Members of the Committee present:

Hon. Mr. Derkach, Hon. Mrs. McIntosh, Hon. Messrs. Pallister, Reimer

Ms. Cerilli, Mr. Dyck, Ms. Friesen, Ms. McGifford, Ms. Mihychuk, Mr. Newman, Mrs. Render

APPEARING:

Mr. Gary Kowalski, MLA for The Maples

WITNESSES:

Ms. Betty Green, Manitoba Association of School Trustees

Ms. Carolyn Duhamel, Manitoba Association of School Trustees

Ms. Betty Ann Watts, Manitoba Association of School Trustees

Mr. Howard Friesen, Garden Valley School Division No. 26

Mr. Cordell Barker, Pine Creek Teachers' Association

Ms. Val Thomson, Private Citizen

Ms. Lisa Martin, Private Citizen

Ms. Caroline Evans, Souris Valley Teachers' Association

Ms. Linda Dyrkacz, Agassiz Teachers' Association

Mr. Greg Fritske, Brandon Teachers' Assocation

Mr. Paul LaRivière, L'Association des Educateurs/Educatrices Francophone du Manitoba

Mr. Aurèle Boisvert, Francophone School Division

Ms. Erica Stecheson, Private Citizen

Mr. Dean Jonasson, Private Citizen

Ms. Nancy Trush, Private Citizen

Ms. Gail Eliasson, Evergreen Teachers' Association

Mr. Ernie Schiman, Intermountain Teachers' Association

Mr. Geoff Robson, Morris-Macdonald Teachers' Association

Mr. Harry McKnight, Private Citizen

Mr. Steve Lawrie, Private Citizen

Mr. Adam Grabowski, Private Citizen

Mr. Fred Veldink, Private Citizen

Mr. Lawrie Kyle, Private Citizen

Mr. Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labour

Mr. Henry Wedel, Transcona Teachers' Association

Mr. Donald Teel, Winnipeg Teachers' Association

Mr. Ron Munro, River East Teachers' Association

Mr. Murray Grafton, St. Boniface Teachers' Association

Mr. Jean Beaumont, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents

Mr. Jake Peters, Assiniboine South Teachers' Association

Ms. Val Goodridge, Assiniboine South Teachers' Association

Ms. Phyllis Moore, The Retired Teachers Association of Manitoba

Ms. Patricia Gendreau, Private Citizen

Mr. David Harkness, Private Citizen

MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION:

Bill 72--The Public Schools Amendment Act (2)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

The Manitoba Association of School Business Officials Inc.

Mr. Edward H. Lipsett, Private Citizen

Ms. Betty Green, Ms. Carolyn Duhamel, Ms. Betty Ann Watts, Manitoba Association of School Trustees

Ms. Tricia Hallson, Private Citizen

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. Before commencing with the business before the committee, a Vice-Chairperson must be elected. Are there any nominations?

Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Mr. Chair, I nominate the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dyck has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Dyck is elected as Vice-Chairperson to the committee.

The business before the committee this evening is the consideration of Bill 72, The Public Schools Amendment Act (2). Before continuing on with consideration of the bill, there are certain matters regarding process to clarify at this point. For the committee's and public's information, there are currently 55 persons registered to speak to Bill 72. A list of the presenters should be before all committee members, as well as, posted at the back of the room. For the public's information, if there is anyone present this evening who wishes to appear before the committee and is not yet registered, you may register with the Chamber staff at the back of the room and your name will be added to the list.

* (1810)

In terms of the order that we will hear presenters, there are two factors that the committee may wish to consider. First, there are currently 22 persons registered to speak who are from out of town. They are indicated as such by the asterisk after their name on the list. It has been a Manitoba practice to hear from persons who are from out of town first, as a matter of courtesy for the distance they have travelled. Is there a wish of the committee to have out-of-town presenters go first? Is that agreed? [agreed]

A second factor considers that there are two persons who have requested translation services in order to make their presentation in French and they are presenter No. 11, Paul LaRiviére, and presenter No. 38, Aurèle Boisvert, who are also from out of town.

How do the committee wish to proceed? Do the committee wish to set a time limit on the public presentations?

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, I think in order to give some certainty to the many people who are here tonight, I think we need to establish a time beyond which names will not be called. I would like to move that the committee not call names after midnight, but that anyone who wishes to present after midnight, the committee will remain to hear them.

Mr. Chairperson: Any further discussion on that suggestion? There being no further discussion, do I sense that there is unanimous consent for that approach? [agreed]

What about a time limit with respect to individual presentations?

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that we have many presenters and I believe for common courtesy for all of those who have come out, I would like to move that we allow 10 minutes for presentations and five minutes for questions.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, it is our position that Manitobans who come to present to these hearings should be allowed to present the position that they have come to on behalf of themselves or on the groups that they may represent.

Mr. Chairperson: Any further discussion?

Maybe at the outset, I could indicate that it is not permitted, under the rules of the House, to have demonstrations of support or opposition to committee decisions or performances by presenters. It does cut into the time and there are good practical reasons for it. Also, no one would want to hurt the feelings of someone that did not get applause, and let it go to their head if someone got too much applause. In any event, that is the rule and I would appreciate observance of that rule, whatever the rationale for it.

With respect, then, to the time limit on individual presentations, we have the suggestion of Mr. Dyck. Are you moving, Mr. Dyck, that the time limit be 10 minutes on the initial presentation and five minutes for question and answers?

Mr. Dyck: I so move.

Mr. Chairperson: All in favour of that motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion carries.

An Honourable Member: On division.

Mr. Chairperson: On division.

Mr. Chairperson: Another matter to deal with is that of persons whose names are called to make their presentation and they are not here. It has been a practice of the committee that in such a situation the name is dropped to the bottom of the list and, if the name is called a second time and the person is not present, the name is dropped off the list. Did the committee wish to follow this practice?

An Honourable Member: No.

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: We have a difference of opinion here, it appears.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I was under the impression that people were called twice and then on the third time they would drop off the list.

Mr. Chairperson: That was an exception to the practice held in one particular committee meeting considering one particular bill, but that was a departure from the practice, I am advised, and that is my own knowledge as well. Any further discussion on this issue?

Ms. Friesen: This is just to clarify that no names will be called after midnight.

Mr. Chairperson: That is an overriding matter already agreed to. Is there someone prepared to then make a motion to the effect?

Mr. Dyck: Mr. Chairperson, I would move, then, that we call the names twice and then that we delete them from the list.

Mr. Chairperson: All in favour, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yeas.

Mr. Chairperson: All opposed, please say nay. It is so agreed.

Finally, the committee has received written submission to Bill 72 from The Manitoba Association of School Business Officials Inc. and from Edward Lipsett, private citizen. The submissions have been distributed to committee members. Does the committee wish to have these submissions appear at the back of the Hansard transcript of this committee's meeting? Is that agreed? [agreed]

We will now begin to hear public presentations but, before that, I understand that the honourable minister wishes to give some prior notice of some amendments which she proposes to introduce. Is that the will of the committee, to hear what those proposed amendments are?

[agreed]

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Just for the information for the members and also for presenters who may be interested in these particular ones, I have three amendments that I am planning to introduce at the end of the hearings that--I mean, there may be more, I do not know--but these were three that we know we will be bringing forward. I would indicate that Clause 129(3) in Section 18, which has been much discussed since the bill was first put together, is the clause on the ability to pay and, for two reasons, one, the Manitoba Teachers' Society felt that the wording of that clause could lead to a predetermined conclusion and would give too much power to boards; similarly, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, after consulting with trustees at regional meetings, felt that in a boom economy it would give too much power to teachers, and for very differing reasons.

In fact, for diametrically opposed reasons, both parties have come to the conclusion that they would like to see the word "primarily" removed and the items, inability to pay listed simply as a list of factors. We have no problem doing that. I will be bringing forward an amendment. I understand teachers would prefer not to have an ability-to-pay clause but, if we have one, this is the wording they had requested in writing to me. Trustees have now asked for the identical wording.

So we have consensus, and I am grateful, between teachers and trustees on wording on that clause, something we had hoped to achieve in the beginning. It is there now, and so we will be quite delighted to reword that, and what we will see will be an amendment that would ask to have 129(3) be one clause that would indicate their inability to pay, the arbitrator should consider the following factors with the primacy given to none and the factors simply listed, the same factors that are there but listed with no primacy given to any.

That would be one amendment, and we will be presenting the wording. Legal counsel is aware of our request for this amendment.

The second one, again, is one that both trustees and teachers have indicated a similar request on, and again because it is coming from both groups and since what we are trying to achieve here is something acceptable to both groups, again we are pleased to comply with these requests for rewording on Clause 110(1.1), which currently indicates that bargaining is to begin on April 1. Teachers had indicated that their objection to that clause, and trustees, again, at the regional meetings after consultation with member boards had also approached me to indicate that there are a large number of boards that would also like the flexibility to begin prior to April 1. So we are bringing forward an amendment that says where there is mutual agreement, boards and teachers can begin earlier than April 1; where there is no mutual agreement, then the April 1 will kick in. This should allow for local flexibility since given the number of boards that would like to start earlier than April 1, there should be many instances where they could come to mutual agreement. That, of course, is always our first preference.

The third amendment we are bringing forward is a small amendment requested by teachers. It is a clarification, basically, to Section 32 where it is in terms of the date in which everything comes into being. Teachers were concerned that the board's obligation to act fairly be made very, very clear that it would come into being at the same time as the act, and that will be reworked to reflect that. Legal counsel has the indication of the concern and that will be addressed.

So those are the three that we were planning to bring forward, and I indicate that now for the benefit of committee members and for any presenters who may be interested in those particular items.

Mr. Chairperson: I will just make an announcement before the first presenter comes forward that Room 254, down the hall that way, is operational without a video but with audio, and if any people that get tired of standing but want to hear what is going on, that room will be open and available for that purpose.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could table the amendments that she has. It takes a while for Hansard to catch up with committee hearings, I think it would be useful for us to see them in writing as soon as they are available.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to do that. I cannot do that right now, but I will provide them to the members as we continue on through the course of the hearings. I will ensure that you get them prior to the debate on the amendments.

* (1820)

Mr. Chairperson: The first presenter then will be Betty Green, president, Manitoba Association of School Trustees. Betty Green please come forward. You have a supporting cast, Ms. Green. Did you want to identify them?

Ms. Betty Green (Manitoba Association of School Trustees): Yes, I would. I have with me this evening Betty Ann Watts, vice-president of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, as well as our past president, Carolyn Duhamel.

Mr. Chairperson: You may begin your presentation.

Ms. Green: Prior to beginning, may I ask for permission to extend the time that it will require to make this presentation with the reasoning that we are presenting on behalf of the 56 school boards in the province?

Mr. Chairperson: That permission has not been granted with the initial decision. Now a request has been made for leave for more time. What is the will of the committee? Can I suggest this, rather than debating this now, perhaps you can proceed and then if you need more time maybe they will be prepared to consider it at that time, and in making your presentation you can make the request that your entire brief be put into Hansard without any variation. If you would like to make that request now, then that could be dealt with and you would have the knowledge and comfort that it is going to be put into the record as is.

Ms. Green: Yes, I would certainly put that request forward.

Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee in agreement with that request?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: So agreed. That will then be done. You may begin your presentation, Ms. Green.

Ms. Green: The Manitoba Association of School Trustees welcomes the opportunity to present to the Law Amendments Review Committee its views on changes to the collective bargaining provisions of The Public Schools Act, as proposed in Bill 72. In recent years, school trustees have pursued with government a number of fundamental changes to the process of collective bargaining between school boards and teacher associations. From the trustees' perspective, the cornerstone of the collective bargaining process is the continuation of bargaining at the local level. MAST welcomes the legislative direction which reaffirms the importance of collective bargaining between school boards and teachers at the school division or school district level.

MAST's positions on Bill 72 have been shaped primarily through two processes. As always, the association's policies, as determined by resolutions at its annual convention, are a critical determinant of any stance taken by the association. Where appropriate, these policies have been forwarded annually to the Minister of Education and Training and other ministers where appropriate for consideration and possible action. These policy positions were also contained in MAST's brief to the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee this spring. We are pleased to see that some of the changes proposed in Bill 72 and other legislation before the Legislature reflect the concerns that the association has recently brought before the minister.

In light of the extent of the changes proposed in Bill 72 and other legislation, MAST augmented its formal policy positions by holding a series of special regional meetings on proposed legislative change this September. Six meetings were held across the province in the first two weeks of September. More than 200 trustees and senior school board administrators attended these meetings, representing all but two of MAST's member boards. The proceedings of these meetings give direction to much of what follows.

The first section that we will refer to is the process of collective bargaining. Bill 72 would amend the collective bargaining process as it applies to school boards and teacher associations. The two groups would be able to jointly request that the Minister of Education and Training appoint either a conciliator or a mediator-arbitrator to assist them in their negotiations. Sixty days after the notice to begin collective bargaining has been given, either group may ask the minister to appoint a mediator-arbitrator. Sections 8, 9, 21, and 23 of Bill 72 outline the provisions of the conciliation, mediation and arbitration processes.

Trustees generally support the proposed changes to the collective bargaining process. Several of these changes are supported by resolutions passed by school trustees in recent years. Although mediation has not been considered by a MAST convention, most school boards would seem to view its inclusion as an improvement to the collective bargaining process.

School boards do, however, have some concerns about the changes to the collective bargaining process outlined. One of the most widely spread is the off-loading of the conciliation costs to school boards and teacher associations and the divergence between The Public Schools Act and The Labour Relations Act in this regard. At present, the government pays the cost of a conciliator in the school board/teacher association negotiations, as it does in negotiations conducted under The Labour Relations Act. Amendments contained in Section 9 of Bill 72 would see these costs divided between the school board and the teacher association. We believe that the government should either continue to pay this cost directly or provide categorical funding to enable school boards to do so.

In a similar vein, we are concerned about discrepancies between the mediation provisions of The Labour Relations Act and those proposed for The Public Schools Act. At present, mediation under The Labour Relations Act is paid for by the government. If changes proposed under Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, are implemented, the government will still pay one-third of the cost of Labour Relations Act mediations. The proposed addition to The Public Schools Act would have school boards and teacher associations splitting the cost of mediation.

We believe that the only fair and reasonable approach is that the provision of the two acts be parallel in this regard. Our preference would be that the status quo of the current Labour Relations Act be maintained and that these provisions be extended to mediation under The Public Schools Act. At a minimum, we would ask that if the mediation provisions of The Labour Relations Act be amended so that the government pays one-third of the associated costs under that act, these same provisions be extended to mediation under The Public Schools Act.

School boards are also concerned about the proposed method of appointing the mediator/arbitrator. We are concerned that the list envisioned in Section 9 would be unduly restrictive. We also believe that the Chief Justice rather than the Minister of Labour is the appropriate individual to select the mediator/arbitrator.

In summary, with the exception of the items noted in the remainder of our presentation, MAST supports the proposed changes to the collective bargaining process found in The Public Schools Act as outlined in Bill 72. Conciliation and mediation services should be made available for negotiations between school boards and teacher associations at no cost to the parties involved. A mutually agreed upon list of mediator/arbitrators should be established through the Collective Agreement Board. The Collective Agreement Board should establish procedures for the maintenance of such a list.

The Chief Justice of the Province of Manitoba should select arbitrators and mediators using the Collective Agreement Board list as well as other names that the Chief Justice may choose.

* (1830)

Ms. Carolyn Duhamel (Manitoba Association of School Trustees): The next section deals with the ability to pay and requirement for financial information.

School boards support the inclusion of ability to pay as a consideration in an arbitrator's decision and, in fact, asked for this inclusion in a convention resolution in 1996. MAST requested consideration for ability to pay because school boards believed that arbitration boards assign more weight to other bargained settlements, in other words, comparability, than they did to a school board's ability to pay.

School boards also recognize that the implementation of a concept such as ability to pay poses some practical problems. Specific issues that will require further discussion and clarification include whether or not or how much of a school division's surplus will be taken into account when determining ability to pay and the relationship between ability to pay and increasing local taxes; i.e., the willingness-to-pay argument.

School boards are also concerned that this legislative amendment not be interpreted so as to give arbitrators authority over programming decisions. A situation could arise whereby an arbitrator decides that a school board would have an increased ability to pay if that board were to reduce or modify program offerings to students. No arbitrator in our view should have the ability to compel a school board to change its educational program or support services. We are seeking a commitment from the government that authority over educational programming will remain with the elected school board.

Many school boards