Hon. Mr. Caldwell

Mr. Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell

Mr. Harry Enns, MLA for Lakeside

Mr. Jack Penner, MLA for Emerson

Bill 12–The Public Schools Amendment Act

Mr. Abe Janzen, Private Citizen

Dr. Terry Lewis, Private Citizen

Ms. Marion Hart, Private Citizen

Bill 42–The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. Rudy Peters, Private Citizen

Mr. Ed Hume, Private Citizen

Bill 42–The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 12–The Public Schools Amendment Act

Bill 42–The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Clerk Assistant (JoAnn McKerlie-Korol): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. The first order of business is the election of a Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): I move that the Member for Burrows take the seat as Chair.

Madam Clerk Assistant: Mr. Martindale has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Martindale, would you please take the Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: The next item of business before the Committee is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

Mr. Struthers: I nominate the Member for Brandon West to be the Vice-Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: The Member for Brandon West, Mr. Smith, has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Smith, Brandon West, has been appointed Vice-Chair.

This evening the Committee will be resuming consideration of the following bills: No. 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act; No. 42, The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; and Bill No. 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act.

At the meeting held on July 25, the following agreements had been reached. A time limit of 15 minutes for presentations and 5 for questions and answers had been agreed to. It had been agreed to hear out-of-town presenters first. It was agreed that presenters who were not in attendance but had their names called would be dropped to the bottom of the list. Therefore, those presenters from out of town not in attendance last evening were dropped to the bottom of the list.

It was further agreed that the names would then be dropped from the list after being called twice. As a courtesy to persons waiting to give a presentation, did the Committee wish to indicate how late it is wishing to sit this evening?

Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): I would like to suggest that we proceed with presentations and then we can canvass after we have the out-of-town presentations first and then as many as possible, and we will canvass around midnight.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been suggested that we hear presentations and canvass the Committee around midnight. Agreed? [Agreed]

I would also like to inform the Committee that a written submission from Susan Boyachek, Rural Municipality of Ethelbert, has been received. Copies of this brief have been made for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting. Does the Committee grant its consent to have this written submission appear in the Committee transcript for this meeting? Agreed? [Agreed]

I will read the names of those persons registered to speak this evening. Bill 12: Abe Janzen, Dr. Terry Lewis, Marion Hart.

Bill 42, Jan Speelman, Ric Dela Cruz, Wendy Moroz, Paul Moist, Dan Overall, Susan Popeski, Dan Kelly, Marijka Spytkowsky, Chris Pammeter, Victor Vrsnik, Barry Wittevrongel, Linda Brezina, Al Cerilli, Bob Land, James Bedford, Wendy Land, Henry Pauls, Roland Stankevicius, Darrell Rankin, Diane Zuk, Ruth Ann Furgala, Sandra Williams, Betty Green, Colleen Jury, Pam Stinson, Rudy Peters.

Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. If there is anybody else in the audience that would like to register or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register at the back of the room. Just a reminder that 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying please see the Clerk of this committee.

We have presenters for Bills 12 and 42. In what order does the Committee wish to hear these presentations?

Floor Comment: Bill 12 first.

Mr. Chairperson: Bill 12 first. Agreed? [Agreed]

Can I ask those persons in attendance who are speaking in French to please make themselves known to the Clerk of the Committee. Is there leave of the committee to hear those persons making presentations in French after the out-of-town presenters? [Agreed]

We will now continue with public presentations. I would like to call Mr. Abe Janzen, private citizen, presenting on Bill 12. Is Mr. Janzen present? Please proceed, sir.

Mr. Abe Janzen (Private Citizen): Good evening, Chairman Martindale, Minister Caldwell and committee members. Wishing to contribute to your understanding of home schoolers in Manitoba, this presentation is intended to help in the education amendment process. Having been involved with home schoolers for the last 13 years at both the provincial and local support group level, I have observed the variety of people that utilize this educational option to successfully prepare their offspring to become productive citizens of this province.

Although the proposed amendment may be similar to what is presently being done by many home schoolers in regard to registering and reporting, I know of a significant number of families who, in the past, have not registered nor reported, who nevertheless very successfully educated as can be observed by the product that has been produced. The lack of control and regulation has not seemed to hinder the educational process. It is these people's faith-based conviction that parents have sole jurisdiction over the education and training of their offspring. They and I believe that this is a God-given right and responsibility. These families will object and may not comply with the amendment as proposed, as they take full responsibility and assume all costs associated with their method of educating.

* (18:40)

I believe their conviction and educational freedoms need to be taken into account. This conviction does not include the option to not educate or train their children. Bill 12 may therefore be seen as an unnecessary intrusion into their lives by a certain segment of Manitoba home educators. A clause to make registering and recording an option seems necessary. We request you to consider this.

In conclusion, I have appreciated the friendly atmosphere and encouragement from Minister Caldwell and his associates in Manitoba Education and Training. I look forward to working with you in a co-operative manner as we make every effort to raise citizens with good character and productive skills. We appreciate our educational liberties. Respectfully submitted.

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you, Mr. Janzen, for appearing here this evening. I, too, appreciate my opportunity to meet with you and discuss home-schooling issues. I know that we will continue to meet and discuss home-schooling issues. For my benefit more than yours, sir, I do appreciate the insight that you have offered me in our discussions. I do take the comments that you make in your presentation to heart. I know that the Department will also take them to heart. I look forward to working with you more in the future.

So thank you, sir, for coming here this evening and presenting. I look forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Janzen, thank you for your presentation. I have just one question. In your discussions with the Minister, are you comfortable with the reasons that have compelled the Minister to move these amendments in the legislation?

Mr. Janzen: We, personally, do not have a great problem because we have been doing as requested, but it has been a courtesy after the law is passed and it would be a requirement. I would be much in favour of the amended proposal as submitted by HSLDA, a different wording and a change of the reporting procedure.

Mr. Derkach: That would be that there would be more flexibility in the structure of the reporting to the Department, is that correct?

Mr. Janzen: Right. What was proposed was that reporting would only be necessary when Department of Education officials felt a need, and we would then respond within two weeks.

Mr. Derkach: Thank you very much, Mr. Janzen.

Mr. Janzen: Your welcome.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Janzen, for your presentation.

Mr. Janzen: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter is Dr. Terry Lewis, private citizen.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Private Citizen): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, respected members of government, members of committee, Minister. Actually, I was going to present last night but could not. It was late yesterday morning that I became aware of this hearing with respect to Bill 12, and forgive me if this presentation lacks some of the qualities and diplomacy additional time would have provided. I am not aware of the steps that the Committee took to insure the broadest possible consultation with affected individuals to enable the greatest wisdom to be applied to such a sensitive matter.

I must also caution the Committee to move slowly on this matter to remove the fears of many home schoolers that the legislation proposed will be used to disregard their religious rights and freedoms. Although home schoolers have nothing to hide with respect to the quality of education that they give to their children, nevertheless the open-ended dimensions of the Bill leave to the imagination, based upon experience in other jurisdictions and in the past within this province, high suspect of what will follow. Speaking plainly, the New Democratic Government is also viewed at times as an extension of the agendas of unions that seek to impose their interest upon the populace. In this case, the Manitoba teachers' union would be viewed by many home schoolers as hostile towards home schooling, as it has a vested interest in eliminating alternative schooling within the province. This is especially true in rural communities, where small schools are facing closure.

With respect to the requirement of the new bill in registering their children, there are many home-school parents that would resist this requirement with all that they have, because they believe that the Scripture gives parents and not the State the authority to educate their children. When the State of Michigan sought to enforce a similar control among the Amish, whose children were never unemployed nor in trouble with the laws, the news and media captured the police driving up in force and apprehending the children of these God-fearing people and taking their children away. Such a home invasion is not outside the fears of these parents who are diligently teaching their children at home. A simple notification of the fact that the parents are home-schooling their children would sufficiently satisfy the needs of the Government. These parents are connected to a national legal insurance organization that would not hesitate to defend them all the way to the Supreme Court. Without getting into case history, both nationally and internationally, it is a case the Government would lose both legally and politically.

With respect to the requirement to reporting, the requirements to report in Bill 12 is too open-ended. It reminds me of the home-school case late in the 1970s, the Andryshen [phonetic] case, '77, where a certified teacher and principal of a school in Springfield school district decided to home-school their children. The number of visits by the Government and the request for materials were never ending. The Bill gives the Government blank cheques to fill in as often as they want and as much as they want.

With respect to the rights of parents, what is missing from the Bill, at least in Bill 12, is an indication of the rights of parents while it strongly stipulates the responsibility of parents. There are national and international laws that speak to the rights of parents regarding their ability to determine the type of education they desire for their children. This is the very concern that many home schoolers have with respect to the open-end of the legislation.

I am sorry. I did not give you some of these. I will leave them at the table.

Back in the days when Jim Keegstra was teaching social studies in Alberta public school, the question was raised in the concern to home schoolers about how government can prevent parents who are intolerant of other people's views from passing on to their children their bigoted perspectives. The Alberta Report responded with the following quote: The principle is simple. Where there is a conflict between what the parent wants taught to his child and what the community as a whole wants taught to the child, the view of the community must prevail. If a parent wants race hatred taught to the child, then the community as a whole is going to have the power to overrule the parent.

Now notice in this example, the Government automatically stands for tolerance and the parent for bigotry.

I wonder what happens if we turn around that principle. The principle is simple: When there is a conflict between what a parent wants taught and the view of the community taught, the view of the community must prevail. If the community wants race hatred taught, and the parent objects, then the community as a whole is going to have to have the power to overrule the parent. This, of course, is simply another way of stating the same principle, though somehow it has lost its appeal.

The point is this. Governments are not always right, and the rights of individual parents need to be protected. The Government should have to prove that there is substantial evidence to indicate that there is a need for intervention into a home school. Such intervention should have due process under the law with appeal mechanisms in place that this bill does not address.

As to the rights of government, whether or not the Government has a right to have an educated citizenry is an issue for lawyers and politicians to debate. But the need for a person to have communication skills and numeracy skills in our society seems self-evident. That should be the Government's primary concern. To go beyond that could lead to social engineering based on the ideology of the government of the time. The bottom line should not be who controls education, but that the children are receiving an education.

Also, the law should not be enforced in a prejudicial manner that would treat inner city or northern communities in one type of schooling differently than students in a different type of schooling in the suburbs or southern communities. Expectations and enforcements should not violate the equality rights of parents and students regardless of race or location. Research indicates that home-taught students are receiving an excellent education. The Government needs to focus on institutions and locations where there are record numbers of students not completing their education or doing poorly at it.

Sorry, I could not put that more diplomatically, but it is somewhat straight to the point in speaking plainly. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Doctor Lewis.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Doctor Lewis, for coming in this evening and presenting. I understand it is your anniversary. So happy anniversary.

Mr. Lewis: Well, thank you. I am here on just special dispensation from my wife.

Mr. Caldwell: I believe that is the case. Thank you very much for taking the time out. I am glad that you were able to come back this evening to present this. I think you present some interesting comments in your brief to the Committee, and certainly some of the points you make will be taken under advisement as we deliberate this bill. Thank you, sir.

* (18:50)

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Thank you for your attendance here this evening. As your communications have gone on this topic with the Minister and your organization, are you satisfied that the end justifies the means? In other words, of this particular piece of legislation, do you see the value in it? Has that been communicated to you? Are you fully understanding of the purpose of the legislation?

Mr. Lewis: Basically, as I look at the legislation as I have it here before me I am somewhat concerned, as I have mentioned in my brief, at the openendedness which leaves the purpose in question. I am not too sure what ends we are trying to meet with what means. I am concerned that if this legislation were to go forth and be enforced the way it is, it could lead to individuals within the Department that are somewhat overly zealous in pursuing these ends, that could create a lot of problems, not only for home schoolers, but for home schooling in general and the Government itself. So I am not too sure, other than the fact that there is a desire to have a co-operative spirit. This is more of a legislative spirit rather than a co-operative spirit that we have had before. I think that if we can continue the means that we have had in the past, we can accomplish the same things without what would appear to be coercive.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Lewis, a long time ago we had some deliberations about home schooling as home schooling was just getting off the ground and was becoming more popular, I guess, in the province with parents across Manitoba. My question to you is: In your mind, how has this home-schooling process worked in the province to date?

Mr. Lewis: We have seen progress in many, many ways. I have been at this since 1977, and so I have been at this for 23 years, and have sat down with I think every Minister of Education except one since the days of Keith Cosens. We have seen progress. We have seen where the Government has had to intervene in situations where you have had an overzealous superintendent or an overzealous representative within the Department, and there has always been a spirit where we have always tried to move towards communication and co-operation rather than confrontation. So I have seen progress over the years. You are right, we do go back a long way. There were many discussions back then, and I think there is a very positive spirit between the Department of Education at this point and home schoolers, and we want to keep it that way.

Mr. Derkach: Do you see that amendments to this bill at this time are going to enhance the co-operation, or is this indeed going to cause an impediment to the spirit that exists today between the home schoolers and the Department?

Mr. Lewis: If I understood your question right, Mr. Derkach, the amendments or the Bill?

Floor Comment: The amendments, sorry.

Mr. Lewis: I think with the amendments that have been proposed and set forth by Gerald Huebner and others, the home-school legal defence, I think that will go a long way to alleviate some of the fears that are out there. This bill, the way it stands at this point, has generated a lot of fear and a lot of concern, and sometimes the fear of the unknown is greater than known. When you hear about situations in other jurisdictions and hear about past situations, all those fears come to bear. So, with the amendments, I think that would go a long way to alleviate the fears, and with those amendments I think you would substantiate that co-operative spirit and good relationship that has been there in the last 20 years.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Doctor Lewis. The next presenter is Marion Hart, private citizen. Please proceed.

Ms. Marion Hart (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairperson, Honourable Minister, Honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen. My husband and I have made the decision to take full responsibility for the education of our children, including all costs involved, according to our rights as stated in section 26.3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. We are concerned about the amend-ments proposed to Bill 12 because of the undefined nature of the provisions for registration and reporting.

I have taught for nine years in the public school system for two different school boards and have networked with teachers from across the province. Reporting styles and frequency have been developed to reflect a variety of assessment techniques. I have used portfolios, letter grades, percentages, terms such as very good, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory. These have not only varied from school division to school division but from school to school and even course to course. There certainly has been a need for such diversity of reporting due to a variety of student needs. Home-school families have, up to this point, been reporting in a variety of styles as well. Why would the Minister see a need to introduce a change to the current practice in section 260.1(4) by requiring reporting and even discussing a need to develop a form?

Parents are allowed to send their children to any school they elect because of the provision of school of choice. Having the option of school of choice, does providing "the name of the school or school division each pupil would otherwise attend" as in section 260.1(3) become a relevant requirement?

Teachers know that in any given classroom approximately one-third of the students will be at grade level, one-third higher and one-third lower. They are given the task of developing programs which will best encourage all to progress, knowing that they will all progress at different speeds of learning in different subject areas. Teachers do a great job of providing learning opportunities for students at varying learning readiness regardless of specified grade level. Many K to Grade 8 schools practise a no-fail policy except for extreme cases. Home schooling allows for progress at the pace of the student. In a national study conducted in 1994, home-educated students scored in the 82nd percentile in standardized tests in comparison to the national norm of the 50th percentile. Mr. Huebner attached this study to his brief yesterday. The standards are being met and often exceeded, so does providing "the grade level for each pupil" as in section 260.1(3) bcome a relevant requirement?

As a home-school family, we were informed that the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) met with Gerald Huebner of the Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schools and assured MACHS that the Government was committed to protecting the rights of parents to home school, that the Government did not have a problem with home schooling and that the Government was committed to co-operation and communication with home schoolers before any changes were made. Our organization is committed to working with the Government on issues pertaining to home schooling. In the one meeting MACHS did have with the Minister of Education, we were informed that any changes would be mere "housekeeping" and that the present mode of regulation and procedure would not change to any great extent. We were frustrated that changes were being introduced to The Public Schools Act that directly affect home-schooling families in the province without any further consultation with MACHS. Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act, in our opinion, is more than mere "housekeeping."

Yesterday, on July 25, Mr. Minister, you stated that you desired to work in consultation with home schoolers. We look forward to the opportunity to help with the amendments to this bill, and encourage your support of Manitoba home-educating families.

Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Thank you so much for your presentation. It was very insightful and we can tell the dedication that you do have to the education of your children. My question to you is: In the event this Bill 12 goes through in its present form, would the home schoolers feel threatened in any way if that did occur?

* (19:00)

Ms. Hart: Yes, I think, without the amendments that we have recommended, we would certainly feel that way. With there not being anything concrete, say, for example, in the style of the form of reporting, with not being a participant in how that form would be developed, that would worry some people and would certainly stifle the way they would want to teach their children.

Mr. Caldwell: I, too, appreciate the report that you presented, Ms. Hart. Thank you very much for taking the time to come out this evening. I just want to address a couple of issues. The forum that is referred to, it is that forum in the sense of a forum, like a piece of paper, but a forum of reporting that is to be articulated, not a form as in a report card or something like that. I just wanted to clarify that, because I know there was some confusion last night about that as well.

Can I draw out from you a little bit in terms of the amendments that you would suggest in terms of making this bill more amenable or more suitable? Could you expand a little bit on that for me beyond what you have in the paper in terms of what you would like to see or what sort of amendments specifically in detail a little bit more for me please?

Ms. Hart: I believe the way that we have operated in the past has been satisfactory. I question why this needs to be changed. I believe this has been a method that has been working. My fellow home schoolers have not felt threatened, that they have felt that it was their duty to allow the Department of Education to know they were home-schooling their children and they were taking the onus upon themselves as a family unit to make sure that they do their best using their God-given talents to train their children. So I feel that home schoolers would not be comfortable with the amendment act.

Mr. Derkach: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Hart. I am wondering, you raise several questions throughout your presentation, as a matter of fact, a question at the end of each section. Has there ever been an expression from authorities in the Department of Education and Training in the course of the last year or two with regard to shortcomings or concerns regarding regulations with home schooling?

Ms. Hart: As far as I am aware as a parent, obviously I cannot represent all of home schoolers. I am not personally aware of any problems, so I question why the Department of Education feels that they need to develop something when there was not anything to worry about in the first place.

Mrs. Smith: One part of the Bill, Ms. Hart, I think I commend you for addressing and meeting with Mr. Huebner, the part that if there are any concerns from Manitoba Education and Training, then you would recommend the Minister indeed would have the authority to check into that. I think that is one thing the Minister probably did have some concerns about, because it was written into the Bill. The spirit of co-operation that you are talking about, I commend you for that because, correct me if I am wrong, but what you really want is the ability to make your own choice in a democratic society?

Ms. Hart: Yes, that is exactly how I believe that the home schoolers in the province of Manitoba feel, that they would like to retain their right to educate according to their personal beliefs.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Hart. The time has expired. Is there anyone else who wishes to present on Bill 12? If so, please come to the podium. Seeing none, we will go on to Bill 42.

Mr. Chairperson: We are going to out-of-town presenters on Bill 42, starting with Ruth Ann Furgala or Vivian Leduchowski from Evergreen School Division. We have both of them. Good. Please proceed.

Ms. Ruth Ann Furgala (Trustee, Evergreen School Division): Mr. Chairman, Honourable Minister, Evergreen School Division would like to thank the Law Amendments review committee for providing us with the opportunity to present our concerns in regard to Bill 42.

Our school division is very concerned about the implementation of Bill 42 as it will take away the local elective school board's ability to provide educational services for our children in their communities. Bill 42 moves the onus of education away from the best interests of kids to labour relations issues. We feel that the best place to determine the best interests of kids is at the local level and that any legislation that impedes the ability to make those decisions in the best interests of kids at the local level should be revised or deleted.

It is our position that the present bill adequately provided the structures to deal with labour relations issues. We would like to reinforce the brief of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees to the Law Amendments review committee on Bill 42. The following are the critical points that we would endorse in their presentation.

Ms. Vivian Leduchowski (Trustee, Evergreen School Division): To the extent that this bill shifts decision-making authority away from elected community representatives and to the teachers' union and arbitrators, this bill compromises the educational interests of Manitoba children. School boards have existed to translate its community hopes and aspirations to its young people into a soundly sustainable educational system.

Evergreen School Division has a track record of providing a very quality education with limited resources. We have one of the lowest costs per pupil as well. We have one of lowest mill rates in the province. We have accomplished all of this with declining revenue from the Province. We presently now only receive approximately 56 percent of our revenue from the Province. We are the second lowest in the province.

We are concerned that the items in Bill 42 will increase the amount that our local taxpayers will have to pay to maintain our present education system. We have managed to balance the responsibility of providing the best possible education for our students with the responsibility to manage our resources effectively and efficiently and to honour the concerns that our local taxpayers had expressed in regard to the taxes they pay. If Bill 42 affirms that democratic local school divisions and districts play an important role in providing public education that is responsive to the needs and conditions of its local constituents, then the legislation should provide school boards with the ability to fulfil this very important responsibility.

We believe that collective bargaining is a very important part of our organization. We bargain in good faith with both of our unions. Arbitration is not an unbiased means of resolving dispute. It has historically resulted in increased costs for school boards. The place to work through the issues around collective bargaining is at the local table. Our school board was prepared to accept the present arbitration structure and mediation structure. However, the one proposed here provides great concern for us.

Arbitrators are not elected school boards. School boards are. School boards are accountable to their constituents around taxation. Often, the decision of arbitrators do not have to suffer the wrath of the taxpayer. Clearly, this is a flaw in the arbitration system.

Ms. Furgala: We support the MAST position that states that they support the existing Public Schools Act which provides for reasonable limitations and arbitrators in areas of management rights and requires arbitrators to consider the ability for school boards to pay in making awards. The existing legislation balances this limitation by giving teachers the right to grieve school board decisions in areas precluded from the arbitrations.

* (19:10)

The legislation introduced through Bill 72 in 1996 sought to rectify the deterioration that had become increasingly evident in the collective bargaining process. There was, in our estimation, a fair balance between the needs of both parties. We would like to retain the section of Bill 72 that says: The selection, appointment, assignment and transfer of teachers and principals, the method of evaluating the performance of teachers and principals, the sizes of classes, and the scheduling of recesses and midday breaks be maintained as management rights.

School divisions need the flexibility to manage human resources in a manner that best serves the interests of their students. In some instances, this may entail signing or transferring teachers to different schools. It may also mean decisions about the allocation of resources. School boards have an additional responsibility in assuring that the teachers and principals that they employ perform their duties in a competent manner. Boards are responsible for the safety of their students and their school. Supervision of students is essential with this responsibility.

The Minister of Education has stated that the current collective bargaining provision was designed to disadvantage teachers. We disagree with this statement. Current legislation balances the rights of employer and employees by requiring that they both act in a fair manner. Should a school board not act fairly, the legislation gives the teachers the right to launch a grievance.

Ms. Leduchowski: Bill 42 will accelerate the rise in educational costs and will drive up property taxes significantly for years to come. In the spring Manitoba Education and Training announced increased funding to public school system. Evergreen School Division did not receive any of this increased funding. It is our understanding that as many as 40 school divisions did not receive an increase in funding.

The rising costs that are associated with education will require that school boards make very wise use of the limited resources they have and balance the best interests of kids and taxes on an equal playing field. Many of the issues that have been forwarded publicly require a better look at the data. For the most part, Evergreen School Division's average class size is around 17 pupils per classroom. Our educational ratio is just over 17. We have one of the highest ratios in the province. Yet, the majority of our classes have 22 or less kids. We feel that we have truly balanced the needs of students with our ability to pay. We have honoured both class sizes and taxpayers' concerns on equal playing fields.

We would not like a bill that is passed that will further erode the ability for us to make those important decisions and increase the instability of school divisions based on disgruntled taxpayers. We are therefore finally opposed to the principles presented in Bill 42. If Bill 42 goes ahead, the right to strike must go with it. Otherwise, the fairness and equity that is promoted in Bill 42 is a fairness and equity only to the teachers' union. Other than treating teachers like all other employees, Bill 42 ensures that teachers will be treated like no other employee group. It would be hard to defend fairness and equity based on this premise.

The definition of teacher also is problematic. The current legislation requires a teacher to hold an individual form of contract. All that the new definition requires is to be employed by a school board and hold a valid and existing teacher's certificate. This definition could apply to substitute teachers. This also creates problems on form 2A contracts. This is an area of Bill 42 that requires extensive consultation before it moves forward.

The inclusion of principals in the bargaining unit is a concern to our board. Inclusion of management personnel is more properly a matter for the Manitoba Labour Board to decide, as is the case with employers and unions under The Labour Relations Act. School boards should have the same right and opportunity as other employers to have this matter addressed through this mechanism. The arbitration process and timelines have concerns that have been expressed by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. We would like to reinforce the concerns that are expressed in their presentation. Several provisions of Bill 42 make reference to The Labour Relations Act. As The Labour Relations Act is an amendment, the full impact of Bill 42 on school divisions cannot be assessed. We therefore feel that Bill 42 should be tabled until The Labour Relations Act has been amended and passed.

Ms. Furgala: Evergreen School Division is a very efficient and effective school division that attempts to balance the environment of the school division for the best interest of its staff and its students. We feel that the proposed changes in Bill 42 will single out teachers for preferential treatment and thus destroy the environmental relationship that has been established in our school division. We do not feel that this in the best interest of our students, of our public, or of our communities. We urge you not to pass Bill 42 or to make significant revisions to Bill 42 that address the concerns that we have identified and those brought in the brief from MAST.

We thank you for your time, and we trust that our concerns and recommendations will be dealt with in revisions or a complete withdrawal of Bill 42.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you to both of you.

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you for coming down from Gimli this evening to present to us. I certainly appreciate the remarks you make. We heard many of the similar remarks made last night. As you know, it was a long night and morning last night.

I just want to make mention of a couple of points. The definition of teacher being problematic. I think we have heard that quite consistently, so I want to assure you that I have heard that message quite clearly. So we will take that under advisement. You make a point in page 2, I guess, fourth paragraph, the legislation introduced through Bill 72, in 1996, sought to rectify that deterioration had become increasingly evident in the collective bargaining process.

Could you expand that a little bit about what your experience was in Evergreen and what you mean by that?

Mr. Chairperson: Which one of you would like to answer that? I need to acknowledge your name for Hansard.

Ms. Leduchowski: Leduchowski.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Ms. Leduchowski, please.

Ms. Leduchowski: With arbitration, as you know in other school divisions, when an arbitrator brings down a recommendation, it certainly is effective on the taxpayers. Every time that I have been at the collective bargaining table and arbitration has come forward, it certainly raises the taxpayers' money, and there are less programs that we have to look at for the kids because of an arbitration reward. Point in fact, it is precedent setting, and point in fact would be the noon hour, 55-minute uninterrupted lunch hour. That certainly has cost us a lot in Evergreen School Division because we are a small community. Out in Arborg where I come from, we have a hard time getting supervisors to be able to look after children. We have to do a lot of timetabling to be able to allow teachers to do this. It certainly has cost us a lot of money.

Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Thank you for your very clear presentation tonight. It was very succinct and well thought out.

I do have a question. Last night, as you know, we had committee meetings, and we heard many different presentations. You said in your brief that the Minister of Education stated that the current collective bargaining provisions were designed to disadvantage teachers and that you disagreed with that. We also heard last night that teachers also said that the former Bill 72 disadvantaged teachers a great deal, and they felt they were put at a disadvantage in terms of their workplace environment. Could you comment on how we could find some sort of centre between teachers and trustees to ensure that these needs are being met for the teachers? Is this an unrealistic thing that teachers are asking for or they believe that taxes will not rise or not likely to rise? Could you comment on that, please?

Ms. Leduchowski: Actually, in our division we have not had any trouble with our teachers. We were against the duty-free lunch hours. Things were working really well. Since that has been implemented, we find that there is a lot more problem on the schoolyards, the safety of the kids. We have had to look at different issues regarding the safety of our children, and we certainly have dealt with this.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): Thank you for travelling here this evening and presenting the views of Evergreen School Division. It has always been my view that kids in school should not be used as pawns in a labour dispute. I notice in your presentation, however, that you seem to be in favour of teachers having the right to strike. Do you also favour management having the right to lock teachers out?

Floor Comment: Absolutely.

Mr. Chairperson: We need to get that on the record.

Ms. Furgala: Yes, with strike or lockout, both sides have the ability to take it to the next step. You know, it puts a concrete end in front of both parties, and they both have to negotiate in good faith.

* (19:20)

Mrs. Smith: In terms of Bill 42, if Bill 42 did go through, in your view, in its present form, how would that impact on the relationship you have with the teachers in your school division and the taxpayers?

Ms. Furgala: I believe that we have a very good relationship with both of our unions, and I would not really want to put a guess on the table at where the position would change.

I can advise you that a number of the articles that have been given by arbitration in different awards were not local initiatives. What happened when we went to the bargaining table is that we were already told it is not a debatable issue anymore, you know they are going to get it if they go to an arbitrator, work on something else. So arbitration awards that are made affect every school division down the line; it is just a matter of fact.

Ms. Leduchowski: Just a point in fact, for instance, the new arbitration award that just came out in regard to maternity, the topping of the 90 percent, I mean we know we are going to meet with our teachers, that is going to be there, and we know it is only a matter of time that they are definitely going to get it, and it is going to cost us big dollars.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Just for the benefit of members, I am keeping a speaker's list based on whose hand goes up first, so if you wish to catch the attention of the Chair, please–

Mr. Enns, on a point of order.

Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): On a point of order, I would like to test the generosity of the government members at this stage and ask leave for one question.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for Mr. Enns to ask one question? [Agreed]

Mr. Enns: Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Chairman. To the presenters, thank you for the presentation. As an MLA for some time and an MLA from the Interlake, a complaint that I all too often hear and regrettably hear about trustees, fairly or unfairly, is they are challenged or accused of not being accountable. That is partly the way our tax structure is. You present your budgets to the municipal authorities; the municipal authorities then have to place it to the taxpayers. That is a fairly common complaint, generally speaking, about trustees throughout the province.

So, if I understood the gist of your presentation here, taking away any of the accountability of trustees lessens the stature or the role of the trustees in our system. If outside bodies, arbitrators, something like that, significantly impact on the budgets that you are then forced to pass on to another taxing authority like the municipality, it, in my opinion, weakens or lessens the role of the trustee.

I just wanted to ask you if I understood your presentation right because that is a major concern with respect to the Bill that you are presenting.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Leduchowski or Ms. Furgala?

Ms. Furgala: My name is shorter. Yes, we agree with that.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

The next out-of-town presenter is Sandra Williams, Souris Valley School Division No. 42. Is Sandra Williams here? Sandra Williams? That name will be dropped from the list.

The next presenter is Betty Green, Lakeshore School Division No. 23.

Floor Comment: It will come back in the end.

Mr. Chairperson: Just for clarification of members, once a name has been called twice, it is dropped off the list. Her name was called last night, and so tonight was the second time the name was called. I am going by the advice that I am getting here.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Just a question, Mr. Chair, for clarification. If the name is called twice in one sitting or twice in the entire sitting?

Mr. Chairperson: My understanding is that we agreed last night that after a name was called twice, it would be dropped from the list. That presenter was not here last night and is not here tonight. We agreed not to call the names twice last night, which would have been unfair at 4:20 in the morning, but it was called the second time tonight. She was not here last night or tonight.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, with the indulgence of the Committee, if it would not be a great inconvenience, if we do wrap up tonight for the presentations on this committee, if we would call these out-of-town presenters one more time in tonight's sitting. I do believe that some of these are from out of town. I think this one is from Souris and, in fact, could be en route. I do not know that.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairman, my advice to the Committee is that the name has been called twice and, given the agreement that we came to yesterday, I think the name drops off the list now.

Mrs. Smith: I request that if this Sandra Williams does make it in to Winnipeg, because of the distance she is travelling, I think it would be very discourteous to refuse to let her present. So I am requesting that if Sandra Williams does turn up, she be allowed to present.

Mr. Chairperson: Would it be acceptable to members if we canvassed the room again later for out-of-town presenters, just in case someone is driving in, as was suggested? Is that agreed? [Agreed].

Betty Green, please proceed.

Ms. Betty Green (Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Lakeshore School Division): Good evening. I would like to introduce the Vice-Chair of Lakeshore School Division who will be helping me present this evening, Ms. Kelly Decker. Kelly will be beginning.

Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry. I must make sure I have the right name here. You are Betty Green.

Ms. Green: Yes.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, and the other person again, sorry, is.

Ms. Green: Kelly Decker.

Mr. Chairperson: Kelly Decker, proceed.

Ms. Kelly Decker (Vice-Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Lakeshore School Division): Thank you. Good evening.

The Board of Trustees of Lakeshore School Division is unanimously opposed to Bill 42. If enacted, this legislation will change the bargaining environment between school boards and our teachers and will negatively impact on our school system and, most importantly, on our students.

In the preamble of Bill 42, government acknowledges the important purpose of the public school system and the role of the democratic local school division in providing public education that is responsive to local needs and conditions. Emphasized in the preamble is the mandate of the public education to serve the best educational interests of the students. It goes on to identify the challenging, complex task we face in working to meet the needs of our diverse student population. This preamble articulates the essence the school divisions across Manitoba have included in their mission statements. The legislation thereafter proceeds to ignore the truth and the importance of their preamble and proposes changes that will undermine school divisions' abilities to fulfil the Government's statement of principles and their own mandate and mission.

To further complicate the challenge before us, the Government has proceeded to make changes to The Labour Relations Act simultaneously in Bill 44. In both cases, the consultation process was inadequate and provided for little or no meaningful discussion. In addition, the legislation has been introduced during the summer when school divisions, teachers, parent councils, do not normally meet.

The basic structure of collective bargaining must strike a delicate balance where employees and employers are encouraged to negotiate a mutually agreed to contract. The education system includes a final dispute resolution process of binding arbitration and therefore, in order to avoid serious skewing of the system, we must provide limitations such as management-right clauses and restore the desired balance.

The proposed legislation and recent arbitrated settlements severely limit the ability of boards to effectively manage their division while offering students the best possible education and remaining fiscally responsible to our taxpayers.

* (19:30)

Lakeshore has met with the rural municipalities within our school division, and they share our concerns. The tax burden on our sparsely populated division, with the low assessment, has risen to meet the needs of our students at the expense of infrastructure and taxpayers' needs. The impact of this legislation will raise expenditure beyond the capacity of our taxpayers' ability to pay.

Our primary concern is meeting the needs of our students. School boards are elected to translate the community's wishes and aspirations for their children into an affordable education system. As elected officials, trustees balance those ideals with the ability to raise the funds needed to provide for that system, either from provincial grants or from our special levy.

The last provincial budget promised adequate funding, but the increases were not sufficient to address the inflationary costs of the Division, let alone the increases faced due to contract and programming costs. This legislation will escalate those costs further. Who is going to pay for the increased salaries and expensive benefits that are arbitrated in the next round of negotiations?

Ms. Green: The operation of a school division is complex and constantly in flux. For rural school divisions, management of personnel and resources is further complicated by transient population, distance, and the unique personality of each community. Our board meets the needs of our students by managing class size, the school day, the assignment and reassignment of personnel and the evaluation of our staff. Management rights, through due process, must allow the movement of staff and resources to meet the ever-changing realities. The removal of section 126(2) is of grave concern to our board.

All employers understand the importance of those management rights that should not be open to arbitration. The Premier (Mr. Doer) himself acknowledged that reality in March when discussing the MGEU contract with regard to casual workers, contracting out and staffing levels. We concur with his position.

Teachers have long argued for the statement of professionalism in a collective agreement. They consider themselves professionals, deserving of autonomy within their classroom. Bill 42 moves them in another direction. If collective bargaining agreements and arbitrators are to define contact time, class size, preparation time, parental contact, et cetera, then the teachers' ability to do what is in the best interests of their students is secondary to the wording of the collective agreement.

We strongly support the existing Public Schools Act which provides for reasonable limitations on what can be arbitrated in the areas of management rights. This has been balanced by giving the teachers the right to grieve school divisions' decisions in areas precluded from arbitration.

Section 129(3) charged the arbitrator with the responsibility to consider the ability to pay for the contract that is being awarded. It has been suggested that all arbitrators consider ability to pay and that the section is redundant. The startling reality is that some arbitrators and teachers' negotiators deem the ability to pay is only restricted by the Division's ability to raise taxes. In reality, although we have the right to raise taxes, we are restricted by the economic health of our community when considering a tax increase.

Rural municipalities will attest to the times that they have not raised taxes for their needs because of the tax increases imposed by school divisions. Arbitrators must be made to consider the full ramifications of the contracts, of working conditions and wage increases that they award. The removal of section 129(3) directly contradicts the preamble in the Bill, which stresses that local school divisions must make decisions that are responsive to local needs and conditions.

The change to the definition of teacher contained in Bill 42 removes the need for a teacher to hold an individual contract and would therefore include substitute teachers. How should a school division deal with employees who are holding teaching contracts but who have been hired as educational assistants, librarians, et cetera? How does the Government envision the administration of benefits to these within this definition?

Bill 42 includes vice-principals and principals in the bargaining unit. Because of the short time line set out by this government and the lack of opportunity to discuss the ramifications of this, school divisions are faced with many questions about the implementation of this section of the Bill. Although historically principals and vice-principals have been included with teachers, moving collective bargaining under The Labour Relations Act causes significant changes, and therefore the question of principals and vice-principal inclusion should be sent to the Manitoba Labour Board for consideration.

As stated earlier, the flexibility of the rural school division to respond to the ever-changing needs of the schools in our division cannot be compromised. School boards are elected to make decisions regarding class size and composition. They are accountable to local people who elect them. Class size and composition must remain the decision of locally elected trustees and not the decision of outside arbitrators who neither understand the local needs nor feel the long-term impact of their decisions. One has only to look across Canada to see the dramatic and devastating impact of negotiated and arbitrated class size and composition clauses. In rural school divisions, we hope never to see the day that prescriptive clauses and articles would force schools to split or combine classes simply because of numbers.

Ms. Decker: The collective bargaining process is meant to encourage mutually agreed-to contracts. Any changes that increase the likelihood of arbitrated agreements are counter-productive and ill considered. Experience shows that the intermediate step of either conciliation or mediation increases the potential for local settlements. Bill 42 does not expressly contain provisions for conciliation or mediation, thereby removing processes that enhance the potential of mutually agreed-to contracts.

Historically, negotiations between school divisions and teachers are a long process. In part, that is due to the lack of willingness of teachers to negotiate during the summer. For example, our division received notice to open negotiations several months ago. We were told then by the teachers that they would prefer to wait for the first meeting and that they would call when they were ready. We have yet to hear from them, and their contract expired on June 30, almost a month ago. Time lines, as set out by Bill 42, do not recognize this reality and must be changed.

Bill 42 removes the provision for the transfer of information to the arbitrator in a way that clearly articulates to the arbitrator the items in dispute. Lakeshore trustees believe that there should be no question in the arbitrator's mind about what items need to be considered during deliberations. Only items still in dispute should be considered.

The process used to develop this legislation has been flawed from the start. There has been no meaningful dialogue between school divisions and the Government regarding Bill 42. Extensive public hearings must be conducted, and the time lines need to be longer so that everyone has the opportunity to provide input. Regrettably, our only avenue for dialogue has been through our provincial association, MAST, and sincere attempts to alert the representatives of government to our reservations have not been heard. We are concerned that this legislation has been developed to fulfil an election promise without fully considering the long-term implications of this bill. The long-term implications must be clearly defined and understood before this legislation is passed. Ironically, the legislation provides for a process of consultation that is comprehensive but restricts the mandate to discussions about class size and composition.

In summary, Bill 42 as presented destroys the balance needed within the collective bargaining legislation to ensure both parties come to the table with a common desire to achieve a mutually agreed-to contract. The proposed changes single out teachers for preferential treatment that no other employee group receives. Instead of including teachers under provisions of The Labour Relations Act to offer them the same rights as other employee groups, teachers will have explicit exceptions to The Labour Relations Act that are precedent setting.

* (19:40)

The legislation increases power for the teachers' union, and the school boards are being stripped of their authority to manage resources efficiently. Everyone who deals with education, finance, and management can see the financial impact of this bill. The end result will be arbitrated settlements that taxpayers cannot afford. Financial experts have substantiated this analysis, and their warning was given to the Government prior to the introduction of Bill 42. The Government has decided to proceed and to disregard the cautions. This carelessness will not only put more burden on our saturated tax base, but it more importantly dangerously disregards the needs of our students. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Green and Ms. Decker, for your presentation.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you for coming down from Lakeshore to make this presentation. I want to commend you for making it. I assume that you are aware that MAST met with the Premier (Mr. Doer) and myself and staff extensively over the last six months. I assume you know that.

Floor Comment: Yes.

Mr. Caldwell: Yes, you do, okay. I take note of your issues around teachers. I know that has been a common thread in this deliberation both last night and earlier with a previous presenter. I note that, because it is a common theme. I assure you that we will look at that. There is a common theme. I know that the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) nods at me all the time when that comes up, so I expect we are going to have a discussion vis-à-vis an amendment in that regard.

The main concern, of course, is articulated as property taxation and the ability to manage resources and so forth. I am trying to get an indication, because we have, as you know, gone through a decade of horrendous property tax increases in the past decade, a 63% increase in local property taxation over the last decade. What sort of lobbying or input did your board make when that was occurring?

Ms. Green: Mr. Minister, I was not aware that we were going to be asked to respond to questions, other than those referring to Bill 42. Bill 42 is with regard to labour relations, and that is what I am prepared to respond to.

Mr. Caldwell: I am trying to get an idea of the contacts–

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Minister, we have a speaking order.

Mrs. Smith: Thank you very much, and going back to Bill 42, you stated in your presentation, as we have heard through quite a few presentations, that the impact of this legislation will raise expenditures beyond the capacity of our taxpayers' ability to pay. We have also heard from some presentations that the ability to pay should be of no concern because this will not get out of hand.

Could you please advise this committee why you think the ability-to-pay clause has to be in there to safeguard the communities?

Ms. Green: The ability-to-pay clause has to be there to respond to the unique realities in each of the school divisions that we have across Manitoba. The previous speaker talked about having a high assessment and a low mill rate. Our division, which is right next door, has just the opposite. We have a very low assessment and a reasonably high mill rate in an area that producers, primarily agricultural producers, really struggle because of economic times from time to time to deal with that burden.

Mr. Caldwell: Okay, to put in context labour relations and how they relate to property tax increases, and that is directly what we are concerned with right now, in terms of arbitrated settlements with teachers and teacher wage settlements and in terms of levels of support for public education, both of which are addressed directly in your report, the largest fiscal impacts upon your division would be generated by settlements with teachers or by absence of provincial funds. If you could give me a rough breakdown about what is the most impact, that would be useful.

Ms. Green: I think, certainly the last few years, the issue that has challenged our board most significantly has been unexpected costs of collective agreements. We are pretty consistent in being able to monitor our budgets and the needs within our schools. From time to time, collective agreements settled elsewhere in the province have left us in a situation. We, of course, have to match those. We have to attract good teachers, but at the same time we are not necessarily prepared to make those provisions through tax increases.

Mr. Derkach: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Green. My question has to do with the impact that this bill would have on a division such as yours which has low assessment and relatively high mill rates. I know divisions like that across the province that are having that same type of struggle. If in fact Bill 42 does go through, there will be, I would say, a ceiling, at which time divisions will have to look at alternative measures to try and balance their financial affairs.

Can you tell this committee how close your division is to not being able to increase taxes any longer because of the reaction of taxpayers to the increase in tax rates in your division?

Ms. Green: I would suggest we are probably there or have exceeded the tolerance of our taxpayers to tolerate the increases that are before us. Certainly, rural municipalities that we have met within our school division have all indicated there are years and several years where they may not increase taxes because of the need to address educational costs.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you to both of you for your presentations. Next is Colleen Jury or Neil Whitley, Rolling River School Division. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Neil Whitley (Superintendent of Schools, Rolling River School Division): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, members, I am reluctant to have my handouts go out before I speak because, being a teacher, I know you will want to get ahead of me. I am representing Rolling River School Division. My name is Neil Whitley, and I am the Superintendent of Schools. Mrs. Jury was here last night, and I am pinch-hitting for her tonight.

Although all proposed changes in Bill 42 are worth commenting on, my brief will focus just on several areas that are of the greatest concern to us, so therefore my brief will indeed be brief.

Section 98(1) applies The Labour Relations Act to teachers where issues such as selection, assignment and transfer of teachers are fundamental responsibilities of school boards who are locally elected and accountable to their communities. This particular decision-making role should not be given out over to unaccountable arbitrators. We firmly believe that the decision and policies that we make are in the best interests of students. To illustrate this, let me take the example of teacher transfer. I would like to quote to you in part a section from our policy. Before I start that, I think it is important to tell you that our teacher transfer policy took approximately three years to develop and was developed with grassroots support from our teachers.

* (19:50)

The Board believes the professional staff transfers are necessary from time to time in order to support the following principles. Transfers will not be made capriciously. The following guide and principles will be carefully considered in all professional staff transfers. The professional staff complement should reflect a reasonable balance of experience and special competencies. Transfers can form an integral part of professional growth and development. New challenges and a new environment can offer new incentives for growth. Student welfare is of primary importance when transferring teachers, and teaching background and expertise must match the assignment. Transfers are seen as a positive step in professional growth and will not be used as a punitive measure. A teacher's place of residence is not a primary consideration, but will be a factor in determining transfers.

We ask you: How can an arbitration process improve on these guidelines that were developed by all the partners? It is difficult to see how most external arbitrators would have the educational expertise to understand the complexity of school community and the teaching-learning process.

Another major concern is allowing evaluation of teacher performance to be an arbitrable item. Our teacher evaluation policy has had extensive teacher input into its development, and several years of research and field testing before it was implemented. Our policy states that it is the responsibility of the school division to provide the best education possible for our students. Supervision and evaluation are necessary to improve the quality of education and to maintain programs of high standards. The reasons for evaluation are to assist, to encourage, to motivate teachers towards becoming more competent, to provide teachers with ongoing dialogue supporting their strengths and abilities, and to improve areas of weakness and/or neglect. Bill 42 would make teacher evaluation methods an arbitrable item. It is highly improbable that a panel of arbitrators would have the expertise to improve on sophisticated professional growth models that have been developed by educators. We are concerned with the process and not so much the outcome.

Our third major concern is deeming school administrators appropriate for the collective bargaining unit. Does The Labour Relations Act feel that the supervisors who determine work assignments, supervision, evaluation, and discipline, and recommending on renewal or termination of contracts are deemed appropriate for the collective bargaining unit? We feel that this issue should be dealt with through The Labour Relations Act and not Bill 42.

In conclusion, our mission statement in Rolling River School Division says in part, working in partnership with parents and community, our aim is to graduate students who are academically, intellectually, and vocationally prepared for a changing world. Programs approved for students should teach relevant skills and knowledge. They should also promote emotional, social, and physical well-being in a safe environment. As well, our school should create an atmosphere, which encourages independence, good judgment, and personal excellence with respect and dignity for all people. The Rolling River School Division Board is committed to providing the human resources necessary to support this statement in a manner which reflects practicality, vision, and trusteeship. The mission statement puts children first. Bill 42 proposes a bargaining process which increases power to teacher's unions and strips school boards of their authority to manage their resources effectively. We do not feel that Bill 42 puts children first. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Whitley.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Neil, for coming down to Winnipeg. I appreciate your trip to make this presentation, and I certainly liked the transfer policy in the statements that your division has in terms of mission statements and transfer policies. I think they could be modelled for the province, in those regards. I just want to ask your opinion briefly on the experience in Rolling River previous to 1996 when these items were arbitrable and were proposing to go back to that regime. The items that are now purported to be put back into the availability of arbitration to take place–what was the experience of the Division previous to 1996 in these areas?

Mr. Whitley: I think we have had a very good relationship with our teachers. Certainly, we have had matters that were proceeding towards arbitration that had been settled before that. And those things will always happen. If a teacher is given an unfair evaluation and wishes to grieve that, whatever process is involved, I am sure is going to be dealt with one way or another. What we are concerned about is a group of arbitrators who do not understand the complexity of teacher evaluations and all those other things making decisions for us. That is our major concern.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I was just going to ask almost the same question as the Minister in regard to your feelings on arbitration. However, I would like to ask you, though, in regard to your statement on Labour Relations Act versus Bill 42 involving the involvement of those persons as you deemed in supervisory position, I would assume you are speaking of principals, vice-principals. You have obviously studied this before making this recommendation. Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit further in highlighting pitfalls as they are with the present bill?

Mr. Whitley: If I can be frank with you, it just does not make any sense to me. I am not speaking for the Board now. I am speaking for my own opinion. People who are in a position of authority like that should not be in the same bargaining unit.

Mrs. Smith: I especially appreciated your presentation because you centred on students and the children. Your policy states that it is the responsibility of the school division to provide the best education possible for our students. In previous presentations, we have heard that there are educators who are concerned that if the workplace does not have the kind of environment that makes their job easier, then the education of the students is at risk.

In terms of Bill 42, in your learned opinion and your experience, what would be the ramifications of Bill 42 in your school division if it did go through pretty well as it is stated right now? What would be the impact on the teachers, on the students and the quality of education for your students?

Mr. Whitley: I think I can sum that up very succinctly. If Bill 42 creates an adversarial environment, that cannot be good for kids.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Whitley, thank you for your presentation. I find this presentation to be extremely valuable, and I like the comments of the Minister who said that perhaps this is an approach that could be taken up by other divisions and perhaps used as a model by the Department. If in fact, Mr. Whitley, that is the case and the Minister is true to his word, I am hoping he is going to be looking at amendments that will indeed allow for your division to carry on with its policies. As I see it, and correct me if I am wrong, perhaps I can put this in the form of a question, if in fact Bill 42 goes through in its form, it would negate some of the ability for your division to carry out the policies that you have adopted in co-operation with the teachers.

Mr. Whitley: I guess nobody knows what will happen if Bill 42 goes through as is. I guess I am just saying that an arbitrator could impede the progress that we have made in teacher growth and evaluation. Incidentally, we cannot take credit as being the only school division for having this particular model for teacher growth. This is very common now throughout Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Whitley. The next presenter is Pam Stinson, private citizen. Is Pam Stinson here? Yes. Please proceed.

* (20:00)

Ms. Pam Stinson (Private Citizen): Thank you for allowing me this chance to speak. I was not able to stay until 4:19 in the morning, so I have decided that my chances of being a survivor on this series is not probable. Believing in the KISS concept, keep it simple, stupid, I only have one page to share with you. Therefore, I have chosen not to waste any more trees on multiple copies.

My name is Pam Stinson, and I am from Portage la Prairie. As a classroom teacher with 19 years of teaching experience, I come here tonight to speak in favour of Bill 42. The concept of Bill 42 has some positive attributes. Teachers do not feel that the right to bargain in a fair and equitable manner is preferential treatment. Being a professional means having a say in matters related to my work. I find it ironic when I hear that school boards are concerned about losing control. I have been encouraged as a classroom teacher to include the students in decision making in the classroom, as any decisions made will ultimately affect the learning environment of the classroom. Therefore, why should I not have some say or control through collective bargaining? It only seems fair.

It is disappointing that some school boards and municipalities are misled by the concept that passing Bill 42 will automatically cause property taxes to rise. In reality, the past government's decrease of funding to public schools was the culprit of rising taxes. This new government promised to rescind Bill 72, and by passing Bill 42, a compromise in collective bargaining can be reached between teachers and school boards. Anticipated excessive costs can be kept down through continued support from the new government to increase funding for public education.

My only regret is that class size and composition have not been included in Bill 42. The experience of having a class of 29 junior high students, which included 7 special needs and disruptive students, will never leave my memory.

This past year my class included two special needs students that were level 2 and level 3 funded. Even with some teacher assistant time, the learning environment was greatly affected. It is understandable that you would never probably please everyone in regard to class size. However, classroom composition requires immediate attention as more and more special needs students and disruptive students are fully integrated into classrooms.

In closing, I encourage this committee to pass Bill 42 with consideration to include class composition. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Stinson.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Ms. Stinson, for coming up from Portage. I appreciate it. One of your colleagues was here last night or this morning, I do not know which; it was earlier anyway. Certainly, I do appreciate, personally, I know that the committee does as well, hearing individual perspectives that put more of a subjective face on the issue. I know it provides us with some insight through the eyes of trustees or through the eyes of teachers, as the case may be, so I do appreciate your remarks. Thank you.

Mr. Faurschou: Welcome, Pam. I appreciate the diligence that you have shown here in attending once again to the committee as well as your dedication to the profession and to overcome the challenges that you expressed there in regard to the classroom. It is a case that one is wanting to understand the legislation better and how it would reflect to the Division's operations. I perhaps would like to ask the question once again, as far as concerns and arbitration, are your feelings as a teacher that one enters into arbitration that the experience and understanding of the profession and of the local student requirements is fully appreciated by an individual that is not of the community and not of an elected position. Could you perhaps elaborate on your feelings in that regard? I might just say that I do appreciate your input always, Pam. Thank you.

Ms. Stinson: I am pleased you are so gentle with me, Dave. As far as arbitration, it has been interesting to hear last night and tonight people saying that arbitrators from outside, they do not know anything. They do not know the good of the school board, what they can afford, what teachers need. Too often, at a collective bargaining table, trustees and teachers, the collective bargaining committee, get too passionate, get too emotional, and I think an outside person can come in with a level head and listen to both sides of the table and see what is in the best interests of the children. Sitting on the collective bargaining committee myself the last two years was a new experience.

I know myself sometimes I have felt members got too passionate. But, all in all, when we go back in caucus, we always said what are the best working conditions for the teacher because that is the child's learning condition. So I really feel an arbitrator is only going to come in for unresolved disputes. I still believe in the bargaining at the table between the teachers and the school board, and then any unresolved issues can be settled by an outsider.

Mrs. Smith: Thank you so much, and I appreciate your presentation and your passion for the teaching profession. I have heard a lot of presentations and a lot of phone calls and letters concerning this particular bill with very passionate ideas about what is right or wrong with it. I do have a concern about the Division that seems to be erupting between teachers and trustees right now because of passionate views. I do not want this bill to come back and bite teachers, to be quite frank. You were talking about class size, and you said also that ability to pay, you did not think, you know, it would be under control. It made a difference, but it would be under control. So the ability-to-pay clause is not in Bill 42 in its present state.

What if Bill 42 went through as it was, and the ability-to-pay clause was gone, and what if school divisions looking at paying teachers and putting programs in had to be faced with bigger class sizes and laying off teachers or not introducing new teachers to the profession, do you think that this could be a possibility and something that in two or three years time might reflect badly on the teachers who are pushing so hard for Bill 42 to go through? I am asking this because of the concern I have for teachers in the profession. I taught for 22 years, and my husband still teaches. I think that we have to really be careful and know in our own hearts and minds what is going to happen in our respective school divisions. You live in a rural area, and rural areas are really feeling the pinch in a lot of areas. I would like your opinion on that.

Ms. Stinson: In regard to the ability to pay, Mrs. Smith, I have never seen the teachers ask for the moon. They ask for cost-of-living rates that are in line with everybody else in town and in the province. They ask for a few improved working conditions. So, as far as ability to pay, I have never seen it. I cannot predict something that is not there yet. With your idea of supporting teachers, I have had a line this year on different occasions to say be careful what you wish for. Maybe teachers will see this different down the road, but you cannot predict till you try a bill. As we saw what Bill 72 did, it was legislated and now it is being rescinded. That is why I speak in favour of Bill 42, and we will re-evaluate it like we do anything.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Stinson. The list of out-of-town presenters who have registered has been finished. Is there anyone else from out of town who would like to make a presentation who has not done so yet? Hearing none, are there any presenters who wish to present en français? We still have the translator here. Anyone wishing to present in French who needs a translator? Thank you.

We are now going to go to the in-town presenters starting with No. 1, Jan Speelman, President, Manitoba Teachers' Society. Ms. Speelman, please proceed.

Ms. Jan Speelman (President, Manitoba Teachers' Society): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not know if it is good evening. Yes, I think it is good evening, not good morning.

As you said, my name is Jan Speelman. I am president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I am very pleased to be here this evening to speak in favour of Bill 42. The Manitoba Teachers' Society represents more than 14 000 public school teachers in the province of Manitoba. We are the only employee group with members working in every part of this province, from remote locales in the North to rural Manitoba, to the urban centres of Brandon, Portage and Winnipeg.

* (20:10)

Throughout the province, teachers are the backbone of the communities in which they live. The priority of our members is providing a quality public education to Manitoba's 180 000 public school students. That is why teachers were so discouraged when the former government passed Bill 72. These changes to our collective bargaining rights ripped through the hearts of our members. Bill 72 left teachers asking: What did we do to deserve this?

Since becoming president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society approximately a year ago, there has not been a day go by that I do not thank the teachers of Manitoba for giving me this honour, and I think you will understand. The members of the committee will understand after they have heard from the teachers that they heard from last evening or this morning, I guess it was, and will hear from more this evening, the stories from the hearts of those teachers regarding their demoralizing and devastating effects that Bill 72 had on them and their colleagues. But teachers are heartened and they are optimistic. Last night you heard many thank-yous; you even heard a wahoo, because teachers are feeling that they are dealing with a government that is truly committed to doing the best for public schools and the students and realizing the role of teachers in that.

We would like to thank Premier Doer for two things: one thing for the open-door policy that his government has adopted; and secondly, for the appointment of a minister who understands teachers because he is one, and the appointment of a minister who knows what goes on in classrooms because he recently has been in classrooms, not in a classroom, but in many classrooms, in Manitoba.

As I said, teachers were shocked, dismayed, angered, confused when Bill 72 was introduced. Manitoba public schools had experienced 40 years of labour peace, an unprecedented record in Canada. The relationship between school trustees and teachers was based on a historic agreement reached in 1956 between the Government, the school trustees and teachers, an agreement that promised teachers a fair system of collective bargaining if they gave up the right to strike. For more than a generation not one school day has been lost in this province because of a labour dispute. Teachers are proud of this record. Yet, in 1996, The Public Schools Act was amended to strip away the bargaining rights teachers had, bargaining rights which were already less than those enjoyed by other professionals: doctors, nurses, professors and others.

Some people here last night and again today will argue that Bill 42 will cause property taxes to increase. That is nothing more than scare tactics. The problem is, and we all know the problem is, how public schools are funded, not how teachers negotiate salaries and working conditions. After all, other school division employees, other government employees have full rights under The Labour Relations Act. Bus drivers, caretakers, teachers' aides, secretaries and other support staff who work in schools have had the benefit of the LRA for the last 30 years.

As a teacher shortage grows, Manitoba communities, especially rural and northern communities, are becoming more and more sensitive to the need to retain highly qualified teachers. Manitoba must be able to compete with other jurisdictions to retain teachers and ensure that our young people choose teaching as a profession. This will not happen if working conditions cannot be bargained. Teachers should have the same rights as other Manitoba employees, including other Manitoba professionals.

Even before Bill 72 was enacted, teachers' employment rights were limited. That is why Bill 42 is so important to teachers. In 1956, when teachers were moved from The Labour Relations Act to The Public Schools Act, the LRA was basically transferred to the PSA, except binding arbitration replaced the right to strike or lockout. When it comes to labour relations, the current PSA is a historic artifact, a time capsule. It captures the state of bargaining as it was in the mid-'50s.

Several years ago, we teachers changed our tack. If the PSA could not be changed to be fair to teachers, then teachers would seek inclusion under the LRA. We did not ask for special treatment; we asked for fair treatment. Today, Bill 42 comes close to giving teachers what we have been asking for. It gives teachers many of the rights other employees have under the LRA. Without a question, Bill 42 is a giant leap from the 1950s. It modernizes some of our bargaining rights and eliminates most of the thorns imposed by Bill 72. Bill 42 is a start at levelling the playing field between teachers and school boards, and comes close to restoring that historic deal that the three parties agreed upon back in 1956.

What has Bill 42 changed? For the first time since Bill 72 was passed, teachers will be able to refer to arbitration issues such as transfer, evaluations and assignment. We are pleased that these amendments give our members rights they did not previously enjoy. When teachers have good working conditions, our students have good learning conditions.

When the Minister proposed to modernize The Public Schools Act, both the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) stated publicly their intention to make changes that would stand the test of time. To accomplish this, amendments in Bill 42 must provide certainty to the parties involved. Unfortunately, the preamble in this bill may invite disputes between the parties not based on issues of substance but on the interpretation of the Act. I recall one of the members last night who spoke about clarity in the way the wording is done, and this is what we are referring to here. To be honest, there are already enough matters in dispute between school trustees and teachers. If this act is to stand the test of time, it must avoid creating disputes because of matters of interpretation. At arbitration hearings or even in court, the preamble could be used to undermine what the Legislature intended in enacting Bill 42. Disputes about interpretation of the Act cause delays in arbitration proceedings while the parties argue meaning. Bill 72, for example, has led to protracted hearings and court challenges.

The preamble in The Labour Relations Act has stood the test of time. Teachers could be covered by the same provision; however, if government wants a separate preamble, we suggest that the preamble in the LRA be included in the PSA with the necessary modifications. The part of the preamble dealing with teachers' collective bargaining rights should be separate from the part of the preamble that addresses the management of resources. One deals with the rights of teachers and school boards in the collective bargaining process; the other deals with the responsibility of the Province and school boards to finance public schools and manage them effectively.

We suggest that the ninth and tenth WHEREASes be amended to read as follows: WHEREAS it is in the public interest of the Province of Manitoba to further harmonious relations between teachers and their employers by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between teachers and their employers as the freely designated representatives of employees–that is the wording that would reflect the LRA wording–and WHEREAS the Province of Manitoba and school divisions and districts share responsibility for the financing of the public schools and it is in the public interest that these resources be managed effectively and efficiently.

Many of the same concerns I have already mentioned regarding wording and clarity with respect to the preamble apply to the definition of "dispute" contained in Bill 42. The definition of "dispute" should be clear and unambiguous and not invite disputes between the parties on interpretation. The definition of "dispute" should also clearly reflect the legislative intent of the Government. MTS believes that the current definition of "dispute" is ambiguous and may not reflect the intention of this government.

These days, modern human resource practices use progressive discipline. Discipline can range from verbal warnings to dismissal. Under the LRA, just cause for dismissal is required and arbitrators are permitted to substitute penalties. The process for dismissal of teachers is unchanged by these amendments. Bill 42 creates a discipline model where the first part of the discipline proceedings is under the LRA and the arbitrator can substitute a penalty. However, for the ultimate sanction, the loss of your teaching job, the loss of your career, the process changes. The standard is cause, not just cause, and the arbitrator can only decide whether or not the school board has cause to dismiss the teacher. The arbitrator has no power to substitute some lesser penalty than dismissal. Mixing two models for discipline creates unnecessary complexity and confusion, is unfair to teachers and does not seem to make any sense that we have a lower standard for dismissal than we have for a penalty.

As it stands, section 101 in Bill 42 is unenforceable. It gives teachers a right with no remedy. The related LRA section cannot apply to teachers because it is tied to those who use the strike-lockout route. Therefore, to make section 101 enforceable, an unfair labour practice should be created to prevent altering terms and conditions of employment without consent during bargaining and interest arbitrations.

Section 103 establishes the interest arbitration clause that will be deemed to be in all collective agreements if the parties do not bargain their own clause. We have several suggestions related to section 103 that would make the legislation clearer. Point 4 should be amended to require that the statement of matters in dispute be provided to the arbitrator or the arbitration board with a copy to the other party. As currently drafted, there is no requirement that this statement be referred to the arbitrator or the arbitration board. In our view, points 5 and 6 are repetitive and should be combined into one statement. After combining these two points, the intent should be to allow for the modification or withdrawal of matters in dispute during the arbitration hearing and not only prior to the hearing. In addition, section 103 should be amended to add a provision requiring final settlement provisions for interest arbitrations, including those that are negotiated, to include a provision similar to point 7; otherwise, if this were omitted in a negotiated clause the arbitrator or arbitration board would not have the necessary powers to hold a hearing or do much else.

Teachers are disappointed. You have heard from several of our teachers that Bill 42 will not permit them to refer class size or class composition to arbitration. However, this is a temporary prohibition. Soon after the Province's commission completes its work, this provision expires.

* (20:20)

Before Bill 72, teachers were able to negotiate and arbitrate class size and composition provisions. Teachers would prefer an immediate return to being able to arbitrate class size and composition. Our position is that section 104 along with section 7 in the transitional section should be deleted.

Class size and class composition are fundamental to the job that we as teachers do. These critical areas affect the ability of teachers to do their jobs and our students' ability to learn. Improving our working conditions will improve our students' learning conditions. Class size and class composition are key to the quality of public schooling that Manitoba children get.

Every parent and every child knows that class size matters. Studies prove it too. It makes sense that our students will get more of the attention they need and deserve if they are in smaller classes. Actual face-to-face time with the teacher improves student achievement, especially in the early years and in second language programs. Why would anyone want to jeopardize Manitoba children's potential for success by preventing teachers from talking about class size in a professional manner as equals with their employers and then having the right to take that matter to arbitration?

Teachers do their work in a professional manner and know that their work will be judged accordingly. Surely their professional judgment must be respected. Teachers and school trustees sitting down as equals at the bargaining table should be able to address class size and composition. If they cannot agree, the parties should be able to make their case before an independent arbitrator or arbitration board who will take into consideration whatever relevant factors the parties advance.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) himself alluded to this in his comments on the second reading of Bill 42. The Minister quoted from a 1994 arbitration decision of Mr. Paul Teskey: Issues such as comparability in terms of other settlements, ability to pay, general economic conditions, demonstrated need due to existing problems and/or the inherent logic of fairness of a particular request are always to be considered and have been in this instance. Even before Bill 72, arbitrators were considering all relevant issues. Under Bill 42, arbitrators will continue to do that. Arbitrators do not give away the farm.

Although it is our position that section 104 be removed, teachers realize that the government is committed to giving everyone an opportunity for input on class size and composition through the commission it is creating. In the meantime, subsection 104(2) should be amended to require school divisions to have reasonable policies and practices on class size and composition that are administered in good faith. Currently, school boards are only required to show that they administer their policies and practices fairly, reasonably and in good faith, not that the policies and practices themselves are reasonable and fair.

In conclusion, four years ago Gary Doer told Manitobans that Bill 72 was wrong and that an NDP government would repeal it. Last fall, during the provincial election campaign, the NDP promised to repeal Bill 72. Bill 42 is a fulfilment of that promise. I congratulate the Government on its steadfast commitment to that promise, and I thank you on behalf of our teachers.

Teachers, school boards, students and the people of Manitoba need legislation that will stand the test of time. I believe Bill 42 will do that. It modernizes The Public Schools Act by giving teachers access to many of the provisions of the LRA. Bill 42 begins to level the playing field between school boards and teachers. It gives teachers fair treatment, not special treatment.

The Manitoba Teachers' Society believes that Bill 42 will improve relations between teachers and school boards. The results will benefit the 180 000 public school students in Manitoba. Thank you for the opportunity to present this evening.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Speelman.

Mr. Caldwell: I know that there are others who want to speak, so I will just thank you for the presentation.

Mr. Faurschou: I know there are dozens of questions I would like to ask of you this evening, but there are many who want to ask. So, to keep it brief, in regard to all of what you propose here, is there a jurisdiction anywhere where we as legislators can go and examine to see whether all of what you propose is in fact there to be analyzed, see if it does stand the test of time? I am asking: Is there any jurisdiction currently in Canada that has all of the provisions which you propose that we can study so that we can see whether it works or does not work?

Ms. Speelman: I do not think I can answer that question. Maybe Art can. He is our historian.

Mr. Chairperson: We need a name, please.

Ms. Speelman: Art Reimer, General Secretary.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the Committee to let Mr. Reimer respond? [Agreed]

Mr. Art Reimer (General Secretary, Manitoba Teachers' Society): Alberta teachers have bargained under their labour relations act forever. They have never had special legislation. They, I might add, include principals and vice-principals in the bargaining unit, have a provision in their public schools act that says so. They do not, however, have the arbitration process. They have strike-lockout and have always used that.

I can tell you though that Prince Edward Island has arbitration and has used it for many years. It is not in legislation. They have bargained it into their collective agreement and have used arbitration for many years. New Brunswick also has that as an option, and so they have used arbitration on occasion but not always because they can choose which way they want to go. Saskatchewan also has the option of choosing strike-lockout or arbitration for collective bargaining.

Mrs. Smith: I thank you for your presentation, Jan. It was very clear and concise. I can tell your passion is certainly there to make the best possible workplace for teachers. You know what my concerns are because I met with you, and I told you I do not want teachers to be put in an awkward spot when taxes go up or things like that occur.

Now you heard earlier tonight that in one presentation that the funding has increased to the school divisions, not as elaborately as we first thought. Forty school divisions have not received the funding that they thought they would have, and there are variables. There are reasons for this. Having said that, quite clearly a lot of the teacher presentations feel very strongly that the ability-to-pay clause being taken away will not have a big impact and that the taxes will not go up.

I was wondering, Jan, if you have had the kind of negotiations with this present government to ensure that given that we do have a balanced budget, given that there is money there, given that the transfer payments have come through in abundance from Ottawa, have you and the Minister spoken about ensuring that the taxes will not go up and funding education to the point so the teachers do not feel a backlash?

I do not know. I cannot predict what is going to happen but you and I have both heard a lot of presentations. We want to ensure that the students get the best possible education. That is what, first of all, we are all concerned about and that the teachers do have a workplace that they feel very comfortable in and can grow and nourish the students academically and socially. So looking at this, there is a lot of concern out there. Are there any safeguards that you have put in or that this minister has reassured you so that would be continued financial support for the teachers at the school division level?

Ms. Speelman: I appreciate your concern about how it might affect teachers. I think teachers have already borne that effect. I think we have lost 700 teachers over the last few years because of the cutbacks in funding to our schools. I think that when we go into a process of bargaining we sit down with school boards. I mean, I have heard over the presentations that I heard this morning, I guess it was, the fact that if this bill passes it sounds like teachers are going to get everything that they want. I do not know what has happened to the bargaining process. Trustees know, we know. We sit down at the table together. It is a fair process. We present our side; they present theirs. We negotiate an agreement.

If we go to an arbitration, then the arbitrator hears the evidence on both sides and makes his decision.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Speelman. The next presenter is Ric Dela Cruz and Bill McGowan from Seven Oaks School Division. Mr. Dela Cruz, please proceed.

* (20:30)

Mr. Ric Dela Cruz (Vice-Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Seven Oaks School Division): Mr. Chairman, Bill McGowan is not with us tonight because he is not feeling well, and our assistant superintendent will be with me just in case there are technical questions.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, members of the Committee, the Seven Oaks School Division No. 10 Board of Trustees appreciate this opportunity to express its views on Bill 42 on the subject of collective bargaining with teachers. Our school division is guided by our mission statement. The Seven Oaks School Division is a community of learners, every one of whom shares the responsibility to assist children in acquiring an education which will enable them to lead fulfilling lives within the world as moral people and contributing members of society.

I cite our mission statement here for a very important reason. As we consider issues such as collective bargaining, we must consider them in the context of our children's needs and the good of our society now and in the future. The Seven Oaks Board supports the Government in its resolve to revise the statute known as Bill 72. We believe it was conceived in an environment of fear, mistrust and disrespect for education, boards and teachers, indeed, even democratic government.

Clearly, its intention, as emphasized by ability to pay and enhanced arbitrariness in dispute resolution, was to limit almost unilaterally the salary levels of teachers and their opportunities to raise matters of importance to them. Our board opposed Bill 72 at the time of its passage. But while we support the repeal of Bill 72, we are deeply troubled by many aspects of Bill 42 and appear today to suggest changes to Bill 42. Seven Oaks School Division cannot support the Bill in its current form.

We support the intention of the Government to return collective bargaining to the process that existed prior to Bill 72. We support the maintenance of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, rather than a strike or lockout. We support the provincial commission on class size and composition as important to an informed dialogue on the quality of education. We do not support the sunset provision in Bill 42 whereby class size and composition become arbitrable following the commission report. This provision prejudges the commission report.

We fear that arbitration regarding class size and composition may lead to the kind of rule bound, rigid formulas that exist in other jurisdictions and students may be classed and categorized in ways that prejudice against their fair treatment. Where there are issues of concern regarding class size, they are generally anomalous and better dealt with locally with good will and a problem-solving approach than by application of a set of rules that does not recognize the individual classroom context.

Our division's board-teacher liaison committee will spend next year discussing issues of concern related to disruptive students. We, as a board, welcome open discussion and problem solving. We fear that Bill 42 will, in fact, lead to less discussion and less local problem solving through an increased dependence on arbitration.

We are not overly concerned that the removal of the ability-to-pay provisions of Bill 72 will lead to a sharp escalation in salaries and costs. While it can be shown that Manitoba teachers have made modest gains in relation to other provincial public sector employees in recent years, they are indeed modest. Furthermore, those gains have, on teachers' salary grids, not changed substantially the rank order of Manitoba in salary rankings in Canada. Manitoba remains sixth or seventh as it has historically been. This board believes it is a small price to pay for relatively good relationships between boards, teachers and the public and a reasonable exchange for avoiding some of the rigidity, bureaucracy, and adversity of other provinces.

We are concerned that Bill 42, rather than encouraging good faith bargaining, will lead to an unhealthy reliance on arbitration. The 90-day time limit, the omission of conciliation and mediation provisions in the Bill will ensure that arbitration is used more frequently than it should be as a way to resolve disputes.

We are concerned that arbitrators are commonly lawyers, not educators. They have no qualifications to make educational decisions and do not have to implement or live with the consequences of their judgment. It is our view that the collective bargaining framework for our school boards and teachers should encourage face-to-face local bargaining. Bill 42 does not.

I will be skipping some paragraphs, Mr. Chairman. I have enough time to finish my presentation.

What is good for children so that they can become citizens does not address the question of equality in board-teacher relations, unconstrained negotiations and all withdrawal of services easily or directly. While it is rather simple to understand that the strikes and/or lockouts immediately deprive children of opportunities and possibilities, it is less clear what the long-term consequences are. However, if employer-employee relations are a desirable good, then we can only conclude from experiences in other locations that lockouts and strikes have lasting and long-term negative implications even if they can serve the strictly economic objectives of governments and employers.

Likewise, equality between boards and teachers is not as important in our view as the immediate interests of children's education. As an aside, studies of teacher satisfaction suggest that it is their relationships with children and colleagues, in that order, that matter. Money and power are always dissatisfiers, especially when comparative differences become extreme. People rarely have enough of either to satisfy themselves, either individually or collectively. If a sense and an image of collective responsibility were important in education as a greater good, then it would appear that strike and lockout is not an option we can support. We join this government in denouncing it as a potential way to resolve conflicts in education.

We would suggest further that, in order to achieve an appropriate balance of power, boards and teachers must deal with real or actual situations and circumstances. Neither must be given an excuse not to listen to each other. The further negotiations or even discussions are removed from the local face-to-face level, the more likely that rules and conditions agreed upon will be insensitive to local or individual situations and the less likely that they will be taken seriously. On the other hand, there must remain a balance between conditions in different jurisdictions so as not to cause intolerable inequities and instances no longer acceptable in society.

MAST, our organization, and MTS provide the larger perspective. Locally, school boards and teacher associations can provide the necessary local sensitivity if they are committed to open, respectful dialogue about real situations as opposed to hypothetical matters or issues parachuted in from other jurisdictions. The implication is, of course, that local bargaining with provincial perspective is critical to reasonableness and fairness. We, as a board, believe that past experiences support the above contentions, but only if both sides trust each other and are committed to resolving matters which place the primacy of the best possible education for children that local situations can provide and that financial conditions between jurisdictions do not vary so greatly as to compromise the potential for some level of comparability.

We believe that Bill 42 must be improved to provide this kind of collective bargaining framework. We view the preamble as the way to set a broader context for collective bargaining between teachers and school boards, but we are uncertain as to the status of such a preamble relative to the legal provisions of Bill 42. Does the preamble set up a clear educational context for an arbitrator to consider or is it simply window dressing that is irrelevant to substantive consideration? If the preamble is intended as an instruction to arbitrators, then that should be made explicit. If it is window dressing, then it should be left out of the Bill.

We would like to see explicit instruction to arbitrators that will set educational considerations as the deciding factor with regard to issues of working conditions. We are particularly concerned that increased teachers' rights with respect to issues of transfer and placement will lead to the kind of rigid seniority-based rights common to other public sector agreements. We are happy to discuss these issues at the bargaining table, but we feel most strongly that the kind of seniority right enjoyed by our clerical staff, for example, would be disruptive and frustrating to educational needs of our children.

* (20:40)

By allowing any working conditions to be arbitrable, Bill 42 fails to acknowledge the responsibility of school boards to manage their school in the interest of the educational needs of children and community. Our concern is not management rights per se, but our ability to serve the educational interests of our children and our community. This is a manifestly greater responsibility than that of teachers' organizations to their members. By making working conditions arbitrable without acknowledging their greater responsibility of school boards, the Government is equating educational good with teacher self-interest. The Government is also placing appointed arbitrators in a position where they dictate to democratically elected boards. We also fear that changes to working conditions can have significant cost implications for boards.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we support the general intent of your legislation. We are happy to have a full and open discussion with our teachers at the bargaining table, but at the end of the day it is the educational good of children and society that must be paramount. We read that interest in your preamble, but urge you to make it explicit and clear as an instruction to arbitrators. That clear instruction to arbitrators will also frame a positive and principled dialogue between local boards and their teachers as they discuss issues of concern.

Mr. Chairman, let us do something for the good of our children, our future. Thank you very much.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Dela Cruz, a few questions.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Ric, for presenting on behalf of Seven Oaks School Division today. I am very impressed at the brief that you put together. I certainly appreciate greatly the continuing reference to the best interests of children. I know that that is something that we are always in danger of losing when we talk about issues like collective bargaining and so forth. So I am very heartened by the fact that Seven Oaks places that at the forefront of their decision-making. I applaud you for that. I think you make a number of very good points in your brief. We will take under advisement some of the comments that you have. It is a very thoughtful brief, and as I said, I truly appreciate placing the kids first. Thank you.

Mr. Dela Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): Thank you for your presentation. I was very impressed that you continued to emphasize that the educational good of the children is primary and the most serious consideration in all of this discussion. I think most of us around the table, particularly those of us who have had involvement in the education area over the years, also share that same sentiment. My question is specific to your concern about giving a clear instruction to the arbitrators. I am wondering if you feel that an amendment to the definition in the preamble would adequately meet your needs.

Mr. Dela Cruz: Thank you for your question. On my presentation, Mr. Chairman, we want to be sure what the role of arbitrators is, because when the arbitrators impose something on elected boards, that is beyond my control already. I am elected as a trustee. I am answerable to the community and for the best interests of the students, for the children.

Now, if somebody is dictating something which is supposed to be my job, then the arbitrators will rule everything. That is why we want explicit instruction to the arbitrators what the roles are, what kinds of issues are to be arbitrable.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): To the presenter, thank you for your presentation. Every individual and every group that presents certainly brings a unique perspective to this committee. On page 3, and I quote from the second paragraph: "We are concerned that Bill 42, rather than encouraging good faith bargaining, will lead to an unhealthy reliance on arbitration." I think that is certainly something this committee will be looking at to make sure that does not take place, and a few other points that you mentioned in here. Again, we appreciate that you brought that particular point to the attention of this committee, and certainly appreciate your comments.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Dela Cruz.

Mr. Dela Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: The next presenters are Wendy Moroz and Howard Holtman.

Ms. Wendy Moroz (Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Assiniboine South School Division): Good evening Mr. Chairman, Honourable Minister, members of the Committee. My name is Wendy Moroz, and I am the Chair of the Board of Assiniboine South School Division. With me is our superintendent, Mr. Howard Holtman, who must administer our policies and certainly all the contracts, and any settlements that come about. So he is here for the technical questions.

Assiniboine South is in the southwest corner of the city, encompasses the Lindenwoods, Tuxedo, Charleswood, Westdale, and River West Park areas. We have 27 000 residents and 6200 students in 16 schools.

The Assiniboine South Board of Trustees has serious concerns regarding the changes proposed by The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, and the negative impact that these changes will have on school divisions' abilities to be respectful of local community needs and conditions while simultaneously managing resources effectively and efficiently so as to minimize local school tax increases.

As a division, we heartily endorse the 10-point preamble of Bill 42, which describes the purpose of public education and the respective roles of the school board, provincial government and parents. However, to our dismay, we note that the specifics of the Act do not appear consistent with this preamble. The second WHEREAS of the preamble indicates that "the purpose of the public school system is to serve the best educational interests of students." As a school division, we attend to this purpose in a variety of ways, not the least of which is the assignment of staff based upon the match between the needs of students and the specific skills and abilities of teachers. The Act, however, would place teacher transfer, and therefore teacher assignment, as an item subject to arbitration, which inevitably will result in teachers being assigned based upon their seniority as opposed to the best educational interests of students. For this reason, we believe that areas such as selection, appointment, assignment and transfers of teachers and principals, as well as methods of evaluating the performance of teachers and principals must remain a management right, if in fact school boards are to fulfil their primary purpose of attending to the best educational interests of students. We therefore propose that the Law Amendments review committee recommend that these items continue to be listed as management rights not subject to arbitration.

The ninth WHEREAS in the preamble states that "it is in the public interest to further harmonious relations between teachers and their employers through a process of collective bargaining, consistent with the principle that resources must be managed efficiently and effectively." Presumably, this means that every effort should be made to promote a mutually satisfactory negotiated contract between teachers and their respective divisions. The time frame suggested within the proposed act for movement to arbitration will, however, force the determination of most settlements to be achieved through the arbitration process as opposed to the negotiation process.

Section 103 of the proposed amendments is not in tune with the realities of school board and teacher negotiation processes. Currently teacher associations provide notice to com