba will receive a credit, that they should be entitled to some financial support for the operation of their facility? HON. J.

STORIE: I'm not as familiar maybe as I should be with the background and the rationale for the establishment of the college. Clearly, that college is not the only one in the province. I should in dicate that the Un iversities Grants Commission does not offer support to theological faculties; and the Religious Studies, of course, are of a variety, non-sectarian I guess in some respects. So there are some differences as well in the orientation of the Religious Studies offered at universities and those offered at some of the colleges. MR. G. MERCIER: I'll defer to the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, during the course of discussions, on the Canadian Nazarene College and the other three colleges, raised by the Member for St. Norbert, I think I must put it on the record that the Canadian Nazarene College is a client of mine in my professional capacity as a lawyer, and though I did not absent myself this was a debate and I did not participate in the debate. I just want the record to show that I wasn't involved in any way, shape or form promoting or supporting their cause.

I deliberately abstained from it, and I felt out of abundance of caution I should put my interest, as far as my client is concerned, on the record and trust that it doesn't cause anyone any concerns. MR. CHAIRMAN: So it has been stated, so it shall be written. 2625

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe these are all of the questions on the Universities Grants Commission? MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 6.(a)- pass; 6.(b)- pass; 6.(c) pass. Resolution 51:

Be it Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 62, 161 ,300 for Education, Universities Grants Commission for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1987-pass. Now, we return to Item 1.(

a) Minister's Salary - the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any additional questions or topics that I wish to raise at this particular time. Some several days ago, when we entered into the debate on educational policies of this government and the funding of same and where they were going or not going, I had set out a number of concerns that I and my caucus had on the record. I would just like to briefly touch on four areas that are of concern to me.

I was hopeful as the Minister and I went through our Estimates that he showed promise of opening up, in fact, not being trapped by his predecessor's perceptions or positions because, quite frankly, I think some of them were not very well thought out or very positive as far as the educational field was concerned in the Province of Manitoba. However, the Minister seems to be somewhat trapped by some of his predecessor's actions in this area and for that I'm a little disappointed that he was not able to swing a new broom and perhaps bring some new light into the areas.

The one in particular I looked forward for mostly on was the quality of education. The previous Minister, in fact, set the parameters and I had hoped during the interim with the new Minister arriving on the scene, that the scenario would not be as it is now unfolded. Quite frankly, I think the public wants a review of the high school curriculum. The students should be assured that they are going to be given a quality education to take them into the work force or into post-secondary education.

That entails and challenges the perceptions in which the department provides the various services, the criteria, the course program, the funding, all of this. I do not think you can get a fair and valid review, and I don't take any umbrage with the professionals who are from the department on it. They bring a legitimate point of view and I don't challenge their competence or capacity.

It's the question of a review, that if it's to be meaningful because it's such a long time in coming - I think the Minister had indicated some two decades have passed since any major review of the high school area had taken place - that we would get what I would call a more independent arm's-length review of the whole system. Unfortun ately, by structuring the committee the way it has with an acting deputy minister as chairman and two assistant deputy ministers on the board and having the department prepare the material for the position paper that this committee is going to develop, sort of closes many options.

It's all well and good for the Minister to say they'll come out in a public debate, but I know very well that once you stake a position or set a positional paper out, it almost by itself precludes other debate. The time frame on ii, quite frankly, I think is a little too short to anticipate that they are going to develop something within two or three months and then go to the public and be able to report to the Minister in any meaningful way within a year, quite frankly, puts too much of a rush on the whole process.

I've indicated in the House and I've indicated to the Minister on previous occasions that I think he's going about the wrong way, and for that I'm a little disappointed. The other area of concern to me was the priority of funding for post-secondary education in this province, and in particular the university area, and I'm still not convinced that the Minister has given the priority it deserves because as the Minister talked on one hand, yet when probed in other areas, he would contradict himself.

Quite frankly, I don't think the universities are being developed so that their spheres of excellence are being adde d to, that their future as sound ed ucational institutions are being assured and guaranteed. I think the area of additional funding and some long-range planning is long overdue. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I did not believe this government had a long-range future or plan for post-secondary education and to this point and time they've given no evidence they, in fact, do have a formula or a plan, and that I am also disappointed with.

The other troubling area of concern is the funding formula, or three types of funding formula as far as grants to the municipalities and the school boards are concerned, and this is causing some extreme problems. The Minister may agree that it is or advocate that it is an insoluable problem. But it seems surprising that you would have three formulas working within this province, and each receiving a different funding base. I was a little disappointed to find that the Minister is not prepared to review this whole area or move in this area, and to say, it's an impossible problem and we can't solve it.

I don't think problems like that are insoluable. I think if you spend enough effort, time and energy that they can be resolved. I would urge that the Minister get moving in this particular area. The other area of concern was the Educational Review or quality of education review that I thought had some meaning, but in going through the earlier parts of the Estimates ii seemed every time we raised a good question the Minister said it would be covered under that review.

It seems to me it's become sort of the catch-all or defensive phrase. for inactivity or reasons for not doing things, and it might be studied in this area. Again, I find it a little disappointing. However, the Minister was frank and open in some of the suggestions being offered by myself and other members around the table, and I think there is some hope. I would hope that he could convince his colleagues in Cabinet that education is a higher priority than they seem prepared to give it at the moment.

I was intending to make a motion to lower the Minister's salary to $2.78 to reflect the true purchasing power of his salary as it relates to the amount of increase in funding that the university is trying to cope with. But feeling that the Minister might feel that it was a too generous offer and that it was in excess of the inflation level, that I couldn't without 2626

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 a calculator, get a true and correct value on the amount of money we should pay the Minister for the next year, I've decided because of the lack of technical tools, I can't accurately define what he is really worth. So I will not be making such a motion. We may be talking in pennies but I think quite frankly it's something substantially less. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed the debate, I enjoyed going through the Estimates and I just hope that the Minister can promote some of the ideas that were presented forward and some of the suggestions I think he took in a positive frame.

As I say, I enjoyed the debate. HON. J. STORIE: Just a few brief comments. After those very gracious remarks do you think I'm going to let this opportunity go to give a few shots? I do appreciate the comments that have been made by all members opposite. Clearly, this has been as much a learning process for me as for some members opposite despite the fact that I have been involved now for two or three months. I have not pretended that I know it all.

I have, I think, been quite open to suggestion and will be, not only from members opposite but from the university community, from other organizations involved in educ ation. I appreciate some of the comments that the Member for Fort Garry has made. I'm not in agreement with many of them but I appreciate that they're made sincerely in the interests of improving the quality of education in Manitoba and in the concern for the continuation of quality education being available.

So with those few remarks I'd like to thank all members opposite, the Member for River Heights for her patience and understanding and cooperation in many respects, and to the Member for Fort Garry, the Education critic, for his thoughtful comments and moderate tone throughout. I look forward to being in a position to answer some of your concerns when we meet again with respect to our ability to meet the challenges that are out there. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to thank the Minister for the cooperation that he showed throughout the Estimates process.

I will probably not be able to go through with him again next year simply because my time has to be spread around, and that will disappoint me, because I think that everyone is aware of my long and abiding love for education as a professional teacher and as a parent.

I would just ask the Minister as he's putting together a budget for his department next year that the area of Curriculum Development, which is so very important if we're going to have quality teachers, which means we're going to have good education, is one which must be emphasized, and must not lose its primary position of focus within the Department of Education. I know it is not the department that gets the most money and it shouldn't be the one that gets the most money for obvious reasons, the funding of the public schools must be that. But it is an area upon which quite frankly the ship will sail or it won't.

I would hope that within the quality initiative area, particularly with regard to gifted children and very bright children, and my bias is showing; my Master's Degree is in Special Education for the Gifted - that I feel that it is imperative that those children, if we want to have future leaders in our society, not be ignored and allowed to waste their talent. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1.(a)- pass. Resolution No. 46: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5, 197, 100 for Education, Administration and Finance for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March 1987- pass. Thank you all.

Committee rise. SUPPLY - ENERG Y AND MINES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We are now considering Item No. 4.(

a) Expenditures Related to Capital, Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets - the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon, we had been discussing the ERDA Agreement and how good news seldom gets out. I've got a mittful of documents here which are public which we do our best to circulate, and which I'd like to present to the Mem ber for Lakeside for his perusal and approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for that information .

I appr eciate that among the voluminous material that we receive, I may well have received some of those documents in the past, but then again maybe not. I appreciate the Minister's consideration in making us apprised of this information. Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with the last item, and then we'll return to the Minister's Salary, but perhaps just a brief explanation of the capital requirements of $145,000, Acquisition of $70,000.00. Is the Minister planning to acquire a new Volvo or a BMW, or what does the current Minister intend to do with the capital requests before us? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, obviously the member has seen my car. I am in need of a different one possibly. It's a purchase of field equipment for summertime exploratory surveys in the province, and simply a maintenance and improvement of drill core storage facilities. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to pass this item, and return to the Minister's Salary. Some of my colleagues who have been involved in other committees and have had other responsibilities may wish to take up with the Minister a few more issues before we approve his salary. That's an important part of these Estimates as well, Mr. Chairman.

With that, Mr. Chairman, let's approve this last item in the regular Estimates. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(

a) Expenditures Related to Capital, Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets-pass; 4.(

b) Capital Grants-pass. 2627

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 Resolution No. . .. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, just prior to doing that, I regret that I didn't make a point of asking this of the Minister before. Some of the Ministers have, in their Estimates, followed a practice which I appreciate and those members in the Opposition appreciate, that is introducing senior staff before them. Neither of these gentlemen are acquainted to me, either one of them, and it would be helpful, I think, for all of us to know some of the senior people . . . HON. V..

SCHROEDER: Charles Kang is my Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines and Henryk Mordarski is with him as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 61: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $215 ,400 for Energy and Mines, Expenditur es Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1987 -pass. The committee is now reverting to budget Item No. 1.(a), relating to the Minister's Salary - the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I want to ask of the Minister what input or what concern he has had for the policy that is certainly of concern to the majority of landowners in the southwest area of the province dealing with a hearing that will take place on Thursday in Virden dealing with the reduced spacing of oil well sites in that area of the province.

I'm in receipt of a letter from the Minister dated June 19, in which he's made reference to specific sections of the mines, not really the act, but the regulations; and I want to get into some area of policy discussion with the Minister on this particular area because - and, as well, I'm prepared to table a letter which came from some individuals from the Virden area dealing with their concerns.

My colleague, the Member for Virden, met with the Surface Rights Association sometime earlier this year, in May, discussing the proposed request by Chevron to reduce the numbers of acres in which an oil well site could be placed on a farm. I think, Mr. Chairman, to be fair, that the reason that such a protest came forward is because of the historical actions or the inactions by the Surface Rights Board in giving the kind of protection to the surface rights owner that I think and they think they deserve.

If, in fact, there had been fairness applied and decisions made that were, I think, more compensatory to those individuals, then in fact there wouldn't have been the kind of protest that we're now seeing. But there have been some decisions made, there have been some judgments made by the Surface Rights Board which have not been in the best interests of those individuals.

For example, judgmental settlements made by the Surface Rights Board, less than what had been some of the traditional negot iated settlements - and remember that it's either the landowner or the oil company that can put it before the Su rface Rights Association. So what, in fact, has taken place, where in some cases negotiated settlements have taken place, there have been requests to go to the board and the board has come back giving less settlement than some of the area settlements or area negotiated agreements that are pl ace. It's cost the farm com munit y a considerable amount of money. Mr.

Chairman, we're now seeing what I would consider a major policy change. I'm not satisfied with the letter the Minister sent to me, saying that it's under the regulations of The Mines Act, that the board can now, after a hearing process, can make the determination as to whether or not they reduce the acreages from 40 to 20 acres per site.

That's really what the question is: is it going to be a general government policy - and I don't expect the Minister to make any reference to the hearing process as it's coming up on Thursday - but I want to alarm the Minister and I want to be on the record as speaking clearly on behalf of the Su rface Rights Association and the landowners, that the hearing that's prop osed for Thursda y has major pol icy implications; it is a major policy change where you reduce the numbers of acres from 40 to 20 in which one oil well site can be put on a farm. That virtually says on a quarter

section of land, you can go from four oil well sites to eight oil well sites. In the days of modern agriculture when you have some of the larger equipment, when you have some of the kinds of difficulties experienced by previous drilling experiences; whether it be salt water spills; whether it be hydro poles; whether it be roadways; whether it be all those things necessary to provide the infrastructure for the drilling of oil wells when you now have it on every 20 acre site as opposed to 40 acres, it does become a major problem.

There are two sides of the coin, and I'll talk a little bit about the other side of the coin. If, in fact, there were or there had been satisfactory settlements with the Su rface Rights Board and if, in fact, the landowners had been satisfied with some of the judgmental cases that had come down previous to this - and satisfactory land payments - then probably an oil well on every 20 acres would be more productive than trying to farm it under the economic conditions of which farmers are trying to produce grain. There are two sides to the story and I'm not trying to say there isn't.

What I'm concerned about is farmers have the opportunity to be heard and treated fairly. That, to this point, Mr. Chairman, hasn't taken place. I would suggest the Minister - and I'm saying he's certainly not going to get involved prior to the hearing, but after the hearing on Thursday - take into account particularly, No. 1, the concern of those individuals who have previously not been treated fairly under The Surface Rights Act and some of the previous hearings.

If he's to impose an additional four oil wells per quarter section, if they're going to have to live with the kinds of decisions they've lived with, just really doubling the complications of which they've now been trying to have corrected. So it is - and I can't emphasize this enough, Mr. Chairman - a major policy change and I would hope, as I understand what Chevron's request is and the application is for testing in the daily field, the testing could well expand to a normal procedure.

I would hope before that were to take place though, the Minister would be able to lay before the Legislature, lay before the public, who are going to be affected, what other jurisdictions have; what the benefits would 2628

Tuesday, 5 August, 1986 be to the No. 1, the industry, to the people of Manitoba; and at what costs those benefits would be to those individuals who are affected, and make sure t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-60b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 60b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9eb50d3e0608d127481f2e83b2e1728329def522

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).