ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Health.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.

When the committee last sat it had been considering item 1.(c)(1) on page 34 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chair, I think at the end of the last time we had been asking the minister about the Council of Ministers of Education, and she was going to table some material from that.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, I indicated at our last session here that I would table some information for the members.

First of all, I have the Grade 4 mathematics Manitoba curriculum framework of outcomes and Grade 3 standards, which I had said I would bring. As well, a question was raised regarding what we might have submitted to the Council of Ministers of Education, Second National Consultation on Education, and I have documents here on that.

The member had asked, what did I hope to gain from participation in that particular consultation or at that meeting, and I am looking forward to going for a variety of reasons. One reason that is always an important reason, which has nothing to do with what the agenda is, is the opportunity for ministers of Education from the provinces and territories to gather together to discuss education in Canada. This is particularly important, given that there is no federal Ministry of Education. While there was a period in time when in the past ministers of Education had wanted a federal ministry, I think, as time has gone on, it has become a consensus across Canada from the ministers in each province and territory that having a council in many ways is preferable to having a central authority because the decisions that we come to for common direction in Canada then are built by consensus and are truly owned by the provinces, and you find ministers much more willing to participate when jointly we have come to agreement on issues.

I am looking forward to attending the Second National Consultation on Education for a variety of other reasons, of course. First and foremost, the consultation involves many nongovernment organizations which truly do reflect the sentiments of the public at large. These groups will involve business, labour, cultural groups, aboriginal people, educational associations, groups concerned with women's issues, and many others. Without question, it is important to participate in a consultation process that is Pan-Canadian and representative of the public at large.

Manitoba has much to gain from collaboration and partnerships at the national level. As you know, our province is currently involved with other provinces in a number of cost-effective joint projects, and some of these include curriculum development, the western consortia programs and Pan-Canadian science project, the assessment activities, the School Achievement Indicators program, the sharing of information and resources on aboriginal education, the sharing of information regarding teacher education renewal, transferability of teaching credentials, teacher education issues.

* (1500)

Manitoba, I believe, has much to offer to the national consultation. As the report for Manitoba outlines, our province has a comprehensive process of educational renewal already underway. Some of the areas in which Manitoba is actively involved include the outcomes-based curriculum, assessment evaluation, Distance Education and Technology, and post-secondary reform. There are always other areas in which provinces can work together, and a consultation process, such as the one in Alberta, can help stimulate and support such work. I had indicated at our last get-together that one of the things we hoped to do was to look for the common thread that is evident across Canada and to be able, using our own experiences as a springboard for discussion, to see if those common threads would, in fact, have application for Canadian application whereby we could co-operate and benefit from a variety of thrusts.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask on this line 16.1(c). There is a footnote there: Reduction in nonrecurring special project support. Could the minister explain what that is?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the total operating reduction is $85,400, as the member maybe can see at the bottom of the page. In the past, a number of designated or special projects were provided from within this branch, and some of those have been moved to another area. This branch will continue its role in department-wide policy, co-ordination in areas such as the education indicators project, Human Resource development action plan, Distance Education and Technology initiatives, credit transfer recognition, school planning and other issues of the day. However, funding will be charged to those areas having long-term or continuing responsibilities for the outcomes of such activities.

Ms. Friesen: Which sections or which programs have been removed from this area? The minister said a number had been moved to other areas.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the education indicators project, for example, you will now see under the EIP which is 16.5(c). Management Information Services, MIS, and Human Resource development action plan is now the responsibility of each manager in that thrust, in that area. Distance Education and Technology initiatives, School Programs Division plus MERLIN, school planning will be BEF and SPD. Credit transfer recognition is now the responsibility of post-secondary education and Advanced Ed, and you will see them being moved so they have broader application in those kinds of ways. They are not just restricted to one area now; they are more permeable.

Ms. Friesen: If that is the case, why is there no change in the staff years in this division? What are the programs that the staff are working on that would involve them in the same number of staff years when so many areas of responsibilities have been transferred?

Mrs. McIntosh: As circumstances evolve, areas of endeavour will then become, for example, as I indicated, the Human Resource development action plan under the various managers. It then becomes incorporated into those particular responsibilities and the staff then, that are doing new work, continue on again with new initiatives and new projects.

Ms. Friesen: I think that was the purpose of my question. What are the new initiatives and new projects that this same number of staff are working on?

Mrs. McIntosh: Their role, Mr. Chairman, is still that of co-ordinating and taking the lead in a variety of issues. We will see now new work being done on teacher education, on adult basic education, on aboriginal issues. We have staff doing research on teacher collective bargaining, on boundaries.

Those types of initiatives that are underway in the department, of course, require people to gather information, make recommendations, those types of duties and assignments that are always needed when new initiatives are explored.

* (1510)

I think the member is aware of some of the new initiatives that we have undertaken because they have been the matter of some questioning in the House and some matter of public interest. Each of those areas, of course, have people working on them. Distance Education and Technology, for example, is requiring a lot of study in terms of the capabilities and trends. The capabilities to be used for tools in the classroom or to be used for the actual delivery of education, and all of those do require staff to work upon them. They do not just happen in a vacuum.

Ms. Friesen: Is this section of the department still responsible for the Schools Information System?

Mrs. McIntosh: No. That is under MIS, 16(5)(c).

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(c) Planning and Policy Co-ordination (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $423,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $123,800--pass.

Item 1. (d) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $356,300.

Ms. Friesen: The minister suggested that some of the plans of this section have been devolved down to regional or branch managers. Could the minister tell me what the role of this department will be in career development initiatives throughout the department?

Mrs. McIntosh: That area would co-ordinate all human resource activity: recruitment, evaluation, performance, management classification, career development, affirmative action and, of course, payroll, which is a large portion of their duties, as well.

Ms. Friesen: I asked specifically about the career development initiatives, and how the department is going to handle that kind of planning with this devolution in place.

Mrs. McIntosh: The Human Resource Branch has always had the responsibility for career development, and research and planning, where this question led from, does not do the career development that has always been done by the Human Resources Branch. They have experience and methods that they have used and do use to ensure that those people working in the department are suitably capable of performing the career responsibilities assigned to them.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what career development initiatives there are anticipated in the coming year for people in the affirmative action designation?

Mrs. McIntosh: The Manitoba Civil Service Commission has an Affirmative Action handbook for managers, Putting Equity to Work, and it has a large amount of information contained in it:

equity framework; foundations for equity planning, for equity building blocks; removing employment barriers; communication strategies; workforce analysis; accountability roles and responsibilities; case law legislation principles; equity representation through staffing; options and best practices; recruitment and selection; outreach recruitment; equitable distribution through employee development; executive development program for women; employee development services for designated group employees; OSD seminars and career development. They also have, in terms of retention options and best practices, a healthy, respectful workplace, sexual harassment, accommodation, aboriginal support network, and they have a lot of information resources, as well.

So that is the foundation handbook that our managers are working to implement. Our managers themselves will in their own performance evaluations be judged on how well they are able to put equity to work.

I want to indicate first of all that I have two other staff members at the table right now that I do not believe have been introduced. They are Jack Gillespie, who is Director of Human Resources; and Louise Ulrich, at the table this afternoon, who was part of the Civil Service Commission committee that wrote the Putting Equity to Work manual, so very well versed in that particular question.

* (1520)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I think what I had anticipated was that there was a departmental plan, that there were X number of people in the affirmative action group, that the plan was that so many would be taking these kinds of courses, so many would be developing their careers in these areas.

That is really what I was looking for, the departmental career development initiative for persons in the affirmative action designated groups such as it indicates on page 28.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we have two phases really that have been at work here. The first phase was to get a handle on the hiring practices which I believe this government has been very successful in achieving. The second phase, then, was to look at career development for those who have been employed. This handbook is a major step in that, and that has just come out in 1996, hot off the press, so to speak, and the department is currently developing the plans the member has talked about.

A good question, very timely, because they are in this department at the moment in the process of developing career plans based upon the guidelines and principles and suggestions that have come from this handbook, to start in on how we train our managers, how we get people moving towards growing in their careers, growing and creating and achieving.

It is clearly a major first step that will be information technology skills. So, in short, step one has been put in place. Step two, phase two, to sit down to plan with the Civil Service Commission on how to train our managers and how to evolve top-notch career development initiatives, is now in the creation stage.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, so at the very minimum, next year we should be looking for a plan that is on paper and perhaps begun for the training of people in the affirmative action area in information technology. Is that what we should be looking for?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we would hope that we would have a plan ready to implement some time in the fall.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(d)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $356,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $63,600--pass.

1.(e) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I notice there has been some increase in the salaries on this line in both the managerial and the professional area and in administrative support, as well. Could the minister give us a breakdown of those increases at a time when I understand the MGEU has taken percentage cuts across the board?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the increase is mainly due to the merit increments.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, does that mean that every manager, the two managers, the eight professional staff and the 11 administrative support staff all had merit increases this past year?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley, could you repeat your question?

Ms. Friesen: Yes, sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was asking whether each of the two managerial, each of the eight professional, each of the 11 administrative support staff had merit increases this past year.

Mrs. McIntosh: No, not all did receive a merit increment. Some did. Some did not.

One other factor that affected this particular line, as well, was the accrued salaries, because the province has been migrating from a cash basis of accounting to accrual accounting--and the member may be familiar with accrual accounting--that reports salaries on an earned basis, rather than on a paid basis.

This year, the '96-97 year, is the first year that the accruals are reflected at the program level rather than a central appropriation, and the effect has been to increase salary budgets by about 0.4 percent or about $100. You will see the effect of switching to an accrual method of accounting in that, as well, but not all did get a merit increment, just some.

* (1530)

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about the school information system services. I am not sure what the last “S” stands for on this line.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, 16.5.(c) is the Schools Information System.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, this section of the department also looks at the schools funding program, administers the schools funding program, and I wanted to ask the minister here about the new agreement which has been reached with the private schools, and whether that can be tabled?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, yes, I indicated we would be pleased to table it and we will. That will come under 16.5.(d), but if you would like it today, we could probably have it up here later this afternoon.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I would like to see that new agreement that has been reached. I wanted to ask the minister about the origin of that agreement, if this is the office of the assistant deputy minister which develops school funding programs, how that agreement was reached? Was it initiated by the government or was it initiated by the schools themselves?

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not have with me right now the staffperson that will be dealing with line 16.5, but I can respond in general terms. If we feel a need to get into more technical detail on 16.5, then we could either wait till we get to that line or see if we can get the appropriate staff people up. I just draw that to the member's attention for ease of questioning and answering, that we have the right staff people here for her.

But in answer to the question she has just posed, my understanding of the evolution of the agreement is that there was felt to be sort of a mutual need to have a more clear understanding of what that agreement actually meant. That I would say would be something that was considered to be a mutual decision in terms of how to express this better and how to give clearer definition to the whole matter of independent school funding or at least for those independent schools that receive funding because, as I have indicated before, they do not all receive funding.

So the agreement stipulates that the maximum per pupil funding for independent schools will be calculated as 50 percent of the per pupil expenditure of public schools two years prior to the school year being funded.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, there were some questions that I would like to ask on that, but we will wait until the appropriate staff are here on line 16.5.

One of the areas that this section of the department deals with is the real and perceived inequities in school funding, and I wanted to ask whether the minister had received any claims, letters, deputations, delegations from school divisions or from stakeholder groups about perceived inequities in school funding this past year?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I think there have been two. There always are one or two on an annual basis who will indicate that they are not satisfied with the funding. It is normally not a question of equity as it is that they just want more money, but some will argue on the basis of equity.

We do each year receive advice from the Advisory Committee on Educational Finance. That advisory committee has proven to be invaluable because, as the member may recall, under the last year of the NDP government the formula was so inequitable that I believe there was only one school division left that was able to be on that formula.

So we had a province-wide formula that was so out of whack that every division in the province, except one, had to finally be exempt from coming under the formula. To say it was a nightmare is to make an understatement that could put it in the Guinness Book of World Records. It was extreme dissatisfaction.

What we have noticed now, and it is dramatic by comparison, is that, by and large, the vast majority of school divisions say that the formula now does provide the equity that it did not have under the NDP, and while there will always be one or two--I think Seven Oaks comes in every year and says, it is not equal and we want more money, but, by and large, most will say it is equitable. Now, some will indicate that while maybe the formula is equitable, they wish that the funding had not seen a reduction overall. So they will be arguing that they would like more money from government, not because the formula is wrong, but because they wish the block grant could be larger.

Having said all that, and having indicated my great relief that I do not have to be Minister of Education administering the old NDP formula, I will also indicate that we are taking a look at the whole matter of the education formula. As we implement the Blueprint, we want to make sure that we have the equity, the flexibility for the implementation of the Blueprint, which will include new initiatives, new directions and technology, and those types of things. So we will be looking at it again with a view to making sure that the new ways of delivering education are able to be properly addressed under the funding formula.

* (1540)

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain the process of re-examining this formula? Who is involved in it? Are there advisory groups, other than the one the minister has already mentioned? Does it involve the whole spectrum of K to 12, plus adult education, plus Continuing Education, or is it more formally based upon the K to 12 system?

Mrs. McIntosh: The Schools Finance program, the funding formula for finance, is for kindergarten to Grade 12. The advisory committee is a single advisory committee. It will work in conjunction with the men and women hired by the government of Manitoba, because they are experts in educational financing, to develop or to reaffirm funding formulae to meet the needs of the students of Manitoba.

The advisory committee, the member should be aware, provides the widest possible consultation in that it is composed of representatives of stakeholder groups who, in turn, do wide consultations with their stakeholder groups, so that they can come to the table with their organization’s perspectives for input and then come to consensus.

We have representatives of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents, Manitoba Association of School Trustees, Manitoba Association of School Business Officials, two citizens-at-large, one, of course, representing the Manitoba Association of Parent Councils, plus the staff of schools, plus the Finance Branch, plus input from staff at the School Programs Division. These people will make recommendations to the government on what they, as representing every stakeholder group in K to 12 education, feel should be done with the funding formula. We value their input very much and are pleased that they are so broadly representative.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I got all of that. MTS, MASS, MAST, MASBO, et cetera, the Parent Advisory Council representative--then I think the minister said there were two citizens. Then there was staff of schools, and then there was staff of School Programs. Was that a repetition? Who were the two citizens who sit on that committee?

Mrs. McIntosh: I indicated staff of Schools Finance Branch, and I apologize for that. The two citizens are the president of the Association of Parent Councils, Viola Prowse--the other citizen position, at the moment, we have a vacancy, and we are currently in the process of looking to fill that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(e)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $917,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $195,800--pass.

1.(f) Management Information Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $559,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $330,500--pass.

2. School Programs (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $250,800.

Ms. Friesen: We are on 16.2(a)?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: That is right.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask some questions about the linkage here to New Directions. One of the things that has concerned me about New Directions is that, intentional or not, its implications have been to narrow program opportunities in Manitoba schools.

The minister knows that I am concerned about the loss of home economics programs in a number of Manitoba schools, particularly in rural areas, and the prospects for the losses of those types of programs, particularly at the middle school level. We are talking here of French, of music, of industrial arts and home economics, the areas where I think New Directions, combined with the funding cuts, have put school divisions in a very difficult bind.

One of the ways in which they have responded to the minister's requirements for increased timetabling amounts and the minister's reductions in funding has been to reduce some of these programs.

We can see it now very clearly in the home economics area. I know the minister's response is to say these are local choices, but what we are getting as a result of these local choices is a school system which is inequitable. Areas which were able to offer that in the past now no longer are able to offer it for whatever reason. I think it is in many areas a combination of reasons. So there are opportunities available for some children in some areas but not in others, and as schools under New Directions move to essentially much more atomized, much more individualized kinds of schools, I am concerned about a system which is losing that sense of system-wide opportunities.

So that is one of my concerns about New Directions that it has narrowed the choices for many students. I want to ask the minister for some comments on that in the future. Does she see that as one of the new directions, in fact, that the emphasis on what in popular terms is called back to basics, in effect, has meant fewer choices for Manitoba students. In some cases those choices--and, again, I am speaking particularly in the context of home economics--do not seem to me to make economic sense.

One of the strategic areas for Manitoba is a garment industry, one of the areas where students become interested in careers and many aspects of the garment industry whether it is in computer-aided design, whether it is in clothing construction, whether it is in textiles, or whether it is actually in the design of textiles themselves, those all begin, it seems to me, in the home economics classroom.

A secondary, I think, for home economics is family life studies. Although I know that there are perhaps old images of home economics which do not see it in that broader context. Certainly the recent home economics curriculum and the one that people had anticipated would be there for students in Grades 7 and 8 and through in many cases to Senior 4 dealt with family life education. The other area of school experience where students had the opportunity to learn and to discuss, to prepare themselves intellectually, mentally and practically for a future family life was also in skills for independent living. For a very brief moment that was a compulsory course in Manitoba. It has become now a noncompulsory course, and we are not sure in the future, as we look at the future, how many schools will, in fact, be able to offer that.

* (1550)

So what we are looking at, it seems to me, is the prospect of schools and divisions in Manitoba where home economics is not available, where skills for independent living may not be available, and an area I think of great importance to a community where it is clear that there are many areas of family breakdown. It seems to me that that is a very important aspect of education.

If you talk to superintendents and schools in Manitoba, one of the things that comes through clearly is that one of the areas of increasing expense for schools is the cost of children who are learning disabled, not in the physical sense but who are handicapped by behaviour problems and by a breakdown in family communications and in family life, some of it economics and some of it behavioural. It seems to me that here was one area in home economics, in a serious, progressive in the sense of advancing an educational opportunity throughout the school division and in skills for independent living, that here was an opportunity on a limited scale to try and address some of those issues which we are facing as a community.

So my concerns go beyond simply the educational curriculum ones, although I am concerned about those narrowing opportunities. They also go to the larger community and to the kind of issues which have to be addressed. I am sure the minister is familiar with it, Winnipeg 1, St. James School Division. Both of them have very serious costs in this area that how do we begin to address those long-term issues when we are taking away from some schools the opportunities to at least begin to address it in a formal, an academic sense, one that enables students to at least begin to prepare themselves for a different kind of future than some of them have perhaps been able to experience?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am just seeking clarification from the member because she is speaking as if we are making home economics not compulsory and as if that is a change. Could she please tell me where in Manitoba home economics was compulsory?

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, what I was speaking of was the changing conditions in Manitoba schools where schools which were once able to offer home economics, whether it be in Pine Creek School Division or in St. Boniface School Division, and there are a number of them--I know that the minister has been approached by the home economics teachers association and that this issue has been brought before her.

The issue is that schools, which once were able to offer it, now no longer can. It is a combination, I think, as I indicated in my question, of the minister's two-year attempt to address timetabling issues, which, I think, were put into jeopardy by the last Minister of Education as he began to put some very rigid constraints upon the number of minutes that had to be dealt with in mathematics and language education.

The implications of that for school divisions across Manitoba were in the middle years that home economics, industrial arts, band, music, choral music sometimes, and basic French then became essentially choices that had to be made.

In addition, in subsequent years, there have been continuing cuts to education, and the result of that has been that school divisions have found that they have had to make final choices, that they cannot juggle those subjects anymore. In rural areas, it is partly a cost of transportation because students have to be transported from one school to another.

There is a variety of reasons that these choices have been made. It is a new situation for Manitoba schools. For schools where it was available in the past, it is no longer available, and I am looking at what seems to me to be a sudden loss over the past year. The number of school divisions which have eliminated that opportunity for their students and the number of school divisions which over the next year, in fact, will be discussing and evaluating this prospect point in a direction to me that offers fewer opportunities for young Manitobans.

Another reason, I think, has been placed before the minister by parent councils, and I think the one that I mentioned in the House was Gladstone parent council which has suggested to the minister that these are programs that are very important for students who see this as one of their reasons for remaining in school, that the practically, vocationally based aspects--and it is not the only aspect of home economics, but the vocationally based aspects of that have great value for the nature of the school and for the retention of students.

So it is on a number of areas that I am asking this question and, as I say, I know that the home economics teachers have met with the minister and that they are very concerned about this. I am looking at it in the broader context of fewer options for Manitoba students. Is this going to be the result of New Directions and of funding cuts? Is this the direction that the government is taking Manitoba schools?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for her answer because in her answer she has indicated to me that home economics never was compulsory, ever, and that it is still an option if parents and boards choose to wish to have it, just as it was in the past.

In terms of the principle, home economics has never been compulsory, and I wish to stress that because I do believe that to some observers the way in which the member has phrased her questions it appears that she thought that it was compulsory or that she was leaving the impression inadvertently that it had been compulsory. It has always been a choice, and it has always been a choice that has either been accepted or rejected by students and parents, and that is still the case.

The member said that she wanted equality. She said that she wanted every school to be able to offer the same programs. She wants every school to have home economics, skills for independent living, music, art, phys ed. She wants every school to have those things, practical arts, as well. In that sense then all schools would be equal.

What we are seeking is equity, and the member will probably recognize that equity and equality are not the same thing. We are saying we want system-wide opportunities for parents to be able to do what they have told us by the hundreds in clear, unequivocal language, that they want the right to be able to choose options and not be restrained in that choice.

If a community feels that they have, for example, 4-H clubs and their students are all active in them and therefore are acquiring a lot of the skills in nutrition and textiles and things like that and they would prefer to see their students take another option in school since they feel they are acquiring these skills, through an example that has been given to me by real, live parents who are making real, live choices is that, you know, my kids are really active in 4-H and they are already learning a lot of the stuff they have learned in these options. I would rather that my schooling for my student could more reflect my needs for my student.

The member refers to things that are not in place. The member talks about timetabling problems. The member may recognize that a letter went out to all people a few months ago indicating the flexibility that has been put into timetabling as a result of direct consultation with the minister's advisory committee on the implementation of educational change and that that has been hailed with great relief, yes.

* (1600)

I am glad the member is aware of it, and I wish that instead of saying that timetabling was still a problem, she had acknowledged the great relief and gratitude that the system is feeling, because to have put on the record, as she did, that timetabling was restrictive and all of those things and a terrible problem for the field when she knows that that is not a problem anymore and that principals have expressed relief, pleasure and optimism that they can now accommodate New Directions in a more meaningful way so that parents and students can have more choices, I think it would have been probably proper to acknowledge that, rather than leave an impression that the past is the same as the present.

School divisions make decisions based on enrollments in particular courses or on the interest the local community has expressed. That is why we have local boards; that is why we have local school advisory committees, so that those people can make local choices. We do not believe that every division should be a carbon copy of every other division, as the member proposes. We do not believe that there needs to be identical courses, course options and items of study in every school as the member proposes.

We believe that if areas have a desire to have certain courses from an approved list of options, and I indicate that the approved list of options still includes home economics, still includes skills for independent living, still includes music, still includes art, still includes industrial arts, still includes all those things that she would like to have compulsory in every school even if the parents feel their students are receiving that education elsewhere and wish to concentrate more time on another issue.

We believe in equity for opportunity to make choices reflecting the community as opposed to equality, which forces all people to be the same, sometimes at the lowest common denominator. The issue is not as simple as the member implies because the real issues go beyond one subject or two. The issue of what do we believe is the most important in school today, we see it much more than, as the member puts it, back to the basics.

In fact, we believe we are moving forward to new essentials in foundation skills, transferable skills, ultimate outcomes of both formal and informal schooling, problem solving, critical creative thinking, human relationships in all their forms, technology and communications. As far as the arts, bands, visual, et cetera, and music, we maintain these as compulsory as a group at kindergarten to Grade 6, and we have expanded them as compulsory for Grades 7 and 8. So these have been expanded not diluted. Again, I think that is important to note for the record because the member's comments indicated there would be decreased opportunity for these subjects when, in fact, the converse is true.

Furthermore, we have empowered parents via councils. We believe it involved choice, and I think the member must acknowledge if she is fair, and I believe she would like to be fair, that in today's schools, classrooms are being called upon to deliver everything. Yet unless we lengthen the school day, the week or the school year, we instead have to make some priority choices.

We believe that a first order of priority ought to be those core subjects of mathematics and language arts and social studies and science, those are the cornerstones, plus the physical and affective subjects up to Senior 1 of physical education plus up to Grade 8 of the arts. Beyond that, we believe local schools must be empowered to be able to make some choices to suit local values, beliefs, et cetera, with input from the community.

In our work with the Home Economics Association, we have not only provided flexibility but also recognize some of the home economics courses, such as family studies, which will be recognized as a graduation credit in the supplementary courses under the sciences area or the social studies area. So far from saying that decreased opportunity for home economics is there, if students so desire it, increased opportunity can be there.

But I do come back again to equality and equity and system-wide opportunities and more choices which I believe we now have. There was a time, as well--I should indicate this so that the member is aware of the full history of things and again sees the role of her previous government in this evolution. I can recall tremendous discussions taking place during the '80s with school trustees.

Whenever a trustee would say, you know, we really should stick to the timetable guidelines as put out by the minister, trustees would then argue--usually, it would be new trustees who would say--oh, I see we are supposed to have so many minutes of such and such per cycle. Why are we not abiding by this? The answer always was, of course, there is not enough time in the school day to follow the full-time allotment assigned to each subject area without extending the school day or extending the school year, so we will just ignore the guidelines. That was the way education operated under the NDP. The NDP put down guidelines. Nobody followed them because they could not. It was impossible and nobody enforced them doing it. Nobody said you have to follow these guidelines.

So I think we are being a little more realistic and knowing that education has evolved to being a lot more than just education, we are trying to ensure that whatever we do in schools, the actual education experience, all the essential skills, is not lost as we minister to all needs and attempt to be everything to everybody.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, so the minister used the word “relief” which I offered to her for the changes in timetable, and it is true, as I said in the House, that it is a combination of the funding cuts and the timetabling dilemmas that the government over the past two years has placed the middle schools in. I offered the minister the word “relief” because it is exactly this that I believe schools are feeling. For the time of the previous Minister of Education when he wanted to cut recess or offered that as an “opportunity to schools to meet his new guidelines,” the protests of schools, the protests of children, the protests of parents, were that that was not the way they wanted to go.

During the first, I guess, six months of this session, the same kind of protest came in to the minister from her advisory councils, from parents, from teachers, from students. Finally, the government sent out a survey and said, what do you think? How can we deal with this? How can we deal with this difficult situation that we have created?

So it is with some relief that parent councils and teachers and superintendents saw that there was, in fact, some willingness in the department to be less rigid than they had been in the previous year and a half. So, yes, I use the word relief advisedly. I am glad to see that the government finally did consult school divisions on this. I am glad to see that the government finally saw that the rigidity which they were imposing upon the school system in the middle years was simply not going to work to the best advantage of the schools and the students and the teachers.

So I am concluding from what the minister is saying about home economics in this area that it is not the minister's concern that home economics will no longer be offered in the middle years in eight school divisions in Manitoba, that this is simply a matter of local choice, and that this kind of local choice under the constraints of both timetabling and of continuing budget cuts will continue in Manitoba.

The minister would prefer to argue that there are more choices for students. I am not sure that the list has actually expanded to a very long one. But, I think, Manitoba students would be very interested to know, those particularly in those eight divisions where they can no longer take home economics, that their choices have, in fact, been enhanced.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

I am not sure that I can see the connection or would suggest to them that their choices have been enhanced. My concerns are that as New Directions proceeds, that in other divisions, with the combination of funding cuts that continue under this government, that choices, indeed, are going to expand.

The minister has also suggested that it is system-wide decisions that she is looking for. But, in fact, New Directions puts much of the actual decision making about curriculum and curriculum choices upon the individual school rather than on the division. Individual schools may make decisions which may not be applicable for a division as a whole. The division as a whole may never get the opportunity to say, look, in this system-wide system we want to offer A, B and C in X, Y and Z schools, because many of those decisions are being made in the future. We have not seen it yet to any extent, but in the future, and in the system that the government is setting up where schools are being atomized, being dealt with as individual units, those decisions are going to be made at the individual level.

* (1610)

There are certainly concerns amongst parents. I know, as this is combined with school choice, that the movement of students across schools even within a division, let alone across divisions, becomes less systematic; that the availability of certain options will exist in some schools, but not in others; and that ease of movement which I think the minister has often spoken of that she would like to enhance is not necessarily going to be there in the future. So system-wide application, I am not sure, is there under the government's new system, and I would like to be assured that it is.

The minister has spoken of the involvement of local parent councils in this and of choice at the local level. I wonder if the minister is actually saying to those school trustees and those parent councils in Pine Creek and in St. Boniface and in other parts of southern Manitoba, where I know, for example, there have been quite large protest meetings at some of the cuts to home economics.

Is the minister actually saying that in spite of the dissent that is there, that she still believes that these cuts in home economics are as a result of parents' wishes, parents' choices?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the member may not be aware that there were three divisions which decided not to have home economics before there was any reduction in funding. I know she is trying to indicate that it is all due to funding cuts, but it is kind of hard to explain that they would make that decision before any reduction in funding if her premise were correct. So I do not know what she feels was the board's rationale for making decisions there because that was done before the announcement of any funding cuts in those three divisions.

However, I do maintain that decisions made by local school boards are autonomous. I do not believe that moving to autonomy is something new. School boards have always been autonomous and value their local autonomy greatly. In addition, school boards, the member may not realize, over time have frequently put forward the request that they be allowed more decision making in the course selection for their students, as have parents.

This whole thrust, the member must never forget for a moment, came as a direct result of two major province-wide Parents' Forums, where the parents placed this--getting back to standards and measurements and emphasis on literacy and computation--as an extremely high priority. Parents said very clearly that they were tired of schools that tried to be everything to everybody, jack of all trades and master of none.

There was no mistaking that message. We ran an election on that message and got very clear signals back, despite the efforts of many who spent millions and millions of dollars putting out the other side of the story, literally millions of dollars putting out the other side of the story. The net result of that was very clear because I heard it at the door, and I am sure the member did, as well, that the other side of the story was not accepted.

The member keeps referring to constraints on timetabling, and she, at the same time, indicated that the school divisions felt relief that the constraints on timetabling had been lifted and, yet, then proceeded in her next question to continue talking about the constraints of timetabling and wanted to know if I am on the record of wanting to see home economics dropped from school divisions.

I guess I want to know, is she on the record in terms of wanting all of these courses to be taught in all schools in Manitoba? Is she on the record of wanting extra days to accomplish this, do as they do in France and teach on Saturdays also, or is she on the record of wanting days that stretch until six o'clock, as they do in some schools, to accommodate all of the lack of time constraints that she would have? If she is not willing to see a longer school day or a longer school year to accommodate her insistence that every school offer every course, is she then on record saying that she is willing to cut time for language arts in order to accomplish her goal?

The member wants all these subjects taught in all of these schools in Manitoba. There is not time in the day, and there is not time in the year. We can do three things. We can lengthen the school day, lengthen the school year or take time away from language arts.

I would be interested to have the member, instead of just criticizing that we are not teaching everything in every school because we are leaving that choice to parents and to school boards, which of the three would she like to see, cut time from language arts, lengthen the school day or lengthen the school year, because if we do as she proposes, if we do as the NDP wishes us to do, those are three choices boards will have to choose from and make one of the choice.

The atomizing, sort of individual schools versus the system, is ignoring new curricula. When the member makes her comments about atomizing she is ignoring the new curricula that must be used in all schools, ignoring standards tests for all schools, school councils that must work with boards. There are and will be in legislation clear powers and responsibilities of boards to manage the system. All of the above negate the claim of atomization of the system. It is not that simplistic, it ignores the whole picture.

I am the minister. If the member is proud and pleased with the changes, who brought in time allotment flexibility and enabled local choice and established an advisory committee on implementation of school change, who delayed the implementation and slowed it down so that people could keep pace, who altered the ACSL regulations to reflect what people were saying, I should indicate, and so I thank her for the compliment in complimenting the government for all those initiatives. I am the one she is complimenting and I thank her very much for the compliment for those particular items and the others that she referred to.

I accept that she condemns the previous minister. I feel the previous minister took the initiative to break through the apathy, the willingness to allow school divisions to float along with guidelines that were not applied, that were not endorsed, that were not enforced. He was the minister who listened to the parents for the first time in the history of this province and brought them in and asked them their opinion and then did what they asked. The member may condemn him for that. He did what they asked. He approved the principles of what they asked. I am charged with administering them and implementing them and I am trying to make any such modifications in time, et cetera, that need to be made so that his directions can be well implemented.

I am not slowing down his initiatives because I did not like his initiatives. I am slowing them down so that people can keep pace because he was moving faster than the system was able to move, but he was moving in the right direction and parents gave him the direction in which to move. I believe and trust in parents and I am glad that they are finally considered a true stakeholder group.

* (1620)

I should read the duties of school boards to the member under Renewing Education in New Directions: The Action Plan. Every school board shall administer and manage the affairs of the school division, shall set the divisional budget and special budget levy, provide advance release of the draft budget to the public and receive input, implement provincial curriculum as directed by the minister, support local schools in the development, acquisition and implementation of optional supplementary curriculum to meet unique local needs subject to the approval of the minister, employ and appoint senior division officers as may be necessary and delegate duties and responsibilities to such officers as required, employ and appoint principals who hold valid Manitoba teaching certificates, require principals upon request by parents to establish advisory councils for school leadership, report annually pertinent educational information and overall achievement results to the residents of the school division, use the results and evaluations of any tests and examinations conducted or directed by the minister as the minister may determine, require principals to develop school plans for board review, provide pertinent and meaningful information about the school division as required by the advisory councils for school leadership to meet their mandate in serving schools and receive recommendations put forward by the advisory councils for school leadership that relate to divisional concerns.

Those are the duties of the school boards. If there is any one of those that the member would like to take away from the school board, when the school board has been elected by the people of the area to make decisions, if the member feels that they should not make any of these decisions in co-operation with the parents to whom they are ultimately responsible, then maybe she could indicate which ones they should not do. These are ones that parents want them to do.

Parents are the ultimate guardians of the children. Long after she and I have departed the scene, and long after she and I have forgotten the names of the students in our classes, those parents, grown old, will still be caring about their middle-aged children, currently our students, loving them unconditionally, providing them with advice and guidance. We will not be able to remember their names. So I think parents have a vested ongoing lifelong interest in their children and have a right to be heard. They have a right to be listened to.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, the minister suggests that I condemn and that I commend, and I would remind the minister that my comments are always directed at policies. They are not directed at people, and if I do slip up on that, I would be happy for her to remind me, but my task is to deal with policies. I would like to continue to try and do that.

I notice that the minister suggested that her Parents' Forum on Education had given her these guidelines, and I am looking in front of me at the Parents' Forum on Education, March 1995, the one from Dakota Collegiate, which I think is one of the two so far that actually has formal written summaries.

It seemed to me that some of the things that were said there are at least suggesting that the minister should have taken a different direction. Recognize those things that are working now, do not change for the sake of change, ensure that there is a commonality across Canada and/or Manitoba, a consistency of curriculum across schools in Manitoba, keep course options open and an emphasis upon technology, which seems to me all to fit into the desire to maintain home economics teaching.

So I am not sure what elements of her own parents council the minister is particularly addressing in this area, and it seems to me there is as much in that Dakota Collegiate forum that would suggest that parents want to see those kinds of options remain and that they would regret the funding cuts and the timetabling changes and proposed changes over the last year and a half that have led to trustees making the kinds of decisions which they feel they have had to make.

I want to pass the microphone, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Transcona who I think has some questions.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, just in answer to the question. I think if the member for Wolseley checks Hansard and reads it carefully to see what I actually said, rather than what she thought I said, she will see that--[interjection] Pardon me? The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) wishes to say something.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: I think if the member for Wolseley reads Hansard and checks carefully what I actually said, rather than what she thought I said, she will see that when I said we took our directions from the Parents' Forum in developing New Directions, clearly and obviously I was speaking about the two Parents' Forums that Mr. Manness held to give us the guidance. How else could we have developed New Directions from a Parents' Forum if we did not hold the Parents' Forum till last month?

I mean, it is clear I am talking about the Parents' Forum that Mr. Manness held which evolved the clear direction given by parents saying that we want to have--[interjection] Well, you indicated my forum in March. [interjection] No, in your question, you indicated my forum in March. Okay, so the member understands I was talking about Mr. Manness's forum as where they put the summary up on the board and said they wanted measurable standards, et cetera, and that is good.

The member then indicated the types of things that she read into the record. Do not change for the sake of change, they want course options kept open and those things. Each and every one of those things, of course, is exactly what we are doing--exactly what we are doing. The member herself indicated she does not want course options kept open. She wants them to be compulsory, and we are saying we want the course options kept open. We want parents to be able to choose, to truly opt for rather than have imposed upon them. Options and compulsion are not the same things, and I think it is important that that be noted that something that is optional is different from something that is compulsory.

We have acted on many, if not all, of the lists that the member read out. Home economics is still an option, for example. The flexibility and time allotments were based on the consultative process used by surveying all school principals. We had indicated clearly, and I indicated clearly when I became minister, that I like the consultative approach, that we were not married to change for the sake of change.

That is our phrase. I am pleased to see the member using it, but that is our phrase that we have used. I am sorry, it may be in there, as well, but it is in there because we have put it in there, having heard it from parents and agreeing with it and accepting it, and saying that we were not married to change.

Point of Order

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, throughout I was quoting from the Saturday, March 4, 1995, Dakota Collegiate Parents' Forum on Education summary, not the minister's Parents' Forum of the last month, and my quote on do not change for the sake of change, e.g., Canadian history is one that comes directly from that forum.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The member does not have a point of order. It is definitely a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mrs. McIntosh: I was saying we do not believe in change for the sake of change. We are not afraid of change. We will make change where needed without fear or favour, but we do not believe in it just for the sake of change. The member in her point of order put on the record that she is referring to a document that was indeed the document that came out of a forum held by Mr. Manness, and that is good because it is from those kinds of forums that we evolved our direction.

The member in reference to history also knows what we are doing there and knows, in case the inference is there that Canadian history was compulsory till the end of high school, it was not, it never was. We are talking about condensing 11 years of history into 10 years. It never did go to till the end of Grade 12 as a compulsory subject, and we do now have the opportunity for advanced history, for extra history courses over and above what students used to be able to take. So before they would have 11 years of a certain amount of history. They now have the same amount of history exactly, taught in 10 years rather than 11, and the opportunity in Grades 11 and 12 to take advance courses in history that were never available to them before.

With new curricula concentrating more on aspects of Canada that have never been covered, pre-European Canadian history, emphasis on Canada taught earlier and more in depth, and those are things that I think parents who understand what we are doing really do like. Parents who have been told that all we are doing is not making history compulsory in Grade 11 anymore and have been left with the inference that the other changes I described were not at the same time occurring, of course, would then, based upon the erroneous and incorrect assumptions, express some concerns.

* (1630)

But we did go and survey all school principals. I believe in consulting. I believe if we get back some advice and some feedback from groups of people that we consider to be well-versed, in this case principals certainly would be, we received feedback from over 600 principals, many of whom had taken the time and effort to consult with parent groups. We also got information back from our survey from superintendents responding with divisional perspectives, and we felt they provided good advice.

Now, if the member is concerned that we were flexible and were willing to alter the methodology in response to a survey that we put out, our initiative--government put out the survey. Government said, are these things working well? Is there some other way you could implement? They sent back and said, we think we need more time here and here, and we would like to see a change here and here. We said, good advice, thank you very much and made the adjustments.

If the member is concerned that that has made everybody in their field happy and does not give her as much cause for complaint, I am sorry about that. But it has made people relieved and very happy with many letters of thank you. Our basic intent has not changed. We have not changed New Directions. We still have that stronger emphasis on foundation skills and core subjects. The flexibility we have offered allows for greater discussions and decision making at the local level to accommodate express local needs.

Those are all still there, but if people say they are on a treadmill and going so fast they cannot keep up, we will slow the treadmill down to a nice easy jog so that they can keep pace because they want to be in the race with us. They have told us that. They just want to be running at their speed, and we are quite willing and able to accommodate them in that. I know that means it forces the opposition to criticize on the things that were taking place yesterday, but I really do think it would be more relevant to concentrate on the things that are actually happening today.

Ms. Friesen: Like the loss of home economics.

Mrs. McIntosh: Is it loss of that? Okay. I hope the member will have both the courtesy and the courage to put on the record how she would adjust that. Will she take time away from language arts? Will she extend the school day, or will she lengthen the school year in order to make sure that all schools have what the NDP want all schools to have, skills for independent living, home ec, industrial arts, music, band, physical education.

All of those things that they want them to have with prescribed time allotments, I want the member to tell me how she will accommodate that and how much language arts she is willing to sacrifice in order to achieve those. Or would she prefer to allow parents the choice? Well, I know she does not prefer to allow parents the choice or school divisions the choice to say, our students are actively involved in such and such outside of school, and therefore we would rather concentrate our time in school on this other option. I think they have the legal right to make those choices at school divisions, and I support them wholeheartedly as they try to accommodate the various needs and requests from the people whom they represent.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I am interested in getting involved in this discussion related to the government's changes in required courses and time allotments and the way that schools are being forced to make scheduling changes based on budget cuts, and guideline changes, as well, that are affecting the availability of courses.

This may not, as the minister says, be the intention of their budget cuts or their changes in policy, but, actually, in classrooms, in the school divisions, that is the effect. The policies are being set by budget cutbacks. The minister may say that this is by choice, but I know that a number of changes that are occurring--[interjection]

An Honourable Member: You will have to change mikes.

Ms. Cerilli: I have to change mikes. There we go.

I am interested in participating in this debate on the Education Estimates as it relates to school policy related to curriculum development and the availability of courses.

Now, we have been talking about how policy-related decisions are being made because of scheduling limitations, because of budget cutbacks, and that relates not only to the availability to have resources for classrooms and programs, but also the availability of schools to hire teachers who are skilled and trained in the specific disciplines. The minister is raising her eyebrows.

I will give you an example of a program in the constituency of Radisson. An elementary school that has the same number of students as an elementary school in the school division of St. Vital. The same size school, one has three physical educators, and one school in Transcona has one physical educator. I would suggest that that is because of the funding available to hire. I would suggest that the way that the minister is changing the allotment, particularly for academics or basics they may call them at the elementary level, is counterproductive. I want to ask her what research has been done? Because as I am going to focus in on the changes that are being made to physical education/health education, this government seems bound and determined to not have young people take physical education.

First of all, in the Blueprint they eliminated phys ed from the high school curriculum as a core course. Under pressure, they put it back in. Now, with an interim document on curriculum, they are suggesting that at the elementary level, the time for physical education be reduced from 180 minutes and to become only 60 to 65 percent of that, and that time be used--the 40 percent lost to physical activity and physical education--to teach health education topics.

That is because under the Blueprint document the government has eliminated health education from the core curriculum from kindergarten to Grade 8. So it seems that in their effort to backtrack on the shortsightedness of teaching health education, where children learn about preventative health, dental health, nutrition, safety, they are having to take that out of phys ed time, and that is counterproductive.

I want to ask the minister if she is familiar with any of the research being done in her own province that show, from the experience in sports camps, that having physical activity is a great advantage to the emotional and physical and intellectual and social well-being of children. There was a wonderful speaker in town recently, a Mr. Fishbourne [phonetic] from Alberta, who showed that there were many examples of how increased time on physical activity actually improved academic performance.

There was a school in Montreal that increased at an elementary level the activity time, the physical education, to one-third of the day. That school showed a dramatic improvement in academic accomplishment and learning in attendance; it reduced absenteeism. It increased the motivation of students, and I am not suggesting that that should happen in Manitoba that we should increase it to one-third time, but what I am saying is that having a quality physical education program shows itself to be valuable in improving the health of children and improving the learning and the academic performance of children.

I am wondering if this department has made the decision to reduce physical activity time at the high school and elementary level on the basis of any study. They have had a study in their own department which showed that children are less active, are watching more TV. In Canada, the average child now watches six and a half hours of television. That has to be countered with having them learn some quality skill development so that they can participate in physical activity not only as children but on towards adulthood.

I want to also raise the whole issue of the approach that the government is taking with increasing the academic and basics and classroom, more sedentary school time. The issue that I am raising is particularly again at the elementary grades, that by increasing the sedentary time in classroom on academic or basic skills, core courses, be they mathematics or language arts, that this may not even be developmentally appropriate for children.

* (1640)

Kids, when they go into kindergarten and Grade 1, they are active, they are imaginative, they are creative, they are eager to learn, and by the time they even hit Grade 3, a lot of them are much more sedentary, and a lot of curriculum development is now looking closely at developmentally appropriate activity. I want to suggest to the minister that the changes that are being made in this curriculum in terms of the amount of sedentary learning that is going to be taking place to teach dental health or nutrition in a sedentary fashion is counterproductive when you are taking it away from physical activity time, and that is not developmentally appropriate. It is not developmentally appropriate to have young children at a desk more during the school day. That is not developmentally appropriate for children.

I want to ask the minister, again, if she has any studies that her department has read that are going to repute that, that are going to show that it is going to improve the academic learning and the cognitive ability of young people in this province to have more class time--[interjection]

Point of Order

Mrs. McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am requiring clarification. As Estimates go on increasingly, we each have 10 minutes to ask a question, 10 minutes to answer a question.

There have been about 15 questions so far in this member's 10 minutes, and a question that says, how do you build an airplane cannot be answered as quickly as the question could be asked. The member says, how do you build an airplane? It takes 10 seconds to ask it; it takes three hours to answer if she wants the answer.

So she asked 15 questions, as do the other members, and then later on they say, you did not answer the question. I cannot put in 10 minutes full answers to those many questions she has put.

What are the rules surrounding how many questions they ask in the 10 minutes?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: On the point of clarification, I have said before and I will say it again, if, indeed, the critics asking questions would like an answer to those questions, I would suggest to lessen the number of questions, or, indeed, they can ask as many as they choose in that 10 minutes--

An Honourable Member: But they cannot expect answers for them.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. In other words, the members or the critics in the official opposition can ask quite readily as many questions as they wish. The minister indeed can answer those questions as she sees fit or as she can.

The honourable member for Radisson, to finish her questions.

Ms. Cerilli: On the same point of order, could I ask the minister or the Chairperson to--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Just for clarification, that was not a point of order. The honourable member for Radisson, to finish her questions.

Ms. Cerilli: Did the minister not call it a point or order? [interjection] A point of clarification.

On a point of clarification, I just want to clarify on the same point of clarification--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I ruled it not a point of order--[interjection] Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson, if she could wait till I recognize her for Hansard, then she will be able to ask her question or bring up her point of order. This is a point of order or clarification?

Ms. Cerilli: A point of clarification. I just want to ask how much time I have left on my current question.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Radisson has three and a half minutes left.

* * *

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Radisson, to finish her questions.

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to encourage the minister, with the assistance of her staff, to realize that my questions all pertain to the kind of support for the policies that are being developed in curriculum development with respect to research that would support them. I have my 10 minutes to speak, and I think I will use that to support, with the research and information that I have, that has been brought to my attention, questions about the direction that they are going in terms of that I do not think it is supportable by the current research in education pedagogy and curriculum development, that the direction that they are going is going to meet the desired outcome that they have.

I am sure we all want to see young people achieve better academic scores and to achieve all the other learning goals that we have for children in the province. What I am suggesting is that reducing the amount of time that students have for quality physical activity and physical education is counterproductive.

I want the minister to also clarify, if she is aware--she had mentioned earlier in response to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) that there were guidelines that were not being followed under the NDP government in education. Well, I want her to know that there is a guideline currently for 180 minutes in physical activity and there are schools that do not come anywhere near to that.

I am wondering if her policy is simply to reduce the requirement so that it comes in line with the lowest common denominator or the practice and that the direction that she is going with, introducing health topics into phys ed, is not going to mean that people will never reach 180 minutes of physical activity and physical education. They are simply going to start teaching curriculum topics, and we are going to have more obesity problems. We are going to have even a greater percentage of young people who are inactive because they are contending now with more TV and video games and all the other temptations there are for young people not to have active play or active physical activity.

I am wanting her to know that recently there was one in four young people who could not touch their toes in Grade 2, that there were 17 out of 20 children in a study that could not do even one chin-up, that there are three-quarters of all girls who cannot do a six-minute step test. When we look at preventative health, when we look at the importance of physical activity for cardiovascular fitness, when we know that in our country the largest cost in health care is to treat heart and circulatory and illnesses related to the amount of physical activity, we cannot afford to reduce the amount of physical activity as required by the government and the amount of physical education as required by the government in its curriculum development.

I want to ask one final question, then, in concluding my remarks. Who wrote this document with the recommendations from March 22, 1996, the education change update in the area of physical education?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The member's time for her questions has expired.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting little game that we are playing in here in the way in which we--[interjection]. The member for Radisson, I believe, had her 10 minutes, and I would appreciate--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. To all members of this committee, I would ask that you address your questions and comments to the Chair. That way, perhaps, we can have a more even flow of conversation, questions and answers.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, what I am referring to in terms of the game is that the rules of the game are this. The opposition asks as many questions as they possibly can in 10 minutes, many of them demanding a full-scale, detailed answer, which simply cannot be answered as quickly as the question can be asked.

The minister then attempts to keep track of upwards of 20 questions asked in the 10 minutes and attempts to answer as many of those questions as is possible during her 10 minutes, but, of course, there is not enough time to answer all of those questions in her 10 minutes. The opposition then says, ha, ha, she did not answer all the questions.

That is a game that is part of the whole adversarial system of government. I would then not be able to answer all of those questions, and I am saying it up front. If time could be extended, if the member would be willing to allow time to be extended so that I could answer each of her questions, I would gladly answer them, but I will have to keep backlogging them and trying to get the answers in on subsequent questions, and then they will say, she is not answering the question I just asked.

So somewhere in here, I will endeavour to get all of the answers to all of the questions on the record, even though the time--[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

* (1650)

Ms. Cerilli: A point of clarification--for the minister's information, I would be quite willing for her to answer my questions in writing and supply the information to me outside of the Estimates. I know that the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) has done that on occasion. Other ministers that I have sat through Estimates with--[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. There is actually no such thing as a point of clarification. However, I thank the member for Radisson for her question and her comments.

The honourable minister, to finish her comments.

Mrs. McIntosh: I will be pleased to provide answers to all of those questions in writing.

Ms. Cerilli: I am glad that the minister will do that. I will continue then with the whole issue of the phys ed and health curriculum changes, because I am very concerned that what has happened is, between the Blueprint document and then subsequent educational updates, there have been a number of changes.

Mrs. McIntosh: I wonder if we might be able to take a recess, and I am wondering if the member then requires my presence here if she is simply going to read a series of questions into the microphone, that we can get the Hansard and provide her with the answers in--[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Is it the will of the committee to take a seven-minute recess? Is it the will of the committee? [agreed]

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to put on the record and clarify that the minister is wanting to take a break and was earlier wanting to leave the table and merely read Hansard with my questions because she did not want to listen?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. [interjection] Order, I said.

I have put it to the committee if the committee wishes to have a now six-minute recess. [agreed] The committee is recessed until five o'clock.

The committee recessed at 4:54 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 5:01 p.m.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, again, I would just like to clarify the amount of time that I have.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Radisson now has 10 minutes to pose her comments and questions.

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you. I wanted to pick up on this whole issue of the changes to physical education and health education as proposed in the March 22, 1996, update.

Point of Order

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, you may have to help us refresh our memories here. The member had asked a 10-minute series of questions. I indicated that I would provide the answers to those questions in writing.

She then asked a new set of questions, if I am not mistaken, and that new set of questions was complete just before we recessed, if I am not mistaken, that I might have an opportunity to try to answer some of those and send the rest in writing.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Radisson, I would just ask this, that, in fact, there were a lot of questions asked. A couple of comments were put out by the minister that, in fact, she would answer the questions, or she could supply it in writing because of the number of questions that were put.

Would the member for Radisson like the answers to those questions now, or does she want to continue with her 10-minute period?

I thank all the members around the table for their comments. Although they have not been on record, I thank them anyway.

The honourable member for Radisson now has 10 minutes.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, I will in this question be dealing with the document released from the minister's department on March 22, 1996, which made a number of changes to the New Directions direction that the school system in Manitoba, the public school system, was intended to go under the stewardship of this minister. I want to focus on the area under physical education, health education on page 5 of the document.

I had asked the question, who wrote this, because I know that the staffperson who was hired under the curriculum development branch, I believe--I am not sure what division she was working in, but she had the duty to develop a new physical education curriculum, and I know that she resigned. I would like to find out from the minister why she resigned but, given that she did resign, I would like to know who wrote this document because, as I understand it, that physical education specialist or professional was not the author of this particular recommendation.

I want to read into the record what the recommendation is, that, quote: My department will be providing to schools before the end of the current school year information for instructional planning related to physical/health and proposed topics for instruction. This information will apply until such time as the new physical education/health curriculum framework becomes available within the time allotted to physical education, including health. In Grades 1 to 8 schools should allocate between 60 and 65 percent of the time to physical education and 35 to 40 percent to health. In each of Senior 1 and Senior 2, the existing breakdown should remain in effect, that is, 55 hours, one-half credit for physical education and 55 hours, one-half credit for health. The focus in early and middle years should be on physical well-being, community health, social/emotional well-being, safety, dental health and nutrition with increased emphasis on family life education in the middle years. Life skills, family life, drug awareness and physical and mental well-being should have greater emphasis in the senior years. The information to be sent to schools in spring '96 will reflect this emphasis.

I am concerned, as I said earlier, that this is taking from physical activity, phys ed time, in order to have health education taught. I want to make it very clear that I am all in support of having health education. In fact, I know it is on the record that I requested the government not to remove health education as a compulsory course in K to 8, as they have. I do not think that we should be taking away either health education or physical education, particularly in the primary grades, that this should not be a competition for those two.

I want to ask the minister, what kind of research or studies were done to develop this particular compilation of topics? Was there consultation with the Physical Education Teachers' Association, and what were the recommendations from that consultation? I have been made aware that this was not what they recommended, and it was not what Ms. Dufresne [phonetic], the woman who resigned over this recommendation had intended, that they did not want to see a loss of physical education time in order to teach health education.

Now, I know the way the government has come up with this, that they interpreted the 180 minutes to be approximately 10 percent of the school day or the school cycle, the six-day cycle, and I am aware of the way they have tried to justify this, but I am concerned that this is not in keeping with what the professionals in physical education and health education would recommend. So I am wondering, where did this come from, and how can the minister justify this direction which, as I said earlier, is going contrary to a lot of the emerging research in the area of activity and physical education and fitness which is pointing to having an increase.

The government's own report, the Health of Manitoba's Children, recommended compulsory physical education right through to Grade 12, and the guideline that exists now of 180 minutes per six-day cycle is not even attained by a number of schools in the province. This is a result of, as the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) was alluding to earlier, the difficulty of meeting that curriculum guideline even with the existent stress on providing staff, and I am concerned that this will lead to having physical education being taught by fewer physical education specialists.

I am sure the minister is aware of what has happened in Portage la Prairie, where they are having classroom teachers teach physical education, and where a lot of those people will not feel comfortable with using the equipment and using a lot of the necessary kinds of activities or doing a lot of the necessary activities that young people need to do in a quality physical education program.

* (1710)

So I am wondering, as well, with this, if that is the direction the minister is willing to have physical education in this province go. I think that in Portage la Prairie they have made the move to have 25 percent of all the class time be devoted to health education topics. I just want to reiterate, again, how important I do think it is for those types of topics to be taught, social and emotional well-being, safety, dental health, nutrition. I know that the phys ed teachers feel quite comfortable with teaching some of those topics in the physical education course, and that some of them already do integrate those topics, but they do it in an active way.

They do not want to have sedentary classroom desk time replace physical activity time. I am wondering, as I said, if that is the direction that the minister is willing to see physical education go, where there is going to be less activity time, where there are going to be fewer physical education professionals teaching that kind of subject area.

The other concern is that there will be more pressure on having people teach topics that they do not feel comfortable with. A lot of the physical education people would feel comfortable if they had the inservicing and the training to teach, particularly, the areas in family life, and that is quite a concern. I am wondering how this department is going to remedy that.

The other question I want to emphasize as important is, how is the minister going to create a consensus in the health education, the physical education professions? I am wondering what kind of pressure or what kind of lobbying the minister has succumbed to perhaps, or has listened to, to give rise to this kind of policy for physical and health education. The agencies for school health have been meeting, and I am wondering if this policy was something that they approve or they support or they recommended.

I know recently I heard from one of the members of that agency, and she did not want to see a reduction in the activity time. They did not want to see health education come at the expense of physical education. They think that both are important, and neither should be sacrificed for the health and well-being of young people in our province. I am wanting the minister to clarify that. What kind of agencies were recommending this approach to providing health education and physical education to Manitoba school teachers? Thank you.

Mrs. McIntosh: I begin my response by saying that there is no way that I can possibly answer all of those questions with the detail she requires. What I cannot answer in the limited time that I have, we will provide in writing. I also have to state for the record, anybody reading this Hansard should know that there are very, very big mistakes in the assumptions the member has made in her questions.

She has made wide, sweeping, generic commentary with no backup factual information. I will respond with the same kind of wide, sweeping, general commentary that her facts and her assumptions in many instances are wrong. For example, the member said she spent a lot of time and so I will ask her then, but I do not presume she will be able to answer. She has made comments that our new phys ed curriculum is going to be bad, and she told us all why it is bad and that the contents of the new physical education curriculum are not going to do the job for the people of Manitoba, but we have not written the curriculum yet.

We have not written the curriculum, Mr. Deputy Chairman. That is what I am saying to the member through you, so she will take discussion documents. She will take letters and questions. She will take positions put forward by interest groups. She will take questions put out to the field. She will take any number of recommendations that are floating around and say, this is the new physical education curriculum, and it is bad.

But we have not yet written that new curriculum, so that is one assumption. She is making assumptions about what the content will be, and then she puts the assumptions forward as if they are fact, which they are not, and then she tells us all why her incorrect assumptions are bad for children and why this government, therefore, is bad for children.

She also indicates that marrying health and physical education is bad because it will not give enough time to physical activity. It will take more time away from physical activity and time on task in terms of being active, and she says that is bad.

She also, I think, recognizes or should recognize that having children touch their toes, which was the example she used, is achieved with much more degree of diligence and vigour if students understand why touching their toes is good for them. It is equivalent to saying to students, do not smoke, but not telling them why they should not, not telling them the ramifications.

We have research--[interjection] The member having asked all the questions does not want to hear the answers, and it would be good if she stopped her own conversation and listened to the responses because then I would not feel that the few moments I do have are being wasted, but I presume she is going to read Hansard to see what I said.

I will indicate, Mr. Chairman, that the research we have and the studies that other people have done show that when people understand why a healthy lifestyle is important, they are more inclined to follow that healthy lifestyle. That is why you have all of these physical fitness experts on television, in workplaces, in government encouraging wellness, because they know that once people understand why it is important to have a certain lifestyle, they are more inclined to be physically fit because they understand the rationale for being physically fit. So the member may contend, as she does, that having children touch their toes will ensure a healthy lifestyle. We believe that telling students why physical activity is good, how oxygen moves to the brain--

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, I want you to call the minister to order, because I think if she reviews Hansard she will see that she is misconstruing or putting words in my mouth, and I made it very clear that I did not want to sacrifice phys ed and health, one for the other.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mrs. McIntosh: The member, despite what she says, is absolutely forcing school divisions to make choices as to time allotments. Whether she understands the implication of her suggestion or not, the reality of what she is saying is that school boards will have to choose between health and physical education or give up language arts, which I am beginning to accept as the final and ultimate goal of the official opposition because they want--the 180 minutes that the member complained about--[interjection] Mr. Chairman, could you please call them to order. I understand they are agitated, but I would like to have them to listen to the answer; they have made such a point of asking.

The member refers to the 180 minutes that are in the guidelines for physical education, and she says, with great judgment in her voice, that the 180 minutes are not being adhered to. The member maybe did not hear my earlier response when I said that all of the allotted time lines for subject areas under the NDP, if complied with, would have meant an extension of the school day.

The 180 minutes for phys ed came in under the NDP and were not enforced under the NDP, and the member, if she does not know that, should know it. That is part of the problem that government has had. The member indicated that the policy is set by budget but was not able to give any examples.

The only example she was able to provide, which was not an example of this at all, she said, well, one school division has three phys ed experts, and another school division does not have any. That means policy is being set by budget.

That does not mean any such thing at all. That means that school boards are making choices. She asked me who wrote a document and then told me the person who wrote the document, then asked me why that person resigned and then told me why that person resigned. Now, I mean, I am not even needed here. She can ask and answer her own questions.

* (1720)

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, the minister has definitely put an erroneous comment on the record this time. I think this is not a dispute over the facts. She may want to take it as a point of order and peruse Hansard, but I asked her who wrote the interim recommendations, and I am very interested in that question because--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am positive that the member asked why an individual resigned and then told us why the individual resigned. Perhaps she would care to review Hansard and indicate that if she asks the question, then provides the answer, our time could be better spent providing information on things she does not know about. I do not know if her answer is correct. I will check and see, but she seems to feel her answer is correct. I will check that out.

Physical activity as well as health topics are both required for physical well-being. In Manitoba, over the last number of years, we have made that, even with 30 minutes of phys ed and with nine to 12 minutes of health, students are not showing a better performance regarding their activity level. To us this means that both the activity and the knowledge and the skills of health topics need to be improved. People need to understand why it is important to be physically active. Health tells them that.

We are working with health educators and with physical education educators to develop a curricula, yet unwritten, that will address both areas. Local decisions regarding the allocation of resources, some senior year schools have offered many school-initiated courses or student-initiated courses. Note that these are additional courses, not just the required courses. Our intent with Senior 3 and 4 has been to offer students greater choices so they can make decisions that will be of benefit to them and their goals for post-secondary training or for work options being planned for upon graduation.

Our time allotments are guidelines, as they were under the NDP. The 180 minutes the member referred to is still the 180 minutes. It was not enforced then, so she is telling us it is not enforced now. Then I am asking her, what should we do about it? Should we enforce the guidelines, change the guidelines, take time away from other subjects, lengthen the school day? I ask her to indicate, from where will the time come?

Mr. Chairman, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the fact that all the while I am giving this answer, the member has had a steady stream of conversation with the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Having made a point of saying she wants answers to these question, she has not done the courtesy of listening. I think that is extremely rude, and I think it should be on--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, I just want to clarify for the minister that although when she is speaking the member for Wolseley and I are conferring, we are discussing what she is talking about. I would ask her not to be so oversensitive because we are interested in the answers, and I do appreciate her taking the time to provide the information.

I want to indicate for the minister that the issues that I am raising are as a result of my participation in the recent Forum 3 organized by the Physical Education Teachers' Association, and their entire focus right now is to try and--[interjection]

Point of Order

Mrs. McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am presuming my time was up and that the member is now asking a new question.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Yes, Madam Minister.

Mrs. McIntosh: Okay, thank you.

* * *

Ms. Cerilli: I was just pointing out that the issues that I am raising are as the result of my discussions and consultation with physical education teachers and my own participation with the Forum 3--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Do people in this room have a problem hearing me?

Would the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and the honourable minister (Mrs. McIntosh) please curb their conversation, while the honourable member for Radisson is posing her comments and her questions.

Ms. Cerilli: I was just clarifying where it was that I became aware of the concerns in the profession of physical education/health education with regard to the interim document that the minister has put forward.

I am wondering why, given that they are in the process of hiring a new physical education/health education consultant, and I am not sure if they are combining that into one position, I assume that they are, why they have not just waited until the subsequent school year to bring forward any changes in the area of health education/physical education, until they have that person in place so that they can ensure that this new guideline is going to reflect the profession and is going to not just add more confusion and inequity or lack of standards in the provision of these courses.

This is the government that is very concerned about standardized tests, but I find it confusing and ironic why they are not equally as concerned with standardized curriculum. The way that they are going about this, they may call it choice by introducing these interim guidelines, I know that a number of school divisions are not going to follow these guidelines and the way that they follow them is going to vary greatly between divisions, and from school to school, even within divisions. So we are going to see a real mix of the provision of physical education/health education schools.

I know, even when the changes that were made previously in the New Directions document when health education was removed from the curriculum as a core course in the elementary school, there were a number of schools that still wanted to, and I think, do ensure that that is a requirement for all elementary school children. I am not sure how the department is responding to those concerns and I would like the minister to clarify that.

Are they not concerned that, by putting this interim guideline in prior to having the new curriculum developed, is adding a lot of confusion and inequity in the provision of health education/physical education? I think I am correct, and I know that the phys ed teachers were thinking that what had happened with the changes in the social studies curriculum and the history curriculum was that it was put on hold until the new curriculum is created.

So I am not sure why that was not done for physical education/health education. I would like the minister and her staff to clarify that for me. Maybe I will stop there and she may be able to answer that before our time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The time for today's committee is up. I would ask the minister and her staff to keep track of the questions that were posed, and the minister will then have 10 minutes when we come back to order tomorrow.

The time being 5:30 p.m., committee rise.