Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. We are on Resolution 16.1.(e) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed for the day, I have for the committee a ruling on the matter I took under advisement on April 20. The honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) had raised a point of order that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) was imputing unworthy motives to her. I ruled that the matter was not a point of order but was a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Wolseley then sought clarification of the ruling and asked whether impugning motives was in order. I then took the matter under advisement to review Hansard.
Having now had the opportunity to look at the written record, I stand by my ruling that the minister's comments did not impute unworthy motives. The disagreement between the two members was a dispute over the facts.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the honourable member for Wolseley that the correct procedure, if she is not in agreement with a ruling of the Chair, is for her to challenge the ruling, not to ask for clarification of the ruling. Thank you.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, the minister had undertaken to find out whether the Manitoba Measures was confidential or not, and I had asked her to table that. It refers to an earlier line that we have voted on, but the minister made that undertaking. Before we lose sight of that, I wonder if she could respond to that.
* (1440)
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, I have some tablings as well, responses to questions put last week.
The question the member has just asked right now, we have checked and the document that we are working on is an internal document in progress, so it is not yet complete. The standard procedure in situations like that is that until a document is complete and ready to be made public, it is considered an internal and not yet finalized document and therefore is normally confidential because it is work in progress; it is not complete. That would be the response to that question.
I have for tabling--on Thursday I took a series of questions for notice and to provide answers. The first I would like to table is the Integration of Aboriginal Perspectives into Manitoba Curricula, which the member had expressed interest in. I have several copies here, one for me and then there are three for Hansard, and whoops, here we go, on the table, on the floor and into your hand, Sir.
Then I have staffing issues that the member had asked--that is all for the tabling, and the other is a verbal response. The member had asked for the reason for the shift from 34,000 to 106,000 this year, and the other--it was operating supplies, materials, office supplies. I am just doing some double-checking here, Mr. Chairman, excuse me. Operating supplies, materials and office supplies, that is up by 71,500, primarily due to an increase of 73,000 for the sustainable development initiatives, offset, as well, by a decrease of about one and a half thousand due to the Planning and Policy Co-ordination Branch being reorganized. That was a question that was asked concerning Other Expenditures under the expenditure category of Supplies and Services the member had asked on Thursday. I believe that is all for now in terms of questions that were taken under notice.
I have some information, as well, that was requested regarding staffing for the fiscal year April 1, '97 to March 31, 1998. There were some 66 appointments that took place through competition. Sixty-three staff were hired by open competition and three by closed competition, and I believe we talked about what we mean by that, one being open to anybody and the other three closed for department staff, government people. Mr. Chairman, 298 staffing actions took place including new appointments, lateral transfers, transfers into the department because of the federal devolution, conversions from term to permanent status, secondments and classification actions.
There were a total of 32 direct appointments. The majority of these, of course, were under Section 504 of the government employees' master agreement. There are currently 90 term employees within the department, and 15 staff have been appointed by Order-in-Council, but none of them in the last year. The ones who are O/Cs, most of them have been here for many, many years. They are John Carlyle, the deputy minister of Education; Tom Carson, deputy minister of Training and Continuing Education, who while he has not been that long with Education and Training has been a long-time deputy with the government; Carolyn Loeppky, ADM, School Programs Division; and Jim Glen, ADM, Administration and Finance; Guy L. Roy, assistant deputy minister, Bureau de l'éducation française; Connie Hall, special assistant to the minister; Brett Lockhart, executive assistant to the minister; Leo LeTourneau, executive director of Council on Post-Secondary Education; Bob Knight, director of Systems and Strategic Initiatives and Stevenson Aviation; and Bob Gorchynski, executive director of Management Services; Bob Goluch, executive director of Public Schools' Finance Board; Pat McDonald, director of Program Development Branch; Norbert Cenerini, director of Student Services Branch; Gerald Farthing, director of Schools' Finance Branch; and Brian Hanson, director of Education Administration Services Branch. Those are the O/Cs, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Friesen: I understood the minister to say that she was tabling some other documents.
Mr. Chairperson: Did you not just receive one?
* (1450)
Ms. Friesen: I received one, but I understood the minister to say she was tabling others. Did I misunderstand?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the staff very kindly gave me many, many copies, so I actually had seven copies of the document the member has received, three of which I have tabled and the rest I have retained here. I just wanted to check to make sure they were one and the same document and not two different ones, and they are just extra copies of the same document.
Ms. Friesen: I thank the minister for tabling this document. I note that it is dated Saturday. My guess is that the staff worked on Saturday to produce this, for which I thank them. I would like to go back to the Manitoba Measures and to ask the minister how it is she would put this into the Estimates and ask people to vote on something which is confidential. What is the principle behind that?
Mrs. McIntosh: We had talked about this a little bit the other day, but just for clarification, this identifies that there are staff people assigned to work on this project. This is their activity. One of their activities is to work on this plan that we are developing, and it is not completed totally yet so they are continuing to work on it. Part of the approval that the Estimates has identified here is that we are identifying that we are paying people to work on this initiative. The work is in progress. It is not complete yet, so they do not have--it is like they are carving a statue. They are being paid to carve the statue. The statue is not complete yet, so we cannot walk down the street and say, oh, my goodness, look at the statue. It is still being carved. I do not know if that is a very good analogy or not, but it might help indicate why that is in the Estimates. We are not asking people to vote on something that is complete and articulated; we are asking them to support work on this endeavour.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister intend for there to be any public input into the department's Manitoba Measures plan? I am thinking particularly of examples of other provinces and states which have done this, at least the ones that I am aware of, where there has been extensive public consultation and reflection upon departmental business plans.
Mrs. McIntosh: No doubt as our abilities to plan in a business planning context grow and expand we will see more detail included in our Supplementary Information to Estimates because we will have more information and we will have more detail to provide. She is asking, are we going to have province-wide consultations? We do not have plans for that at present. Our department is piloting a government project and our future methodology is still being developed. Of course, we are checking with those people with whom we will be making an impact, trying to get ideas and advice and so on from them, feedback, input, and that will certainly continue, but the methodology is still being developed. As I indicate, it is difficult to talk about this as if it is a totally completed, long-established item when it is still being developed.
Ms. Friesen: But other provinces and states have developed such programs. I am not quite sure why the minister thinks this is so unique. It has been done in Minnesota; it has been done in Oregon; it has been done in Alberta. New Brunswick is looking at something similar. I mean, this is not a major invention.
I wanted to ask the minister two questions about it. One was, I think she said just now that this department is piloting for the government this project. Is that the case? Is that what she meant to convey, that this is the pilot for the government? Secondly, she said that consultations were ongoing or were continuing or were in place with various stakeholders. I wonder if she could tell me what those consultations are and whom they are with.
Mrs. McIntosh: The member will have to forgive my background working its way to the surface. I am a military brat, and we often refer to working our way through something as piloting our way through something. In that sense, we are working our way through something as opposed to how the member might think of the word "pilot" as generally used. We are following the education renewal plan, which is a key driver and which involves much input and consultation, and a lot of our ideas come from consultations that have already been done with other committees that we work with extensively.
Ms. Friesen: I do not think that that really answers the questions. Consultations with other committees--I asked, which stakeholders? The minister said that she had done the consulting or was consulting or intended to consult, so I am interested in what range of people are going to be consulted, have been consulted in connection with Manitoba Measures.
I am still not clear what the minister means by piloting. Most people mean by piloting, if we are going to use military metaphors, the naval metaphor, piloting a ship, deciding on where the dangers are and taking things through there and being the first through, of leading, of guiding; that is what is meant by piloting, I think, in the administrative sense. So is the department the pilot ship for Manitoba Measures within the government? Is that what the minister intended to say, or was there a different meaning she was attributing to piloting? Secondly, who is being consulted in this?
* (1500)
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, in terms of the official definition of the word "pilot" or the colloquial definition or the current use of the word "pilot," I think maybe the clearest way I can say it is that all of government is working its way through this initiative. When I was speaking about us working our way through it or piloting our way through, I was not referring to an official definition as she sees used in the context that she as an historian or an educator or a politician might make it. I was referring more in a colloquial way, meaning that all of government is working its way through this initiative.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
I do not believe I said I was planning to have specific consultations in the context of Manitoba Measures. I believe I said that we would continue to follow the educational renewal plan, which is a key driver for all that we do and which involves a lot of input and consultation. I believe that is what I said. If I have said something different or if the member has interpreted me as saying something different, then let me repeat it in what I hope will be plain language, and that is that we in the course of our work through education renewal do a tremendous amount of consulting.
This morning, for example, I spent my four hours, as I do regularly, with the implementation committee which has the presidents of many educational stakeholder groups on it who advise me on things they would like to see to make the department and the whole education system in Manitoba in the K to 12 branch run more smoothly, run more efficiently, run more effectively and so on.
We have all kinds of groups like that with whom we regularly consult. We receive many useful ideas from them, many helpful ideas from them. We also receive incidental issues from them, such as the request from that committee to ask the field to take a look at our patriotic exercises and remember that that regulation is there, and the member has referred to that particular one quite frequently because she and her caucus do not wish to see the singing of God Save the Queen in our schools, and that came out of an incidental consultation with the groups.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just attributed something to me and my caucus that I think she needs to provide some evidence on. Would you ask her to do that?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The honourable member for Wolseley does not have a point of order.
Mrs. McIntosh: I am surprised by the member's comment, but I certainly draw to her attention that which she well knows which may not be in Hansard because it normally comes by way of interjections from members opposite, particularly she herself or the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who have made many comments about the inappropriateness of me having reminded people of the regulation on the Queen, who challenged me to stand up and sing God Save the Queen, who talk about heavy-handed intervention in reminding the field that the regulation about the Queen is there and who call me Queen Linda and things like that, that led to the impression for me to receive and for those in the gallery watching that they are very much opposed to the singing of God Save the Queen, and the taunting seems to reflect that.
Now, perhaps the member's caucus would like to take a public position. In fact, I would challenge them to take a public position and tell Manitoba whether or not they believe that God Save the Queen should be sung in our schools, because they have very carefully avoided the issue publicly themselves except for the endless taunting that comes this way, to me for having taken the advice of the implementation team, which is back to what I am talking about here, an implementation team consisting of the presidents of MASS, MAST, MTS, MAP, two principals at large, several teachers, an independent school board chairperson, the president of the parent councils of Manitoba, an independent parent at large.
That group raised the issue of God Save the Queen. They raised the issue of patriotic exercises, not specifically the Queen, and suggested that I send a memo reminding the field which I did. Now, in that case there was a consultation. The group itself raised the issue, not me, and I responded positively to the issue by sending out the requested memo. If that is, and as members opposite clearly object to me having responded positively to the consultation, I am wondering if, with the kinds of input we get from those sources for Manitoba Measures, if the member would like me to also reject other advice that we receive if it is advice the members opposite do not care for, or is the member feeling I should accept the advice because of the source from which it comes? I would appreciate some clarification. She wants me to consult. Is it because she would like me to accept the advice of those with whom I consult, or is it because she wants to make sure that the NDP get a chance to tell me to reject the advice if the NDP do not like it, as with the Queen, when they chide me for having followed that advice from that committee? I am not sure.
I do say, though, that we get those kinds of inputs and they are all included, and of course we also work with those in the branch, within various branches of the department, to ensure that their input is sought because they are oftentimes the deliverer of service. So maybe the member could clarify: does she wish me to accept the advice that I receive through consultation or vet it through the opposition so they can accept or reject it as opposition members? I am not quite sure of the motivation for the question in terms of how to provide a correct answer that will meet the member's needs.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, we have a couple of issues here, the issue on Manitoba Measures is that when other jurisdictions, and I am thinking specifically of Minnesota and of Alberta have developed programs like the Measures program, that they have included in that public consultations on the creation of business plans, reflections on business plans.
This government appears not to, and I am really asking the minister as I have several times now and basically I know it, their answer is no, they are not going to, like so many elements of this government, the government has no intention of asking the public. So Manitoba Measures will be something which is developed within government for government and that is fair enough. That is a different kind of program. It is not one that has the involvement of the public, so it seems to me that that has been answered and the government is going in a different direction, and although it may be using the same terminology as Minnesota, it is in fact developing it in a different way.
I would like to continue with 16.1.(e) and to ask the minister the question I was asking at the end of last time which dealt with a line in 16.1.(e) which was under Other Expenditures. I believe it was a difference in the shift from $34,000 in Other Expenditures in '97-98 to this year's Estimate of Expenditures under Other Expenditures of $106,000. I believe I had asked the question a number of times, and I was not clear about the answer the minister was giving. I think that was where we ended last time, so I wonder if the minister has had the opportunity to find the answer to that.
* (1510)
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, that was the answer that I provided when we first sat down at the beginning of today's session. I gave a very clear, concise answer to that when we first opened today. Before we began our questioning, I indicated I was providing that information. I tabled three documents and I provided the answer to that question before we began our questions and answers today, so I have given that and I am still needing to find out, I am not quite sure what the member is looking for in terms of an answer here.
When she talks about, I believe what she is saying is she wants us to consult the way Alberta does and take the time to do that, but I know earlier today when I indicated we were taking the time as prescribed by law to have the council consult with students that that was not something she wanted because it was taking too much time. So sometimes I get a little confused, and I am quite sincere in this, as to whether or not the opposition wishes to have us take the time to consult as with the students because when we take the time to consult we are criticized for taking too long. If we are not consulting, we are criticized for not consulting the way that there is always some other province that gets quoted, which is fine, because all provinces have their own ways of doing things, and sometimes it is beneficial to do things the way other provinces do them. But I am still not quite sure on that. If she wants us to take the time, as we are with student tuition fees, or if she is wanting us not to, because it takes too long as with student tuition fees, as I say, I did provide the answer to the question she asked right at the beginning of the session today.
Ms. Friesen: When we receive Hansard, I will certainly check that response. I had understood the minister was going to table something, and that is why my question was on, was there anything to table? I gather it was a verbal response, and now I will check Hansard when it comes.
The minister wants to talk about consultation and timing, and we will certainly get into that when we get to the Council on Post-Secondary Education, because it has been a considerable length of time, and I think the minister perhaps did not understand my question today, which dealt with public input and public consultation, not student consultation. But that is the minister's choice in the way she answers these questions and, obviously, that is the way she has chosen to answer it, and we have chosen also a different route, I gather, in Manitoba on developing business plans and measures plans within government.
That is something, obviously when the next election comes, that people will be interested in seeing the comparisons between the Manitoba route and the routes that other jurisdictions have taken.
The end of last time also, we were discussing sustainable development. I had asked the minister what, since this particular line has I believe responsibility for sustainable development leadership within the department--I am just finding the right line here. Oh, yes, it is under Finance and Administration Branch: supports the department's sustainable development initiatives.
I had asked the minister if there was a departmental sustainable initiative that could be tabled, and I understand, as I read her response, that the answer is actually no. There are government sustainable development objectives, but there is not a specific document that can be tabled for the department.
I wanted to ask the minister why sustainable development has been given to the Finance and Administration Branch. Looking from the outside, it appears as though, in a sense, this is a lot like the Native Directorate. This is something which applies to the whole department. The answer I got for the Native Directorate was that it was being given responsibility to report to the deputy minister directly because it applied to the whole department.
In a sense, this Sustainable Development Initiative, that is, the application to all areas of the department, the application to all areas of curriculum, seems to me to have a parallel. I wonder why it has been put here, why it is simply included under Finance and Administration. It seems to me an odd place. What is the rationale for that?
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mrs. McIntosh: I would not want to leave the impression on the record that there is no strategy or plan available for sustainable development. It is an extremely high priority of the departments, and we have been working on it for quite some time with the Round Table on the Environment and Economy which is now called the Round Table on Sustainable Development. A concept paper will soon be ready because the department has been working with the round table on that, and that concept paper will, as we have done with the sustainable development strategy with the Capital Region and so on--there will be the workbook What You Told Us and the applications document.
We are integrating sustainable development into the kindergarten to Senior 4 curriculum as well as into post-secondary studies where appropriate and requested, but that is a different level of involvement--as the K to S4 which is highly concentrated.
* (1520)
You recall that last June the province gave Royal Assent to The Sustainable Development Act and that legislation now mandates departments such as ours and school boards and universities and colleges to have regard for sustainable development in all of their activities. That has been a great and good guide in this fall term and now into the winter and spring. That act establishes guidelines for evaluating the sustainability of all activities and programs. It also covers sustainable development procurement guidelines which even go beyond what we are doing in terms of schools and universities. So it is well underway. We have indicated very clearly that the environment, the economy, and societal health and well-being are interdependent. We have emphasized and are striving to show through curricular changes and all other aspects of education that a change in one has a significant impact on the other. Education has a vital role to play in promoting an understanding of this integration. So that is all part and parcel of what we are doing. As I say, that concept paper should not be too much longer until it is complete and ready for perusal by those province-wide consultations that take place on that type of thing where we get booklets that end up saying what you told us so that we can do applications.
The resources are housed in Administration and Finance, but the sus dev grouping reports through both deputies, and that is illustrated in the organizational chart on page 9 which should help provide some clarity in terms of a visual guide as to how the reporting sequence goes. The resources for that are housed, as I say, in Administration and Finance.
Ms. Friesen: I am looking on page 9 for a Sustainable Development Initiative, and it seems to be vacant. It is listed as parallel to the Native Education Directorate, which is where logically, it seemed to me. It is listed as a vacant position and it does report, as the minister suggests, through two deputy ministers, as does Native Education. So I wonder if the minister could tell me when that position would be filled and how the concept paper has been developed, if it has not come through that particular section.
Mrs. McIntosh: The position has been filled. It has been filled with a person by the name of Christina McDonald, who is a Ph.D., completing a Ph.D. in Natural Resources, Natural Resources Institute at the University of Manitoba. Her thesis is on sustainable development and she also has a teaching certificate. She will be invaluable to us in this task. Her background knowledge is quite extensive in this area. It is her area of specialty. Hard to find a lot of people at this stage with Ph.D.s in sus dev, as it is such a newly developing field, and so we feel very, very fortunate to have obtained this person.
The concept paper was developed in the department by existing staff and in concert with the staff in the sus dev co-ordination unit and under the auspices of the round table.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us an approximate date when that paper will become public and the workbook What You Told Us, et cetera? Are we looking at the fall or are we looking at next spring?
Mrs. McIntosh: I do not have a specific date, so I am always a little apprehensive about pinning people's expectations to a particular date, but I think I am on pretty solid ground to say that we should have this out before or early in the fall--could be sooner.
* (1530)
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about the Systemhouse contract in this area. Could the minister tell us what the cost, the department's cost or charge of the Systemhouse contract for desktop publishing has been?
Mrs. McIntosh: The answer to that is $1,561,900.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me how much of that is capital and how much of that is in services? Is the contract broken down in that way? Is it possible to tell us those numbers?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, there are no capital costs. That money that I have just indicated is for services.
Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell me then whether this--I understand this Systemhouse contract is a three-year contract, so is this $1.5 million anticipated to be in each of the next three years, or in each of three years of the contract?
Mrs. McIntosh: The $1.5 million which has already been cited was for services in '98-99. The entire contract lasts five and a half years, includes 1998-99, and the breakout goes something like this: for '98-99, $1.56 million; for '99, 2000 and beyond, not forever, but for those five years it would be about $2.5 million per year. The total amount would be $11.5 million over five and a half years. That, of course, is an estimate, because these are Estimates, and we will be able to provide more specific figures later on as they become evident. Probably in the fall, we should have some early accurate figures or actual figures, as opposed to estimates.
Ms. Friesen: I understand that this is a contract, and I am curious as to why the minister cannot give exact numbers for the whole contract. I can understand that there might be some difference from year to year, but are we clear that the full contract to the Department of Education is $11.5 million? I assume that there would not be a change in that.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to figure out how to explain this so that it will be clear to the member. We have talked about likening it to outfitting an entire enterprise with telephones where you would know the cost of the phone, you would have a rate schedule and you would know what the rate would be for voice mail, what the rate would be for call display, what the rate would be for having an extension or all of those services that the phone company could provide, and you would have a pretty good sense of what your final request would be. But at this point, you have not yet put in specifically what each office is going to utilize. I do not know if that analogy helps explain how this works.
We have a rate schedule. We are part of an overall government contract. The rate schedule is quite specific, and we are pretty sure that it is going to cost us this amount, but maybe they are going to order different components. Maybe it will not be--maybe they will order things when we do have the firmed up rate schedule, just as you would if you were trying to outfit a building with telephones. I do not know if that helps or not to explain.
* (1540)
Ms. Friesen: The minister indicated a considerable jump from this year to next year, which I gather is not the case in every department. So I wondered what will be the difference between this year and next year, $1.56 million this year, $2.5 million next year. What is the department planning in that context, and is the minister able to table a copy of the rate schedule?
Mrs. McIntosh: To put it simply, this year we are only paying part of a year. We are not paying for the whole year. Next year, of course, we will be paying a full year, the full 12 months, and so would we be in the following years. But this year we are only paying a portion of the year.
The rate schedule works out to about $2,800 per work station per year. We do not have a clean copy of something we could table here, but we can get one and return it to the member today or tomorrow and provide her a copy of some information that we could table on this topic for her.
Ms. Friesen: It is possible that some of the questions I ask will in fact be answered in that rate schedule, and if so, the minister can tell me and we will see it when it comes.
I wanted to ask about the number of personnel who are involved in the desktop initiative. How many are involved in the department, and have any been seconded elsewhere to deal with this?
Mrs. McIntosh: We had one permanent employee who moved to MERLIN from MIS and one term employee who moved to the private sector. Both the positions have been retained and have been redirected into Applications Development and Training and Continuing Education. As for the impact, well, from that you can see there have been no net cuts. Period. Just no cuts. In terms of the net impact, I imagine that we will all be impacted, I would hope, as we go through this, because it should have impact and ramifications for all of us. That is our hope and desire because it is a new initiative that we hope will better the way in which we do things and that should have very positive impacts throughout, but it is too early to say exactly. Impact by impact on person by person, we do not have that yet.
* (1550)
The member had asked about the rates, and staff has just handed me some figures which I am pleased to provide for you. The basic costs, which are mandatory, are the annual per-seat charge for basic cost of the managed environment, and that totals up to 2,385; and then the e-mail, which is an annual per-seat charge for e-mail and the managed environment, and that totals to $163; and the employee training, which is optional at a per-unit charge in the managed environment, is $112, and that is three persons. The moves, the additions and changes per service charge in the mandated environment, $128, and that includes the PST in all instances. I will not take time to go through other extraneous detail because I think those are the figures she was seeking, and they are as stated, and as I say, it does include the PST on all of those examples.
I do have a chart I can table. I do not, unfortunately, have three copies, or maybe I do. Staff has found extra copies, and I do have three copies that I can table on the desktop management costs for '98-99 by unit, and I think that breakdown might be interesting for the member. It provides some of the detail that might save her having to ask for too many details. It is all in here. So I will provide that.
Ms. Friesen: I thank the minister for that. Just two things to check for the record, and one is that the costs the minister was giving me were costs per station, and is the document she has tabled now, is that temporary? Is there going to be another document tabled or is this it?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, if the member takes a look at that table, she will see the first column which is darkened somewhat. That provides the direct link back to the Estimates book, so wherever it says desktop in the Estimates book, that column that has got the darker gray on it can be linked directly back.
These are figures that--it was asked if they were permanent. They will be firmed up over the summer as we begin identifying exactly what we will be doing, so I do not know if they are permanent or not. They could be, but we will be firming them up over the summer to know exactly, and the other question the member asked was is this what we are tabling. We are tabling this. I had read those figures which are per unit, by the way, just for clarification, and those were the figures we were going to seek out clean copies of to table, but this other piece of paper that I have just tabled is one that we happen to have here. That was not the one I was meaning we were going to table, but we just thought it had useful detail that might be of some assistance.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, my earlier question dealt with secondment, and I am not sure I understood the minister's response. The minister responded that one person had gone to MERLIN, one to the private sector.
My question actually dealt with secondment for desktop services. How many people in the department had been seconded this year, and could the minister tell us who will be paying their salaries?
Mrs. McIntosh: One person from Administration and Finance has been seconded to Supply and Services, Government Services desktop unit. That is it.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us who is paying the salary for that person, and what the plan is for next year, including the cost of salary.
Mrs. McIntosh: They are paying, not Education, and I imagine they will be next year also. But that is the short answer.
Ms. Friesen: I understand the minister to say that Supply and Services, Government Services is paying the salary this year and she anticipates that the government Supply and Services will be paying the salary next year.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley, to repeat her question.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I wanted to confirm, because the minister said them, and I wanted to confirm that it was the government Supply and Services who will be paying the salary this year and next year.
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as long as our person is seconded there. If we get her back or something, that would not apply.
* (1600)
Mr. Chairperson: Just to remind the members, you have to wait till the light comes on. The mike takes a few seconds to energize.
Ms. Friesen: I think earlier I had misunderstood the minister's response. I had asked whether there were capital costs involved in this; the minister said no, and I think mistook that to mean there were no costs for actual equipment, but in fact there are costs for equipment in this, are there not? When the table says, desktop cost, that includes the actual desktop computer or whatever equipment is being provided.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, there are no capital costs included. That is as I have stated to the member. There are no capital costs. That is services that we pay.
Ms. Friesen: Well, could the minister explain then and give us a detailed account of what is meant by services, desktop services?
Mrs. McIntosh: Services include, for core services, help desk support, e-mail, standard office software, provincial data network costs, employee training on desktop products, service charges, reconnecting charges for moving people from one office to another, asset management and desktop management in terms of its scope. It is defined to include all management acquisition and support activities related to microcomputers, common personal productivity software, local area networks, and all the network-enabling software and hardware. This includes the management of file or print servers, network servers and hubs, the development, management, and operation of application, and application servers is by definition out of scope for this initiative.
The definition of government-used for the desktop management agreement includes all departments except Family Services, the Legislative Assembly, the Provincial Auditor, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Legislative Building, as well as SOAs, special operating agencies. Family Services currently produces desktop management services from ISM through its Partners in Progress agreement. Hospitals, Crown corporations, and other agencies that fall into the broader definition of government will be afforded an opportunity to opt into the desktop management agreement via a contract agreement or an amendment, rather, and all participants would benefit from the increased economies of scale. I think that is all for now, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Friesen: So this does not actually include any equipment.
Mrs. McIntosh: No. It is just as I said. There is no cap.
* (1610)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the minister confirms that it does not include any equipment. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many desktop units there are in the department at the moment.
Mrs. McIntosh: Just doing some figuring here, the rough estimate would be about 900 to 1,000 desktops.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give us an idea of how old the department's supply is? Are we looking at five-year-old desktops? Are we looking at two-year-old? Could the minister either table an analysis of that or give us some general idea of what the department's equipment is like?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, it breaks down into 25 percent for each, sort of 25 percent or a year old, 25 percent or two years old, 25 percent or three years old and 25 percent or four years old. So it is easy to recall. I thank my staff for that information.
Ms. Friesen: It sounds, given those numbers, as though the department has had a regular plan for upgrading its equipment. I wanted to ask the minister about the core services that she listed a few minutes ago. One of them was Employee Training, and another one was a kind of service charge, and I was not quite clear what the function of those were. Since Employee Training is listed separately under the list she gave me earlier, as a separate service available, I wonder if she could also tell me what that service charge was for.
Mrs. McIntosh: Employee Training should not have been listed as a core service, but it is a service, not a core one. It is a service and the cost is part of the figures that I have tabled. Training is for use of standard office software. We also pay a fee to move computer equipment if people are moving from one office to another or to an added application to a unit, that type of thing.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me what the department's plans are for expanding its desktop computers? I got the sense, very clearly, that there was a three-, four-year plan for reprovisioning, for updating computers. What are the department's plans for the next few years, two years, one year?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we do not have plans to expand in this area.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, another core service that the minister mentioned was asset management. Could the minister explain what is meant by asset management, and how that is dealt with in the contract? Is this asset management of the government's own equipment? What exactly does it mean?
Mrs. McIntosh: In terms of asset management, it is the notion of managing the equipment in the department, buying equipment and planning for its management, but maybe using other people rather than its own staff so that its own staff can concentrate on doing what it does best and leave the management of the asset to a person who does that best.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
This is a government-wide thrust, and if the member is wanting to get a lot of details on the overall contract and the overall understanding, it maybe should be done through the appropriate department, which would be Government Services, Supply and Services.
* (1620)
We can answer questions pertaining to Education on it, but in terms of the details, in terms of asset management, which would be right across the board, we will not necessarily have all the fine detail on that because we are not the lead department on it.
Ms. Friesen: Then, in terms of the department, what route would the department follow for the upgrading of its equipment?
The minister said they had no plans at the moment to expand, but presumably the department will have a plan and some contingencies for upgrading equipment, for taking advantage of new software that might come along that might be specifically useful to the Department of Education. Can the minister tell us how that is managed within this contract?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we use a tremendous amount of software in the Department of Education, especially curriculum software, a tremendous amount. That is excluded. That would be about 5,000 to 10,000 titles, so it is very substantive. Systemhouse will provide local area networks, work stations, building wiring, wide area networks, that type of thing, and this summer all of our equipment, it does not matter how old it is, will be replaced by desktop units. It will all be brand new this summer. All of the existing equipment--it is our hope and expectation--will be delivered to schools under the Computers for Schools Program, so it will be made good use of. Some of it is, as we indicated earlier, relatively recent. So that is how we see that evolving.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, so this summer, all the department will have new equipment. I assume--and maybe the minister could check whether this is the case--the 900 to 1,000 units that the department has now will be replaced by desktop units. Could the minister tell us who is going to replace that and what the cost is? Is that cost being paid by government? Is it reflected, for example, in the departmental accounts?
Then I want to come back to some issues of curriculum. There are two parts to this. The minister said that curriculum software is excluded, and that is a useful thing to know because, yes, that is a rapidly expanding area, but my question actually dealt with departmental program software. For example, there will be a large amount required for individualized cases such as in student records, as well as in post-secondary education student loans, as well as--and I am giving examples here obviously--in what has been carried over from the federal government in employment and training services.
There are many areas there where I would think--as well as in communication, desktop publishing itself--there are likely over the time of this contract to be new software programs available. So the second part of my question is is the department going to be able to have access to those as it chooses, or is it going to have those as part of its managed services, and is that the kind of thing, that selection and the training in those areas, that will be managed and directed by Systemhouse under this contract?
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
* (1630)
Mrs. McIntosh: There were a couple of questions there, a series of questions. One, who pays the capital? The answer of course is Government Services. How much? There is a budget line in the Minister of Government Services' (Mr. Pitura) Estimates that should answer that.
The member indicated it was good to know the curriculum was excluded, but what about other software like schools finance and labour market, et cetera, or must we use only the Systemhouse software? The answer is that we will buy only basic software from Systemhouse, and any other we will develop on our own or obtain elsewhere. We had indicated there were some 900 to 1,000 stations in the department. Not all of those are in scope, which is I think an important thing to make note of. Some are under discussion, some may be excluded. The maximum exclusion would probably be around 200 or so. I do not know if there were other questions. I think we got them all.
Ms. Friesen: So it is possible that only 700 new workstations will be delivered by Government Services this summer, and the department may still be left with 200 or comparable numbers, relative numbers, from elsewhere.
On the software, I wonder if the minister could give us a definition or what the contract definition is of basic software. I think that was listed under Core Services as standard office software. Is there a contract definition of what that is?
My other question under this whole issue of the actual equipment itself is the disposition, the disposal of the existing desktops, however many are to be disposed of. If the minister could give us some direction on how that is to be accomplished, is it to be done by the department? Is it to be done by Government Services? Will it be given to school divisions? How will they have access to it? How will they know about it? How does the minister intend to divide up four-year old equipment and one-year-old equipment?
Mrs. McIntosh: The basic software is standard office software. There is a contract definition that we would use: Microsoft Office 97. This can change. That is the standard one, and she had asked is there a contract definition, and the answer is that this could change, and the disposal, of course, would be again prime matter for Government Services, although we do have a commitment that maybe not all but a goodly sum, goodly majority of these, will go to the Computers for School program. Exactly how many, et cetera, we are not certain. The disposal in terms of that contract, Computers for Schools--there is a system in place that is used for school divisions to identify their needs and for us to supply them with available computers. For those that may not go that route, again, that would have to be decided, or the answers to be provided, by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura).
* (1640)
Ms. Friesen: I am a little puzzled as to what the department is gaining by this. Microsoft Office 97, I would assume, is in many parts of the department now. Training is extra. I assume that the department is connected to some elements of the provincial database. I assume that most elements of the department are on e-mail, that there is already a help desk included with, for example, IBM systems, and that the department is managing its assets now and that some parts of the department presumably are wired. Some have LAN; some have WAN. I would think they are all wired actually. So could the minister actually tell me what the department believes it is getting in this contract?
Mrs. McIntosh: The member had asked what we gained from this initiative. There are many things that we gained, or we would not be into it. Clearly, we would not be into an initiative if we were not gaining something from it because that would be irresponsible, and we do not work our government that way.
We will be getting new equipment much faster, which is nice. We have asked that management free our staff so that they can concentrate on doing the things that they are best at doing, freeing them to concentrate on the delivery of education and the various things that go into that for Manitobans. It will give us common platforms across all departments so that we will have an improvement in government communications which we think is rather important, and, of course, most importantly, we will be in compliance with the year 2000 and ready for implementation of Better Methods. So those are four off the top of our heads here that staff and I feel are obvious benefits that we think will greatly enhance our ability to do our jobs and--there may be others, but those are the short answers.
Ms. Friesen: Well, if half of the department's equipment is two years old or less, I would have thought that the year 2000 would have been dealt with in that; perhaps it is not. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many staff are being deployed elsewhere to concentrate on things they do best as a result of this initiative. I understood her earlier to say that one had gone to MERLIN and one had gone to the private sector. Are those the staff savings that she would be talking about?
And the minister said "new equipment much faster." Yes, I understand that the department will be getting mostly new equipment this coming year. What are the provisions for new equipment much faster in the succeeding years of the contract?
* (1650)
Mrs. McIntosh: The member had asked me what advantages I saw, and I gave some examples. I think what we have is just, clearly, she does not agree that those are advantages, but she made comments about each of them in terms of, say, the year 2000, for example, and she is correct that we would have complied on our own naturally. But the issue is that we are now having the corporate application that all departments have to buy into, and that requires common applications.
That is the real issue, not just the simple compliance which we are going to do anyhow, but we will get it done through this method, which is an advantage, because we will have it done with a corporate application. The member, I think, has to agree that that is a true advantage if you just look at how long it takes sometimes to do things, integrated payroll systems, trying to integrate them, procurement, and so on, accounts receivable, those, if you have got a corporate-wide application and you are bringing in new initiatives such as becoming year-2000 compliant, you could do them so much better.
The member talked about staff--it did not really sound like a very nice statement; it sounded a bit sarcastic, but I do not think it really was--where the member said, what are we going to do with all our staff now? How are we going to redeploy them? Once we save all this time they will--what on earth will we have them do? We will have to obviously redeploy them elsewhere.
Well, no, as I indicated, this will now free up staff to be able to concentrate on the things they do best, for which they were hired, and which they are currently doing. But they do from time to time get bogged down with other things that take time off task in ways that they would prefer to have changed and that we would prefer to have changed.
So this is one advantage for those people. It will enable them to get their assigned tasks done in a more timely fashion so that the member opposite will have less ability to complain about how long it takes us to get things done in the department. They will have more time. They do not move slowly, they move very quickly, but, as I say, this will enable them to concentrate on the duties for which they have been hired and for which they have been trained and which they do best. They certainly are not going to be redeployed. They will just be able to do things more efficiently and in a more timely fashion for the good of the students of Manitoba.
So I think maybe I still see those advantages as being very real and valid advantages and we will just have to agree to disagree that I see those as advantages and the member opposite does not.
Ms. Friesen: It is difficult to see in the future how the future in the department will be different from what the department indicates it had planned for itself in terms of upgrading its equipment and in training and in staff work. What I was doing was trying to figure out from the elements the minister had offered to us was what the department was already doing. It seems to me that for $2.5 million, I am not convinced that the department is getting $2.5-million worth, on an annual basis, of improved service, but if the minister believes she is then certainly we will have to leave it at that and we will look for the evidence in later years.
I wonder if the minister could--I am sorry, did the minister want to put something on the record? Is she interrupting? I cannot believe the minister is interrupting. I just could not believe that.
Mrs. McIntosh: I thank the member. I was just nodding agreement from my seat and saying that is true. I agree that the years hence will show the results and I very much appreciate her--I was not interrupting; I was just nodding agreement with her, agreeing with her, but I very much appreciate her providing me with the chance to put that on the record. That is very gracious, and I thank her very much.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister about security issues, confidentiality, and the records of the department. What part of the contract refers to this? Could the minister table sections of the contract or perhaps something which gives us her understanding of how confidentiality is to be maintained?
I am thinking particularly of the sections of core services that the minister mentioned: the connections with the provincial database, the provisions of local area management, the moving of people from office to office, all the things that would link departments with departments across government. Obviously, there are some advantages to that. One of the disadvantages, of course, is the issue of confidentiality and the layering of information, the adding of information in different sections of an individual's record with government. Could the minister give us some indication of how those issues will be maintained as separate issues?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we maintain our databases, and they are not transferred through any other vehicle.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, well, what does the minister mean by core services connecting with the provincial database? Are the departmental databases not part of a provincial database?
Mr. Chairperson: I think we are going to leave that answer for tomorrow. The hour now being five o'clock, time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.