Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights

Mr. Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield

Mr. Andrew Peters, Private Citizen

Ms. Lauren Andrushko, Private Citizen

Mr. Greg Andrushko, Private Citizen

Mr. Paul Wiebe, Private Citizen

Mr. Peter Williams, Private Citizen

Mr. Robin Glowacki, Private Citizen

Ms. Layna Penner, Private Citizen

Ms. Doraine Wachniak, Private Citizen

Ms. Diana Risbey, Private Citizen

Mr. John Friesen, Private Citizen

Ms. Maria Kantyluk, Private Citizen

Ms. Sandra Oakley, CUPE Manitoba

Ms. Kathy Andersson, Private Citizen

Mr. John Ehinger, Private Citizen

Ms. Karen Lalonde, Private Citizen

Ms. Monica Ptak, Private Citizen

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order.

The first order of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): I nominate the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski) for Vice-Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Korzeniowski has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, Ms. Korzeniowski has been elected Vice-Chairperson.

This evening, the committee will be considering the following bill, Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act (Public Schools Act Amended).

We have presenters who have registered to make public presentations to this bill. It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the committee to hear public presentations on the bill, and, if yes, in what order do you wish to hear the presenters?

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I have been looking at the list, and there are quite a number of out-of-town presenters. I would like to seek the agreement of the committee to see the out-of-town presenters first. I would also see if there is willingness on the committee to look at the ones who are furthest away to make sure that they can get on earlier to allow them to get back onto the road and head back to wherever they are coming from.

So, if that is agreeable to the committee, I would propose that.

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Well, just for clarification, because for the people who are here, there are a number of people from close to town. Perhaps we could define for their benefit what the member means by out of town.

Mr. Struthers: I was looking at the list and I see places like Rolling River, Dauphin-Ochre, Intermountain, Evergreen, Duck Mountain, Birdtail River. These people all have a long distance to go.

An Honourable Member: Brandon?

Mr. Struthers: Brandon is on the list. That is over two hours back to Brandon this evening.

I think that, if we just exercise a little common sense, we can look to see which communities are a distance away, and I think allow them to speak first, then work in closer to the rural communities that are outside of the city of Winnipeg, if that is agreeable to the committee.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there agreement of the committee that we deal with the far-distant people first and then other out-of-city people next? [Agreed]

We are going to ask people whose school divisions are not listed to go to the table at the back where the Chamber attendant is registering new people. Those who are private citizens, we do not really know where you are from. So, if you could identify where you are from to the Chamber attendant, he will let the Clerk know. [interjection] If they are from far distance. Well, I guess we know where some of them are from. We just do not know where all the private citizens are from.

So, if you would like to move up the line so that you can go home earlier, please let us know.

* (18:40)

The persons who have registered to make presentations this evening are as follows, and I need to read this list into the record: Gladys Hayward Williams, private citizen; Diane Duma, private citizen; Karen Carey, Springfield Schools Parent Council; Karen Lalonde, private citizen; Peter Williams, private citizen; Lauren Andrushko, private citizen; Greg Andrushko, private citizen; Maja Kathan, Chair, École Dugald School; Linda Archer, President, Manitoba Association of School Trustees; Robin Glowacki, private citizen; Terry Egan and Sandra Oakley, CUPE Manitoba; Karen Velthuys, Chair, and Craig Stahlke, Secretary-Treasurer, and Jean Beaumont, Superintendent, Fort Garry School Division; Christopher Saunders, Springfield Parent Council; Layna Penner, private citizen; Doraine Wachniak, private citizen; Dale Kallusky, private citizen; Ruth Ann Furgala or Vivian Leduchowski, Evergreen School Division; Judy Edmond or Brian Ardern, Manitoba Teachers' Society; Kristine Barr, Trustee, and David Bell, Treasurer, Winnipeg School Division No. 1; Reg Klassen, Garden Valley School Division; John Ehinger, private citizen; Bob Land, private citizen; Glenn Anderson, private citizen; Dennis Wishanski, Jan Paseska, Sandra Paterson-Greene, School Trustees, Bruce Alexander, Chairperson, Elizabeth Kozak, Assistant Supertintendent, St. James-Assiniboia School Division; Malcolm Jolly, Brandon School Division No. 40; Marilyn Seguire and Roy Schellenberg, Louis Riel School Division; Mr. Terry Borys, St. Vital School Division; Colleen Jury, Chair, Rolling River School Division No. 39; Mary Hudyma, Dauphin-Ochre School Area # 1; Floyd Martens, Intermountain School Division; Gwynn Ketel, Duck Mountain School Division; Diana Risbey, private citizen; Bobbi-Lynn Geekie, Birdtail River Teachers' Association; Craig Blagden, Prairie Rose Teachers' Association; Paul Wiebe, private citizen; Gayle Wilson and Kevin Wilson, private citizens; Andrew Peters, private citizen; Murray Grafton, Louis Riel Teachers' Association; Peter Wohlgemut, President, Rhineland Teachers' Association; Mike Kukelko, private citizen; Norah Bailey, President, Agassiz Teachers' Association; Roland Stankevicius, River East Teachers' Association; Marijka Spytkowsky, Transcona-Springfield Teachers' Association; Virginia Larsson, private citizen; John Friesen, private citizen; Wendy Moroz, Chair, and Paul Moreau, Superintendent, Assiniboine South School Division; Zeeba Loxley, CEDA (Community Education and Development Association); Kathy Andersson, private citizen; Bert Kornelson, private citizen; Barrie Stevenson, private citizen; Maria Kantyluk, private citizen; Joyce Penner, private citizen; Bob Hopper, private citizen; Otto Mehl, private citizen. Apologies to anyone whose name I mispronounced.

Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. If there is anybody else in the audience who 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, 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the clerk of this committee.

Before we proceed with presentations, is it the will of the committee to set time limits on presentations?

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest that we maintain the practice that we have adopted over the last number of years, certainly since I have been here in 1995 and before, to limit presentations to 15 minutes and allow 5 minutes for a question-and-answer period following that 15. If we don't take the 15 minutes for the presentation, I would suggest we just add the 5 minutes on to whatever amount of time has been presented.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been suggested 15 minutes for presentations and 5 minutes for questions and answers. Is that agreeable to the committee? [Agreed]

How does the committee propose to deal with presenters who are not in attendance today but have their names called? Shall these names be dropped to the bottom of the list? [Agreed] Shall the names be dropped from the list after being called twice? [Agreed]

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I take it the committee is also going to be sitting tomorrow. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes. There is a meeting scheduled tomorrow night starting at 6:30.

Mr. Schuler: Those individuals who are called today and cannot stay until all hours of the morning will then have an opportunity for tomorrow. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes. If we are not finished tonight, they will be called tomorrow. They are dropped to the bottom of the list. They would be called tomorrow night. If they were not here a second time when their name is called tomorrow night, they would be off the list.

As a courtesy to persons waiting to give a presentation, did the committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening?

Mr. Struthers: There are a lot of names here, a lot of people that are going to be presenting tonight. I would suggest that at midnight we reassess where we are on the list and make a determination then, if that is acceptable to the committee.

Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed?

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): I would suggest that we make a decision that we adjourn at or around midnight.

Mr. Struthers: My suggestion was that we reassess at midnight, that we see how far we get along on our list, and if that is a possibility and it looks like we might have to adjourn at midnight, that would be open. I think we should just leave it now to reassess if we are close to being finished with the number of rural presentations.

My worry on this is that we get to midnight, we see some rural people who have not presented, and we have tied ourselves in to shutting things down at midnight. I do not want to be sending people back out of the city to come back again tomorrow night. So I think we need to reassess at midnight and see just where we are at that time.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think if we say at or about midnight, it gives us a little flexibility at that time.

Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I just think we have done this reassessment at midnight quite regularly in committee hearings. We are at the beginning of the committee hearing process. We need to leave the committee and the presenters with as much flexibility as possible. I think the suggestion by Mr. Struthers is a good one, that we assess the situation at midnight and leave ourselves and the presenters who might still be here and would want to present at that time the ability to do so. Closing it down at or around midnight, to my way of thinking, does not allow the flexibility the committee should have and the presenters who might still be here should have as well.

Mr. Chairperson: If I could summarize and maybe incorporate Mr. Gilleshammer's suggestion that we would reassess at or about midnight. Is that agreed? [Agreed]

I would also like to inform the committee that a written submission has been received from Monica Ptak, resident of Transcona-Springfield School Division No. 12. Also, I have been advised that Karen Lalonde, private citizen, who appears as No. 4 on the list of presenters, John Ehinger, private citizen, who appears as No. 21 on the list of presenters, and Kathy Andersson, private citizen, who appears as No. 48 on the list of presenters, have asked that their briefs be included as written submissions to appear in the committee transcript for this meeting. Copies of these briefs have been made for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting.

Does the committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed]

If people do not want to stay, or cannot stay, but you would like to have your written submission as a part of the official transcript, please indicate that to the clerk and we will get the consent of the committee to include it in the written transcript.

As well, I would like to advise that room 254, the committee room down the hall from this room, is being used as an overflow room. The sound from this room will be piped into that room so you will be able to hear the proceedings.

Now, we are going to try and deal with the names of out-of-town presenters.

The Clerk of the committee indicates to me that some people have expressed a preference to proceed early who live a fair distance away, so I am going to suggest we start with No. 17, No. 25, Nos. 34 and 37. After that, unless other people come forward, we will proceed with the other out-of-town presenters as listed. So No. 17, No. 25, Nos. 34 and 37.

The first one I would like to call forward is Ruth Ann Furgala or Vivian Leduchowski from Evergreen School Division. Please come to the podium. Please proceed.

* (18:50)

Ms. Ruth Ann Furgala (Trustee, Evergreen School Division): Thank you. Ruth Ann Furgala, Vivian Leduchowski representing the Evergreen School Division No. 22. Thank you for receiving us.

On behalf of the Evergreen School Division trustees, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our division's views on Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act. We are concerned that the legislation goes beyond the purvey of school board amalgamations and provides authority for decision making at the ministerial level that will weaken and reduce the ability of local school boards to represent their communities.

Section 7(1) of The Public Schools Act gives the minister the authority by regulation to amalgamate any two or more school divisions. This was reinforced in a June court ruling. The provincial government has all the needed authority under the existing legislation to conclude the current round of amalgamations. The Evergreen School Division recommends that the Government proceed with amalgamations under the existing legislation. We would further recommend that the Board of Reference be reinstated to decide any matters relating to the amalgamation that are not covered under The Public Schools Act.

Should the Government choose not to withdraw Bill 14, then the following recommendations are made for additions, deletions and amendments to the legislation.

Recommendation No. 1. That Bill 14 be amended by striking section 7(5) and consequential amendments to retain the right to appeal concerning Board of Reference decisions that exist in the current Public Schools Act. We feel that the right to appeal is a fundamental part of a democratic society. Since the current right to appeal has rarely been used, we feel that it is reasonable to retain the right under the revised legislation.

Recommendation No. 2. We would recommend that the proposed PSA sections 12(b), (c) and (d) be stricken. We have no objection to the establishment of rules that relate to the minister establishing interim boards. We are concerned, however, that the legislation gives the minister authority to establish the eligibility and the residency qualifications applicable to trustees serving on the interim board. The amalgamating board should have the authority to determine the make-up of their interim board, and the interim board should reflect the same eligibility and residency requirements as do the boards of the constituent divisions.

Sections 12.2(c) and (d) give the minister authority to make regulations concerning transitional matters. We are concerned that clause (d) effectively gives the minister boundless authority in this area. We are further concerned that the authority conferred upon the minister in the regulatory authority provides for unaudited authority. The making of regulations is not subject to the same public scrutiny and political debate as is the making of the legislation.

The making of regulations does not require consultation and discussion. Regulations may simply appear one day in the Manitoba Gazette carrying with them the full force of the law. School boards would have little or no opportunity to shape the regulations. As such, we cannot endorse the proposed section 12.2 of the PSA.

Recommendation No. 3. We recommend that section 16 of Bill 14 be amended to ensure a greater degree of stability and flexibility in the definition of and the limits of administrative costs. This part of the bill gives the minister regulatory authority to prescribe administrative costs, establish reporting requirements related to the costs, and setting limits.

We are concerned that the school boards may not have the stability to facilitate long-term planning. In addition, rural Manitoba school boards have very lean administrative structures as is. The present definition of administrative costs includes things like transportation which we argue are a direct service to the students.

Evergreen School Division has no concerns about the previous definition of administrative costs. However, the new definition in our opinion is an unfair definition, particularly for school divisions in rural Manitoba.

Evergreen School Division is committed to providing that maximum dollars be directed towards the classroom. With the increased demands from the Government in terms of administration, accountability and reporting, sufficient administrative services are crucial. If the present legislation is enacted, we are concerned that the time and energy our administrators have directed towards providing a service to schools and students will be directed in a different direction and therefore will be a detriment to the students in Manitoba.

The cost of administrating school divisions varies from school division to school division based on many criteria, including geographic formation. We are concerned that the present section 16 will impede our ability to provide fiscal responsibility at the local level.

Our school division makes every effort to control costs, and, as a result, we recommend that we not be saddled with a financial accountability that is general in nature and very difficult to administer on a wide scale. Again we would like to reinforce the impact that such legislation would have on rural Manitoba.

Recommendation No. 4. That the current section 7.2 of The Public Schools Act be amended to include a limitation on the time that may pass between the receipt of the boundary commission report and the implementation. We believe that the Norrie report is dated and had little relevance to the establishment of school divisions in 2002. We would encourage the minister to establish time limitations on the receipt of boundary commission reports and the ability to use those reports in the implementation of amalgamation.

In conclusion, Evergreen School Division feels that the minister has the necessary authority to follow through with amalgamation under the current Public Schools Act. Should the Government decide to continue to implement Bill 14, we recommend that the recommendations contained in this presentation be considered before continuing to final reading. We would also encourage that the bill be amended so it not undermine the authority of elected school boards.

As a school board, we take seriously our roles and responsibilities. We feel that the present legislation should be a balance between the ability of the Government to direct and the ability of school boards to implement an effective educational program in Manitoba.

On behalf of the Evergreen School Division, we would like to thank you for having an opportunity to present our concerns and ask that the committee consider our recommendations to the legislation so that it protects the needs of local communities and students as well as guarantee a fair and democratic process for us.

Yours in education, the Board of Trustees of Evergreen School Division.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any comments or questions for this presenter?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for your presentation this evening on Bill 14. I am just wondering if you feel you had any opportunity to have input prior to this in the drafting and the coming forward of this bill.

Many people in the public are telling me they were quite surprised at what they refer to as a power grab within this bill. I am just wondering if there was any warning to school divisions, any input from school boards that you are aware of.

Mr. Chairperson: I need to acknowledge you by name for Hansard every time before you speak and all the other presenters too. So, Ms. Furgala.

Ms. Furgala: Extremely little and to date nothing. I understand that there are a number of amendments to this bill already in place. Or is that just a rumour?

Mr. Gilleshammer: There are no amendments that have been proposed to this bill at this time, and the minister has not announced any.

Ms. Furgala: Very, very little information.

Mr. Loewen: Well, just for clarification, there were amendments introduced in the House in second reading, and they were all voted down by the Government.

Ms. Furgala: Okay. Thank you for that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The minister has said throughout this process that he has used the Norrie report as his instruction for the new boundaries and this new legislation. Was there anything in the Norrie report that indicated the minister should make changes to legislation to give himself more authority?

Ms. Furgala: I have not got a current copy, sir, so I would not want to comment on that. I would like to make it clear at this point, though, that Evergreen School Division has not been affected in the current round of amalgamations. So we are speaking at arm's length but very, very concerned with the legislation in this bill.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, so your concerns are not necessarily with the redrawing of boundaries. It is with the other portions of the legislation which, in the minds of many, take power away from school divisions and school trustees and place it in the minister's office. That is your main concern.

* (19:00)

Ms. Furgala: That is correct, sir.

Mr. Loewen: The minister, on a number of occasions, has indicated that he feels that there be a $10-million savings in the amalgamation. Has your division been given any hard facts or information that will tell you exactly where the minister expects those savings to arrive from and quantified in dollar amounts?

Ms. Furgala: Again, Evergreen School Division has not been affected, so it does not directly affect us, and I would not want to speak on behalf of any other division.

Mr. Loewen: Thank you, and I do realize that you are not being amalgamated. I am just wondering, in a general sense, if the minister has given your school division any indication of exactly where savings and how that $10 million is going to be saved.

Ms. Furgala: I understand the expectation would be from reduced administrative costs.

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Vivian and Ruth, I would like to thank you for your presentation. I think some of your recommendations are insightful and thoughtful. They reflect some of my own thinking as this has evolved. I look forward to hearing from some of your colleagues as the two days proceed. So thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

No. 25, Malcolm Jolly, Brandon School Division No. 40. Mr. Jolly. Please proceed, sir.

Mr. Malcolm Jolly (Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Brandon School Division No. 40): Mr. Chairman, ladies, gentlemen, on behalf of the board of trustees to the Brandon School Division, I would thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views on this bill. Our board consists of nine trustees elected by the citizens within the division which comprises the city of Brandon and the surrounding rural areas, including Alexander and DND Shilo, serving approximately 7700 students with 1000 employees and an operating budget of approximately $47 million.

Our board has considered this legislation in regard to our primary obligations and responsibilities. These are: to provide all students with the best possible education; to prepare our students to the best of our ability and the best of their ability; to contribute to the future well-being of our society; to be as fair as reasonably possible to our employees and, within our financial resources, to afford them the best possible security and working conditions in their employment; and, finally, to ensure that local taxpayers and the community receive the best possible return on investment from our education system.

Within this context which we have taken, there are aspects of this bill which are of serious concern to us. Our board in fact believes that the legislative changes proposed will have negative implications on Manitoba school boards and their communities. We hope that the committee will recognize the validity and the importance of these concerns.

As proposed, Bill 14 will increase the decision-making power of the minister at the expense of local control of education by school divisions. The board of trustees note that the proposed changes to The Public Schools Act will result in the minister having an expanded role in the day-to-day operation of school divisions, and it will restrict the authority of the local school board to some extent.

The proposals for control of administrative cost and approval of school division budgets by the minister causes us concern. Our trustees weigh any increase in administrative costs carefully and, over the past several years, we have conscientiously protected or directed increased budget support into the classroom. However, with increased demand for information and accountability and with the need to periodically upgrade our technology and information systems or to replace obsolete equipment, it becomes necessary to allocate additional resources in this area.

Section 16 of Bill 14 would allow the minister, by regulation, to prescribe and set limits on the administrative costs, and we are concerned at the type of administrative cost I have just mentioned.

In a similar manner, under section 22 of the bill, the minister would have the authority to revise school board budgets for amalgamating divisions. This would appear to us to be a shift of authority away from the historic local control of education. Matters relating to the operation of public schools are best handled, we contend, locally and are the responsibility of publicly elected boards who understand the local circumstances.

We believe that school divisions and local boards of trustees are in the best position to make spending decisions in the interest of educating students. We assert strongly that whether it be control of administrative costs or approval of budgets, the board of trustees takes all such decisions very seriously in meeting the educational needs of students in our division.

Trustees deal with these issues in a very responsible manner. They are closest to the user and they are publicly elected to make these decisions which affect students, parent, staff and taxpayers. We believe that trustees have done a good job in controlling administrative costs in the past and will do so in the future, as providing direct services to children is their main emphasis. As such, the increased ministerial control as contemplated is neither necessary nor, we feel, desirable.

In reference to section 17 regarding budget consultations, we do not oppose the process outlined. In this division, we have consistently endeavoured to provide the fullest possible opportunity for the community to have input into our decision making and budget process, and we shall continue to do so. However, we do have some concern regarding the shortness of time to undertake the public consultation required by this legislation.

The provincial funding announcement is made in mid to late January with divisions required to notify municipalities of the special levy by March 15. During this time frame, the board must finalize a proposed budget and subsequently present it at an open meeting giving at least 14 days notice. This time frame, I think you will agree, is limited and would be particularly troublesome, I think, for amalgamating boards if the minister is also required to provide his approval.

A further concern relates to section 5, the Board of Reference decisions. The legislation as proposed no longer provides the school divisions to request changes to boundaries unless amalgamating with another division or by applying through the minister who would then determine whether or not to submit the request for consideration to the Board of Reference. Groups of resident electors apparently would also lose this right. Further, the Board of Reference decisions would no longer be subject to appeal but solely to review of process only, thus unfairly restricting the opportunity, previously available, for public input. Again, I think this is an erosion of local control and a diminution of local democratic practice in public education.

* (19:10)

In concluding, Mr. Chairman, as stated earlier, Bill 14 expands the role and control of the minister in decisions related to division operations. Much of this control exercised through regulations as opposed to legislation would I think gravely reduce the public's right to have input into the decision-making process. Locally elected boards understand the educational needs and expectations of their communities, and we feel strongly decisions are best made at the local division level. As the local taxpayer funds a large part of these decisions through the special levy, local school boards should, we feel, be retaining their decision-making authority and should not have it eroded, as we fear, through the proposed legislation.

Mr. Chair, ministerial control by regulation could become a draconian method of acquiring control of local school divisions. A local school board's ability to give direction reflective of community interests to administration would be seriously impaired in that local direction may well be superceded by ministerial direction, enabled by regulation and not by legislation. Any attempt to restrict the authority of local school boards while expanding ministerial control should be proceeded by very careful examination of the deleterious effects of similar actions in other provinces and jurisdictions.

Both the Premier and the minister have appeared to support the view that the use of school boards as the ideal delivery vehicles for public education is the appropriate model for Manitoba and that their local decision-making powers within The Public Schools Act are essential to the provision of effective educational services. It would therefore seem proper that any real or perceived erosion of local powers is to be avoided.

The Brandon School Board of Trustees thanks you for this opportunity to express these misgivings and requests that you consider amending the legislation to address the concerns that we have expressed. Thank you.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you, Mr. Jolly, for a very well-presented and well-written brief on what we feel are some of the shortcomings in this particular bill. I wonder if the Brandon School Division has had any experience with the Board of Reference in its current form. It seems to me that the Board of Reference, as it is currently structured, is not used that often but by the legislation in place today it works quite effectively to resolve some of these disputes. This is going to make the Board of Reference more remote from school divisions and people.

Mr. Jolly: Indeed, yes.

Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Jolly.

Mr. Jolly: Pardon me.

Mr. Chairperson: I need to acknowledge you every time. I am sorry. So, Mr. Jolly, go ahead.

Mr. Jolly: Sorry. I am afraid I have to explain to the committee that my hearing is the one thing about me which has not improved by age. Sorry, Mr. Gilleshammer. I think I took your point. I believe there has been in my time one Board of Reference way back in the 1990s, I think, but I do agree of course that a Board of Reference is the ideal way to handle any boundary matters that may occur.

Mr. Gilleshammer: In your comments as well I get the sense that this legislation could sort of drive a wedge between local trustees and their ratepayers in that the minister is going to have to approve and perhaps change the budget of a school division. Not only is there a time crunch there, but there is that erosion of the ability of the board locally to make those decisions. There hardly seems to be any evidence which makes that necessary.

Mr. Jolly: That would seem to me would probably affect Brandon less, I am sure, but I agree. Our main concern here is that this bill seems to suggest an erosion of that local decision-making power which we regard as absolutely vital.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Just one final question. Was there any ability for school boards across the province to give the minister or the Government any input into this bill. Is it fair to say some aspects of this bill sort of appear from left field and were quite a surprise to the school boards?

Mr. Jolly: Yes, that is so. I think that is a fair comment. We wonder, having looked a little more into the matter, whether indeed this bill is necessary at all. We wonder whether the minister does not already have sufficient powers to accomplish what he has set out to do. But if such a bill becomes necessary, then we would ask that it be tempered by the sort of concern which we have expressed.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Jolly, thank you for your presentation. The Brandon School Board is known for the care which it takes when it looks at its budget and the financial responsibility of the board. In your view, the concern here of the minister taking control, or having control, in deciding budget matters for school boards is unnecessary because, basically, school boards like the Brandon School Board are very careful in how every dollar is spent.

Mr. Jolly: Well, thank you very much indeed for that tribute. Indeed, we have prided ourselves on that for many years, and I am sure that most other school boards approach their budget in the same careful kind of way that we do. At least, I hope so.

Mr. Caldwell: Malcolm, thank you very much for your brief. I know we reviewed some of this when I met with the school board last week. It has informed my thinking as we have moved through process and I expect that we will be discussing some of the points you make in greater detail as this process moves forward. So thank you very much for coming from Brandon and all the best.

Mr. Jolly: Thank you for hearing me.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presentation is from Dauphin-Ochre School Division school area No. 1. I would like leave of the committee to substitute Mr. James Durston for Mary Hudyma. Is there leave? [Agreed]

Mr. Durston, please take the podium.

* (19:20)

Mr. James Durston (Dauphin-Ochre School Area # 1): The Board of Trustees of Dauphin-Ochre School Area and its administrators have spent many hours working with the trustees and administrators of Duck Mountain and Intermountain school divisions, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that we are ready for the July 1, 2002, amalgamation date, mandated by the Minister of Education in his announcement of November 8, 2001.

Ours is a unique amalgamation including: Dauphin-Ochre School Area; the communities of Ethelbert and Winnipegosis, which were mandated; the community of Pine River, which was added at the request of that community and with the subsequent approval of the minister; and the later voluntary amalgamation of Intermountain School Division. The uncertainty of the status of Pine River and the decision of Intermountain School Division made the last week of January to voluntarily enter into the amalgamation greatly compressed the time line for our decisions. The many meetings and intense planning were done with confidence that the enabling legislation would be in place for the Mountain View School Division to come into existence July 1, 2002.

The passage of this legislation by June 30 now seems in jeopardy. This leaves us with much uncertainty for the measures that have been put into place for the interim board.

There are, however, several sections of Bill 14 that cause us great concern. It was our anticipation that the enabling legislation would dissolve the existing school divisions that are now in the process of amalgamating and would outline the role and authority of the interim boards that were described in the ministerial announcement.

The definition of the new amalgamated school division came by regulation rather than by legislation, that refers to regulation 61/2002; and Bill 14 is much broader in scope than the current round of amalgamations. The provisions of the bill have significant implications for all the school boards and communities.

We can appreciate the need for a moratorium on Board of Reference hearings in the amalgamating divisions for a period of three years. However, we do not see the need to alter the list of those who made request to a Board of Reference hearing. We are concerned that the awards made by the Board of Reference would not be able to be appealed. The right of judicial review, which Bill 14 stipulates, would look only at the process by which the decision was reached rather than the substance of the decision itself.

Of even greater concern is the propensity for making changes by regulation rather than by legislation. Regulations are not subject to the same public scrutiny as is legislation, which is open to debate in the Legislature and through the Law Amendments Review process.

All school boards have, for the past number of years, held public consultations as part of the budget process. The budget process outlined in Bill 14, section 178(1), would mean that Mountain View trustees would have to meet with 17 school councils or committees in 8 communities. We certainly agree with public consultation but feel that the number of meetings can best be determined and scheduled by local boards.

Bill 14 includes new powers for the minister in the budget process of amalgamating divisions for a period of three years. We are offended at the intrusion of the minister in a process that has been traditionally a major responsibility of local school boards. As do all school boards, the board of Dauphin-Ochre School Area recognizes its dual responsibilities to its students and its taxpayers. We take very seriously the challenge to provide the best educational opportunities for our students that we can within the capability of our communities to face ever-increasing school taxes. Almost half, and that is 46 percent, of the costs of educating our students is paid by the local taxpayer through property taxes. It is imperative then that locally elected trustees be empowered to set the budget for their division.

We have a record of managing our resources effectively and efficiently, recognizing and appreciating the implications of increased taxes on our community. This has also been the case with our amalgamation partners and will not change in Mountain View School Division. The imposition of caps on administrative costs and the definition by ministerial regulation of what is included in those costs is a further intrusion of the minister in the authority of locally elected school boards.

Further to this concern, the first several years of an amalgamated division are the years where administrative costs seem likely to be the highest. The administration of a number of collective agreements, the harmonization of job descriptions, policies and programs, all require administrative personnel, and costs may be reduced once the transition period is over.

To summarize, we feel that the best educational decisions are made at the local level. School trustees are elected for the sole purpose of setting the budget, developing policy and hiring effective administrators for their school divisions. They are knowledgeable about local priorities and the local economy, and they are accountable to the local citizens. We urge you to modify the legislation to reflect the concerns that we have expressed, and we also reiterate that timely passage of appropriate legislation is essential. Thank you.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening. When the amalgamation was first announced, Duck Mountain was going to be split three ways, part to Dauphin, part of it to Swan River and part to Frontier; then this was changed. Was there an appeal process that you folks went through in that area?

Mr. Durston: Well, this was all a very kind of a convoluted sort of a thing. Frontier School Division was going to take a piece, Swan Valley School Division. There was not necessarily any appeal process. I do believe that the communities themselves had meetings, and a lot of that pressure came from the local community of Pine River to join Dauphin-Ochre, as opposed to going the other way.

Mr. Gilleshammer: How were those community concerns taken to government?

Mr. Durston: Those concerns, I believe, likely were done mostly by letter and probably through the local MLA, who is seated here today, too. Hi, Stan.

Mr. Gilleshammer: So the appeal process consisted of local MLAs being involved in redrawing the boundaries. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Durston: No. They were not involved with the redrawing of the boundaries, but they were involved in taking a lot of heat from the communities in terms of what would happen.

Mr. Gilleshammer: So the heat that was put on Mr. Struthers and Ms. Wowchuk eventually landed on the minister's desk and changes were made from the original announced boundaries to something different after this heat was applied?

Mr. Durston: The minister subsequently approved the Pine River coming to Mountain View.

Mr. Gilleshammer: So in your mind there was no formal appeal process that other school divisions and other individuals could make reference to. This was simply done by appealing to the local MLA and then somehow these changes were made.

Mr. Durston: A lot of pressure, a lot of letter writing. I would like to state that, as Dauphin-Ochre, we were more or less waiting to see what would happen. We were not necessarily involved to any degree at all in terms of lobbying or pushing for this community or that community. We were waiting to see with bated breath and hoping things would happen in a timely fashion as well to see where we were going to go from there.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The minister has announced there will be a realization of a savings of $10 million due to this redrawing of boundaries. What savings will occur in the Dauphin-Ochre School Division and the Duck Mountain School Division and Intermountain? Have you been able to sort of quantify the amount of savings that are going to be achieved?

* (19:30)

Mr. Durston: We have discussed that considerably around our board table. I posed the question to Mr. Caldwell when he came to Dauphin-Ochre. He suggested to us that that would happen over a longer period of time through things like attrition and that nature. It is about as specific as I was able to get an answer for in terms of where $10 million would come from.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Do you see any immediate savings in year 1, year 2 and year 3?

Mr. Durston: We have just put in place new contracts for our senior administrators. We are not anticipating that collective agreements, which are obviously all different, are going to head downwards. They are likely all going to necessitate increased costs as all amalgamating divisions, all policy manuals which are all different, are all going to have to be put in place, harmonized. There will not be any cost savings over the short term.

Mr. Caldwell: James, thank you for your brief. I think a lot of folks do not know that Dauphin-Ochre was the first school division to amalgamate in the 1940s, Dauphin-Ochre school division. I would like to think that most folks do not know, as well, that the most complex merger in the province is in fact the one being undertaken in Dauphin-Ochre with Intermountain, Duck Mountain, Frontier and yourselves being involved.

I just wanted to say that I have appreciated working with your division as this is moved forward. Certainly your senior management team has done tremendously good work in bringing four divisions together in your region, and that is a credit to the work you have done in the Parkland Region.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I have one further question.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the member have leave for one short question? [Agreed]

Mr. Gilleshammer: Sir, do you quantify the additional costs there are going to be through the harmonization of contracts?

Mr. Durston: We are currently–

Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Durston. I was trying to get leave to ask one more question. Is there leave of the committee for Mr. Gilleshammer to ask one short question? [Agreed]

Mr. Durston: We are currently in the process of tracking all costs. We do not really at this point have any idea what those costs are going to amount to over the amalgamation process. Indeed we do not know even how long it will take to harmonize policy, as one example. The longer that process goes on, the more administrative costs there are going to be. We are tracking them and we will be able to have a better idea of those costs but, as of right now, we would be I think naive to even attempt to guess at what those costs are going to end up being.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Durston. Unless I hear objections from the committee I am going to call for presentations or presenters from Rolling River, Duck Mountain, Birdtail River, Rhineland and Intermountain.

Next we will go to No. 28, Colleen Jury, chair, Rolling River School Division No. 39. Is Colleen Jury here? Please take the podium. Colleen Jury?

We will go next to No. 31, Gwynn Ketel, Duck Mountain School Division. Is Gwynn Ketel here, please?

We will go now to No. 33, Bobbi-Lynn Geekie from Birdtail River Teachers' Association. Please proceed.

Ms. Bobbi-Lynn Geekie (President, Birdtail River Teachers' Association): Good evening. My name is Bobbi-Lynn Geekie, and I am a teacher in Birdtail River School Division. I am also president of the Birdtail River Teachers' Association.

Why are we, the teachers of the Birdtail River Teachers' Association, in favour of supporting Bill 14? We feel this is a progressive step towards putting resources back into the schools and particularly back into classrooms. We would like to applaud Minister Caldwell for this advancement in education.

It has been nearly 50 years since the last major restructuring of the school divisions. In these 50 years, society has changed dramatically. Transportation and communication have become easier. Enrolments have decreased and societal expectations on our graduates have increased. Our school divisions must reflect these changes.

In 1971, Birdtail River School Division had approximately 3200 students and 155 teachers. In 2002, we have 1180 students and 86 teachers. Therefore we have seen our enrolment decline by more than 60 percent. How can anyone expect a division to operate using the same structure for over 30 years with a 60% decrease in student population? Yet Birdtail River School Division maintained one superintendent, one secretary-treasurer and 11 trustees.

Fewer students have meant a decrease in the ability for the division and the schools to provide resources and maintain programs. Yet for 30 years the Birdtail River School Division administration has maintained status quo, one superintendent, one secretary-treasurer and 11 trustees. Would this have eventually changed? It appears highly unlikely. When given the chance to voluntarily pursue amalgamation, the Birdtail River School Division made it clear they were not willing to pursue voluntarily any kind of structural change.

The cuts continued. Schools cut staff and/or programs, yet administration was not. Fewer students meant fewer teachers. Fewer teachers meant more combined classes. It is not unusual to find classes like the K-1-2 combination that happened in our school, or the Grade 3-4 combined class of 34 students.

Fewer teachers also meant program cuts. One of the most common programs to be cut is the French program. At a time when technology is making our world smaller and our eastern neighbour, Ontario, is encouraging three languages before you graduate, many of our schools are forced to cut programs. Still, after 30 years, the Birdtail River School Division maintained administrative status quo, still no changes to the administrative numbers, still no way to get the resources out of the bureaucracy and into the classroom.

Amalgamations are a major step towards helping save these programs. Combining with Pelly Trail will help increase our school's ability to offer programs by reducing some of the duplicate overhead. With approximately 2000 students in the combined divisions, we do not need 19 trustees, we do not need two busing systems, and we do not need to run two school division offices. These finances can then be redirected back into our children's education.

As an aside, I had a conversation with a trustee who had said cutting 10 trustees is not going to be that much of a fiscal saving. She said, our $2000 indemnities times 10 trustees is very little. But, when you add in their expense accounts and their mileage, that is money that can buy us math manipulatives, science equipment and textbooks that our schools do not have and cannot afford. We need those finances to go back into our children's education.

In addition to programs, Bill 14 will help our division look at the possibility of a full-time psychologist, counsellor and technology co-ordinator, just to name a few. In the past it has been virtually impossible to have these people as full-time employees of our school division. Yet Birdtail River managed to maintain a priority of trying to keep a fairly high clinician ratio. Pelly Trail has had fewer students and has not been as fortunate. This lack of clinician service has often led to frustration on the parts of students, parents and teachers.

* (19:40)

Now, with the larger student population, justifying and financing these essential services will become possible. This should eliminate the times when you could not reach a clinician because they were only hired for part of the school year. This was not uncommon to find out that a clinician was done in the middle of May. Sorry, you cannot have the psychologist's assistance. She is done for the year. Sometimes they were not hired at all. The stakeholders will now have access to the services that they so desperately need.

In addition to the reduction in administration costs, we also applaud the minister for including budget consultations and presentations in Bill 14. Local autonomy is one thing, but so often teachers, parents and municipal representatives have been told at budget meetings that the budget and expenditures are not debatable. We have been informed that the presentations are for information only. It is not debatable. It has already been decided. Then we are presented with a few percentages that are more often than not a smokescreen that have already been passed by the board.

The public feels that there has been little accountability on where we invest public education dollars. The stakeholders want to ensure that our students' education is the priority. Communication between stakeholders is imperative in education. Bill 14 will allow for this communication between government, divisions, teachers and parents. A working relationship is necessary between all parties so that we can see first-hand the effects of our decisions and provide our students with the best resources and education possible.

Amalgamation makes sense for Pelly Trail and Birdtail River. Bill 14 helps make this a positive transition. Teachers, parents and students are accepting the change with open arms. This has been primarily due to the fact that the change has come with clear guidelines that addressed their concerns. Will schools be closed? How is it going to affect my child? There have been answers to those. Teachers, parents, students and communities believe this will improve the programs and services we offer, as well as working towards protecting the viability of the small schools.

We support Bill 14, and we, once again, want to thank the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) for taking us in the direction that we feel will help us in our goal to provide the best education possible for our children. Thank you.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you for your presentation. It was interesting to get a first-hand view of the challenges facing small school divisions. I was particularly struck by your comment that it is not unusual to find classes like kindergarten, Grades 1 and 2 combinations. I do not know, but it seems to me that is not pedagogically, it is not in the best interests of students to have a combination like that at the very front end, the very beginning of children's school times. I am assuming that, in your presentation, you are seeing that these combination classes will be reduced if not eliminated as a result of the amalgamation.

Ms. Geekie: We are certainly hoping. We are hoping that this will allow the finances to go back so that we are not having to cut the teachers. The teachers, therefore, will be there to provide the programs for the students. By having a larger student base, it will give us more finances for the division, and therefore they should be able to provide us with more teachers for the classrooms.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you very much for your presentation. Schools around Strathclair, like Sandy Lake and Oak River, with 45 and 50 students, do have combined classes. Are you anticipating that this legislation and changes are going to do away with combined classes in these small schools?

Ms. Geekie: No, of course, it is not going to eliminate it, but it will help to alleviate some of the problems. You cannot say that a classroom with K-1-2 or another classroom of Grades 3-4 students with 34 kids is a positive thing, and some of those finances will be able to help alleviate that problem. It will not completely rectify it but will alleviate some of the stress.

Mr. Schuler: Just in that line, I mean, you mentioned here, Grades 1-2 combination and Grades 3-4 combination, and I take it that is commonplace in both school divisions, because you have mentioned that they have lost enrolment. Is that correct?

Ms. Geekie: Yes, that is correct. Not necessarily those combinations in particular, those two do exist in some schools, and there are other combinations in various schools.

Mr. Schuler: Then I guess I am a little bit confused because, on the second page, you talk about protecting the viability of the small schools. Yet, if you have low enrolment in small schools, how do you, by combining two divisions, protect the viability of small schools when there is low enrolment and you need 3-4 combination or 1-2 combination, or whatever the combination is, if that already exists, how does amalgamation make these small schools all of a sudden viable?

Ms. Geekie: What it will do is it will help us put some of the finances back into the school system. Due to the decisions that the school division has had to make, there have been cuts, cuts, cuts in order to maintain their administrative status quo and in order to provide things like new bus garages, et cetera. Now, what I feel that amalgamation will do is take some of that duplicate overhead and allow the school board to put that money back into the classroom so that we will be able to hire more teachers.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Geekie. Over the course of the 1990s, we watched one year after the next of cuts to public school funding being announced, minus 2, minus 2, minus 3, a freeze in an election year and then back to minus 2 again. What would your opinion be on the impact of those cuts made by the previous government on this school setting, your own school setting, your classroom? What impact was that for the students as opposed to the impact that you foresee when we can manage to take some of the record level of funding that has gone into education the last two years and put it into the classrooms? What would be the difference of the impact on the kids in your classroom?

Ms. Geekie: In the years that I have been teaching, I have seen cuts of teachers in the schools that I have been working every year. I have seen combinations of classes increase so, where it used to be a rare occurrence, it has become more and more commonplace. I have seen classrooms running without textbooks. I have seen teachers saying I cannot do the math curriculum properly because we cannot afford math manipulatives. All of this is starting to wear on the education that our students are receiving and on the lives of teachers. We are losing more and more teachers because they are just saying they cannot do it anymore.

This year is the first year in a long time that we are seeing some minor improvements. Now that has of course not been due to amalgamation in total because that has not really occurred yet, but we have seen increase in the funding and that seems to have helped somewhat.

Mr. Chairperson: We have run out of time, so thank you for your presentation.

Number 39, Mr. Peter Wohlgemut, President, Rhineland Teachers' Association. Please proceed.

Mr. Peter Wohlgemut (President, Rhineland Teachers' Association): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you this evening on Bill 14. My name is Peter Wohlgemut, and I am the president of the Rhineland Teachers' Association. I live and work in Rhineland and my own children attend school there. The Rhineland Teachers' Association itself represents 105 teachers who work in the Rhineland School Division. As a result of amalgamation, our division will shortly be part of Border Land School Division and our association will then become part of the Border Land Teachers' Association.

* (19:50)

My division chose to amalgamate with Boundary and part of the Red River School Division over a year ago. Since then the Sprague School District has been added to the group to form the Border Land School Division. I have been very impressed with the co-operation and the good will with which the divisions have worked through the amalgamation process to date. Our trustees and administration have worked hard to ensure that the public and the employees have been kept up to date with developments. We were regularly asked for feedback and concerns, though there have been few of that latter that I am aware of. Each of these amalgamating entities is quite small on its own, despite most being the result of amalgamations themselves back in the sixties and seventies.

While there are some advantages to being small, these divisions have long recognized in fact the advantages of a larger operating scale. They have shared clinicians and other divisional personnel to ensure that needed student services are available. They have worked together to arrange shared vocational programs, resulting in a range of opportunities that none of them could have offered students on their own. Amalgamation really is a recognition of what has been going on in our area for some time. Now many of these things can be managed under one administration instead of several.

My hope is that Bill 14 will be passed into law well before school starts in the fall, as the current uncertainty is creating unnecessary stress in our division. As we have already seen, there are a number of issues that can arise during amalgamation. My understanding is that this bill will put in place a process to deal with issues arising from the transfer of assets and liabilities. It will also change the role of the Board of Reference so that it can be more effective in amalgamation proceedings such as those we are facing now, balancing the need for review and the need to move the process along.

There are other provisions which I believe will have little impact on my division. The Rhineland School Division has made a practice of involving both the public and the employees in the budgetary process for some years now. Judging by the efforts they have made to keep the public and employees informed about the process of amalgamation to date, the new Border Land School Division will probably follow this practice. This bill will ensure that such is the case right across the province, not just where we are. The limits on board size and administrative costs, again, do not appear to be causing any undue concerns.

I do know that the possibility of school closures has been a concern in our community, though that is not a recent thing. Our boards have stated several times that there is no intention of closing any schools in the near future. The moratorium contained in this legislation will ensure that new divisions do not close schools before the advantages of larger operating scales become evident. It will also reassure communities like the one I teach in and the one I live in. I teach in a small rural school, one that has survived several amalgamations to date, largely due to strong community support. My own children attend another small rural school. I am firmly convinced that a larger division would, in fact, be quite capable of keeping such schools open, provided the community commitment was there.

Another concern I have heard voiced is taxes. While I would prefer to see Manitoba move to a more equitable method of funding public schools, such as funding them from general revenues rather than through local school board levies, the gradual aligning of taxation levels provided for in this bill will ensure that local taxpayers have time to acclimate to any changes in taxation. This will also reduce some of the disparity currently seen between adjacent divisions.

Finally, in this week's editorial in our local paper, the local paper accused the minister of meddling in local affairs through this bill, especially in the area of divisional budgets. The fact is that education is a provincial responsibility. In addition, the majority of the money that a division spends on education comes from the Province. With predictions as to the financial impact of amalgamation ranging from bringing significant savings to being cost-neutral to resulting in huge costs, it only seems prudent that a process be in place to check on those budgets.

This bill will provide the framework needed in order for amalgamations currently in process to proceed smoothly in time for fall classes. What would be gained by holding up the process at this point? I know that there are concerns that there may be another round of amalgamations in the offing. The fact is that some 30 years ago, the many small districts in my area amalgamated to form the Rhineland School Division in order to provide better educational opportunities for students. We have amalgamated again to form the Border Land School Division. I fully expect the result will be the same, better educational opportunities for the children living in our corner of Manitoba. This bill will ensure that this latest amalgamation can proceed smoothly and in a timely fashion, and I would expect that any future amalgamations would be able to occur in an appropriate and timely fashion as well.

I would urge the Government to pass this legislation into law well before the fall term begins so that boards and administrations in amalgamating divisions are not left in limbo. Plans are in place. Things are ready to go. Let us keep the process moving.

Thank you for giving the divisions the push needed for them to take a look at issues of size and delivery of service. I do hope that it does not take another 30 years before we take a look at these issues again. Thank you.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I did not see the local editorial about the minister being accused of meddling in local affairs through this bill and that in your view education is a provincial responsibility.

There was an editorial in the Free Press not too long ago talking about the minister taking more and more authority for local school divisions. Would you see the need for local school divisions disappearing down the road?

Mr. Wohlgemut: Actually, I had that question asked by our local media not long–

Mr. Chairperson: Sorry. I need to acknowledge you. Mr. Wohlgemut.

Mr. Wohlgemut: It is quite a mouthful, I know. Our local radio station, actually, asked me a similar question not long ago, and what I told them at that time was that I think what you will see happening is a shift in the emphasis of local school boards.

Right now, we have quite a bit of concern about how money is spent, looking at budgets, looking at some of those sorts of matters. What I would see down the road is a shift towards boards concentrating more on what programs are being offered, what sort of educational needs there are in the community and that sort of thing.

I think that would be a good shift and one that I, as a teacher, would certainly welcome. I think we already have trustees who focus in that area and I would like to see more of them.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Would it be of concern to you that the Province provides on average 59.2 percent of the operating costs of schools and the other 40 percent is raised locally? In an earlier presentation, the gentleman representing the Dauphin school division indicates that 46 percent of the cost of educating students is paid by the local taxpayer.

Given the fact that there is less provincial money going to the operating side and more local money, would this not fly in the face of taking power away from local trustees?

Mr. Wohlgemut: If the trend that we certainly were seeing earlier in years past continued, I would certainly see that as being a concern, where you are seeing more and more local money, less and less provincial. I think with the recent trend towards having more money coming from the Province, and, as I mentioned in my presentation, I would like to see even more yet, I think it certainly would make sense that more of that decision making be at the provincial level.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the 59.2% funding is current. That is what is being provided in this year's budget. That is the lowest level that the Province has contributed in modern times to the operating of school divisions. Given the fact that the local taxpayer is picking up more and more of the cost, would it not follow that they should at least maintain the authority and the control that they have at the present time.

Mr. Wohlgemut: Again, I think I would say if that trend were to continue, that argument might be made. My understanding from what I have heard coming from the minister and from the department is that that trend may be turning around. I would certainly hope it is turning around.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Wohlgemut. One of the little games that goes on around here quite often is that we take part of the statistics and we throw them out to people as if they are all of the statistics. When you take capital and announcements we have made in terms of pensions, the figure rises dramatically from 59.2 percent to something closer to the area of 76 percent. I would wish that when we take a look at the figures that we use that we tell the whole story.

Certainly, the other part of the story is that the slide in percentage of drop that has been talked about across the table has continued for quite a number of years. It is just not something that has come up overnight.

I was very interested in one of the statements that you made that the amalgamation in your part of the world is something that is a recognition of what is happening already. You said that amalgamation is really a recognition of what has been going on for some time. Do you mean that there have been shared services already between these divisions? If so, do you see this amalgamation as enhancing those positions, and what maybe are they, what are those positions that are shared?

Mr. Wohlgemut: Yes, actually this has been going on for some time. Vocational programs have been shared between a number of divisions in that area. Just recently we were sharing our student services co-ordinator between a couple of divisions. Clinicians have been shared between divisions for quite some time as well. So certainly I think it would make sense, going into amalgamation, that a division that is larger would no longer have to share. They would be able to provide some of those services within their own division rather than having to share with another one because they simply cannot afford it on their own.

* (20:00)

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wohlgemut, time has expired. I would like to apologize to the public and particularly to presenters who may have heard their name or number read out, and then I did not even follow my own sequence. So we are going to back up a little bit and we are going to hear from No. 34, Craig Blagden from Carman, and then Andrew Peters from Birtle.

So is Mr. Craig Blagden in the audience? Please come forward.

Mr. Craig Blagden (President, Midland Teachers' Association; President-Elect, Prairie Rose Teachers' Association): I have two pieces of good news. First, this presentation will not take 15 minutes, and, second, I see that there are still no screens on the windows, so I have brought some insect repellant, because as soon as it gets dark the mosquitoes in here will be coming in and coming in fast.

Hello, I am Craig Blagden, president of Midland Teachers' Association and president-elect of Prairie Rose Teachers' Association. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of Bill 14. In case you are not sure of the area I teach in, Midland School Division covers the area from Miami, Manitoba, to Elm Creek and has about 100 teachers. Prairie Rose School Division will go from Miami, Manitoba, I think, to St. Laurent and will have about 185 teachers.

I welcome the upcoming amalgamation. I feel that improving our public school system in Manitoba is an important goal for everyone and amalgamating school divisions will improve our school system.

Right now, there are 100 teachers in the Midland School Division. While that seems like a large number to some, when you break down the teachers into their specialties, the number becomes quite a lot smaller. When we have in-services and the senior math teachers get together, the problem is not finding a room big enough for us, it is finding a room small enough because there are only 6 of us and only 4 that teach only senior years. The other 33 percent also teach in middle years.

As you can see, having such small numbers does not do well for inservicing or for networking. Having the resource of more teachers, which a larger division creates, helps us share the information about our courses and helps us be better teachers and in turn give our students better education which is the most important.

This networking is also important for our Hutterian teachers. The new Prairie Rose School Division will now have 16 Hutterian colony schools. This will give the teachers a lot of support because most of these schools have only 1 or 1.5 teachers working there, and the more people these teachers have as a resource, the better. I know this from personal experience because I have worked in a two-room school, and the more people you can get to assist you, the better.

A bonus of teaching in a small school division is that the class size allows students to learn at optimal levels. But one of the disadvantages with small schools concerns a number of options Manitoba Education, Training and Youth now allows students to take. If you offer three math courses, three English courses and four science courses for students to take and they do not all want to take the same course, you may have very small classes.

For example, if you have a class of 20 students and you want to offer all three math courses: Pre-Calculus, Applied, and Consumer Math, and divide the classes equally into the three courses, you have a real big problem because I think it is hard to split students into thirds. But since I am a math teacher, let us do the math. You would have a class of about six for each subject. Twenty divided by 3 gives you 6.33 students. Even I realize that is a very small class.

With amalgamations we can have larger classes with the use of technology. Still using the math example, if three schools in the new division have six students enrolled in each course, we could use the IITV system. This is a system of broadcasting courses based in one school to other schools in the system. This would now create a class of 18 in each course. This then makes all the courses viable to be taught and it allows the schools to offer all the courses that students would like to take.

Amalgamating school divisions is a good thing. It should have been done earlier but it is a good thing. I know that there is some opposition to amalgamation and I know that people are afraid of change. But we should not be afraid of change if it is for the better which I feel amalgamations are. We have gone 46 years without major changes to Manitoba school divisions. Imagine what our classrooms would look like if we had not changed them in the last 46 years. It is time to do what is best for our students. Thank you.

Ms. Barrett: I think that I would have guessed that you were a math teacher even without your saying you were a math teacher. As a former English major, I do know what I am hearing in your presentation, and I think it is very interesting when you are talking about the Hutterian colonies having more access to larger resources. Your image of having 1.5 teachers working in some of these schools is very vivid. Teaching is an incredibly challenging profession at the best of times and not having people to link with and to talk with and to share ideas with must be very, very difficult. So I appreciate your sharing those kinds of images and ideas and positive things about the process of amalgamation.

Just one question: Do you see your new school division as having challenges or problems or do you think that everyone involved in this school division thinks that this is on balance, there is more positive outcomes that can happen as a result of this?

Mr. Blagden: I cannot speak on behalf of the trustees and I do not think they would want me to. As with anything that is new that is going to happen, there will be challenges for everyone, for the teachers, for the trustees and for the administration of the schools. But as I see it, I think it is a good thing and I think that the challenges can be dealt with and that by amalgamating the new school division will be one of the largest ones, area-wise. It is about 150 kilometres from Miami to St. Laurent. I still think that that is something that can be dealt with. If you want this to work, if all parties want it to work, it will work when we can get over the rough bumps in the road.

Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much for your presentation. You do mention that there was a major amalgamation some 46 years ago in which there were positive changes that came out of that. I suppose you are also aware that was all voluntary. I think there is real positive to that.

My question to you is you mention about the smaller classroom size or that there are small classroom sizes in a lot of the divisions. You put in here larger classes through the use of technology. Do you need amalgamation to have larger classes through technology, or should we be looking at perhaps not even amalgamation but just having a lot more, a combination of classes through the use of technology, that crosses a school boundary, that can even cross a provincial boundary?

Mr. Blagden: I think, if we look at how many school divisions voluntarily amalgamated, we could see how well school divisions want to work with each other at times. I do see that would be a problem if it is from one school division to another. Are they going to ask for money because I am teaching someone else's students?

If they are all in the same school division, you are not going to be complaining if I am doing something for Miami and it is going to St. Paul's Collegiate in Elie. You are not going to say those are students in another school division; therefore, we need funding for it. I know that, for some of the courses that are being taught over at technology with a computer, part of the process is, if you are teaching and taking your course from another school division, that there is some monetary consideration being asked for by the school divisions.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Blagden, for your presentation here today. Just before we let my friends across the way paint the picture of everything being rosy during the first time school divisions were amalgamated, I want you to know that there was a varying level of volunteerism even back then. So I do not want people to think that everything was smooth and everything was voluntary and that it was all rosy. As a matter of fact, there are still people in our area who fight over school amalgamation from the mid-1960s, and it becomes an election issue every now and then. So it was not as rosy as what members across would have us think.

* (20:10)

Mr. Blagden, throughout the 1990s, deep cuts were made to public schools in this province, put a huge impact on local trustees and local tax base. What we are trying to do is provide a steady level of funding. We have tied it to the provincial growth rate, which has meant record levels of money going into our public schools. That in combination with trying to use amalgamation to get more funds into the classrooms is what our goal is.

I think we need to understand what kind of a positive impact that could have on your classroom. Can you kind of make this a little more human for us and tell us what that impact could be?

Mr. Blagden: Any way that we can get more resources–

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Blagden.

Mr. Blagden: Sorry. I am a teacher, and I do not usually have other people talking to me first. Any resources that come into the classroom, whether its monetary or more resources, is much welcomed. That is whether you are teaching in a classroom where I have taught multi-aged Grades 4 to 9 into a classroom where I have taught one class of 32.

The resources are needed, whether it is with textbooks, whether it is with people, and how we get it, if it is through more funding, that is excellent. If it is through amalgamations where the funding trickles back down to the classroom, that is excellent as well. I think what has been said here is that more money is needed for the classrooms, and this is one excellent way to hopefully get that into our hands so that we can use it for educational purposes for our students.

Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Thank you and thank you for your presentation. Have you done any analysis as to whether or not you will have more money in the classroom? Has there been any hard data, because I just wanted to point out that Prairie Spirit is well known for the amalgamation and the kind of things that have happened in the past at the local ground level?

I guess you already know that amalgamation can occur without Bill 14, so I am just wondering if there has been any cost analysis, any paperwork done on the money that will be saved as a direct result of Bill 14 passing.

Mr. Blagden: We have not done any cost analysis, but I would think, to look at this, we have to look at it as a long-term process, that there may not be any cost analysis right off the bat. But we are looking for things that are going to happen like further on down the line. Forty-six years ago, I do not think that they were looking at cost analysis right away and it eventually had some cost saving. I think we need to look in the future, hopefully not 46 years. But I think we cannot look at it as a short-term influx of money that, in the long-term once everything is worked out because it is going to take a while to work things out, there will be a cost-saving analysis.

Mrs. Smith: We keep talking about increased resources. Is there some reason? Has the minister or some part of the Government led you to believe that you would be more fully funded with Bill 14 going through? I am trying to get a handle on the reasons why it would be more beneficial for the children in view of the fact that you can amalgamate now. There is nothing stopping you. You are aware that The Public School Act provides that. I am trying to get my head around the concrete reasons. Has there been some sort of assurance that it would be more fully funded?

Mr. Blagden: There are sort of two questions here. The first question is that, yes, I know that school divisions could voluntarily amalgamate. Midland did not voluntarily amalgamate, as a matter of fact. White Horse Plain had come to them to amalgamate and they refused. So, yes, I know it can happen, but it did not.

Resources that I am talking about are not necessarily monetary. I am looking more, in my presentation, at the resources of teachers. We now will have almost double the population of teachers, which gives us double the resources of just teachers to start sharing information. While there are a number of school divisions, once you become a larger school division, I think that there is more camaraderie and more free-flow sharing of ideas.

I think that is more what I am looking at that is going to happen when we amalgamate. Talking with the teachers of White Horse Plain, we have got together already to start planning the sharing of ideas. The one important point is with Hutterian colonies, that they now have a larger resource, and that I now have a resource of double the number of teachers that teach math, that can work with me to try and help me with my classroom and I can help them with their classrooms.

There are also the different communities. We now become a wider cultural base by taking in the whole area of even St. Laurent, and by having that cultural mosaic added to our division. I think those are all wonderful resources that might not even cost any money, that I think are being ignored by a lot of people. We do not realize the resource of teachers and the resources of communities that these amalgamations bring to us.

Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): I would like to thank you for your presentation and I would just like to respond to the MLA for Fort Garry's question in regard to the benefits of amalgamation. In Prairie Spirit, the first time they went through the amalgamation voluntary process, they were not sure exactly what those cost savings would be, but they intuitively figured that there would be savings. They informed us in a meeting that one of the cost savings that they found shortly after amalgamating was photocopying, $25,000 in photocopying. So I wish you all the best and thank you for your presentation today.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. Next is No. 37, Andrew Peters, private citizen from Birtle. Mr. Peters, please proceed.

Mr. Andrew Peters (Private Citizen): Good evening, everyone. I am principal and a teacher in what happens to be the largest elementary school in the division, and I am even in the amalgamated division as well. Teaching and education are my life, and I do have children in the system as well. So I am going to be speaking today on a number of points to cover all those areas.

I am extremely pleased to be allowed the opportunity to present at these hearings. This bill has been a long time coming, and I welcome it wholeheartedly. I congratulate this Government in its willingness to create a modern, effective, functional, public school system that is accountable to all stakeholders–teachers, students, taxpayers, and, especially, the public at large.

Under the British North America Act, the sole authority of public education are the provincial governments, not boards and not trustees. A government can change boundaries when it is needed, as it did with St. Norbert, St. Boniface and Prairie Spirit. In Manitoba, our education has suffered and continues to suffer because of small school divisions, trustee turf wars, and a lack of operating skill to meet the needs of all students.

What this act does do, however, is put some accountability into the system by limiting trustee numbers and ward boundaries. In the division I work in, for example, we had about 1100 students and 12 trustees with an annual cost of just over a hundred thousand dollars for board costs alone. That is absolutely ridiculous for that number of students. It also limits upper administrative costs. Unfortunately, this is not in effect in the first year as our amalgamating division is keeping all six upper administrators from both the old divisions. It is ironic that classroom teacher positions have been cut for the next year due to declining enrolment. I guess the knife only cuts one way.

The key to any education legislation is that it should improve the public education system for all students, making the system equitable for all, including taxpayers. It has been 46 years since any restructuring of Manitoba schools has occurred, Mr. Chair. Since then we have a few changes in demographics, economics, technology and transportation. We have rural divisions with far fewer students and much smaller tax bases. The current boundaries no longer meet the needs of today's students or the taxpayers.

I grew up just outside of Winnipeg and can tell you that when I was in school in Winnipeg and Oakbank, my educational opportunities were far more than those my children presently have. In Grade 7 I had the choice of metal working, woods, sewing, home economics, electronics, a music program, a phys ed specialist and a guidance counsellor. My child in Grade 5 gets a teacher, yes, a split teacher, it is a 5-6 class, and no hope of any other options that I had and will not have any going through high school as well.

I believe that my children deserve as good an education as I had or at the very least as good as anyone gets in Manitoba. There is no way that that is occurring now. In fact, the disparity is growing. Small divisions have a much harder time providing a full range of services than do large ones. Equal access to programs and services can only be achieved when there is greater symmetry in operating scale. These changes to the boundaries in Manitoba mean that more school divisions will benefit from economies of scale.

In addition, increased school division size will increase access to provincial and local funding and lower per pupil costs. Larger divisions also provide more tax equity with a larger tax base and less duplication of services such as busing. Everyone becomes a winner.

* (20:20)

The requirement that boards look at the educational purpose and need is extremely welcome. It is important not to lose sight of the purpose of public education and that the educational needs of the students be paramount.

Too often boards are embroiled in fiscal issues and formulas where their focus should be on the needs of students. This review of boundaries was a long time coming. This amalgamation is a good thing. Boundaries need to be reviewed more regularly than every 50 years. We still have some pretty tiny divisions out there. Even with amalgamation, I consider my division as tiny.

Perhaps it is time to really look at the whole purpose of school divisions and school boards. Most countries, besides United States and Canada, follow a much different model, but this is perhaps a topic for the next review, hopefully a lot less than 50 years into the future.

I would like to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to present.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you for your presentation. You have a lot of interesting ideas. One I would like to ask you if you could expand on a little more is your statement that you like the requirement that boards look at the educational purpose and need as welcome news. Could you expand on that a little bit more, what you see, how you see that happening, what the positive outcomes of that might be?

Mr. Peters: The positive outcome of that is that boards can focus their energy on educating students. When in a rural division you have trustees from one community and another community and another community, it becomes a turf war. If my school does not get this, you will not get that, and every school must receive exactly equal things. There is a real problem in that, because not every school is the same. The resources need to go to the students who need it. For example, if you have one school that has a large First Nations population and one that has a fairly middle-class population, the needs in those two particular buildings are going to be significantly different. If you have a community that is French speaking feeding into your school, you are going to have different needs, and those things are not being dealt with.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you very much for your presentation. On page 2 you say increased school division size will increase access to provincial and local funding. Are you anticipating the closure of some schools so that other schools would get more provincial funding?

Mr. Peters: Under this legislation smaller schools cannot close. That is correct. But, as someone once said, not myself, size does not matter. In some schools, being small is not a viable option. I am presently principal of the largest school, and, you know, it makes sense to be bigger. I have a fairly large budget compared to some of the schools around me. If I have an emergent need in my particular building, I can take money from somewhere else and meet that emergent need. If I was in a tiny school with 15 students, my money is pretty tied up. So that is where I see to have that flexibility to meet emergent needs more so than if you are tied to a smaller budget.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am just trying to understand how you arrive at this conclusion, as most of the funding is per-pupil funding, and you are saying increased school division size will increase access to provincial and local funding. That will only happen if you increase the enrolment of that school, and to increase the enrolment, how would you anticipate that is going to happen?

Mr. Peters: Well, with some of the changes to L2 funding and L1 funding, that is specifically what I am talking about, when the funding becomes blocked to the divisions as opposed to being on an application basis. The larger divisions will have more access to the block funding to disperse to the individual schools. That is one example.

Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Thanks for your presentation. You identified that you had options for yourself and you identified your child having the possibility of some options, and we had some of the other presenters mention the possibility of networking, the possibility of more resources. Do you see that as a real possibility and an enhancement with the amalgamation process that we see before us?

Mr. Peters: With the amalgamating divisions, there is so much opportunity with larger size that you could come up with a vast number of models where you could try to meet those needs.

I do not think at some of these schools you are going to get the same programs I had, but you could develop, for example, centres of excellence where kids could be bused to larger centres that were in different divisions at one time when it would not have been an option because, as one of the previous presenters said, there are costs involved to pay the other divisions, et cetera.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Peters. People have tossed around the term power grab in debates having to do with Bill 14. I could not help but notice that in your presentation and some of the presentations that preceded you, a number of times you have made the point, and I would suspect that this may vary from one division to the next, about declining enrolment in rural school divisions, some schools getting smaller, the number of teachers being reduced, resources for classrooms being reduced, and yet the number of superintendents and administrative people has remained constant. I notice that is part of what your presentation gets at as well.

Now, does that justify the sections in Bill 14 where the minister would have a role to play in overseeing the transition on a three-year basis from the old school divisions to the new school divisions?

Mr. Peters: Well, I would have far preferred to see that tightened up significantly more than that. I would not have given them any time at all, and if they have to pay out the contracts, do it.

Let us get this thing on the road right away. If there is an initial first cost, let us eat it, and let us do things right and as quickly as possible, rather than lingering under some archaic two systems. We are running with two school division offices next year, which is just absolute silliness.

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

The next presenter is Mr. Floyd Martens from Intermountain School Division. Mr. Martens, No. 30. Is Mr. Martens in the audience? Okay, I have had a special request from presenters 6 and 7, who have young children, so we are going to accommodate them and ask them to present next. Lauren and Greg Andrushko, private citizens.

Are you presenting together or sequentially? Is it two presentations?

Floor Comment: There are two presentations.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, please proceed.

Ms. Lauren Andrushko (Private Citizen): Firstly, I would like to say that I am not usually inclined to speak out politically, but my presentation will explain why I felt so strongly about coming here this evening. This is not as positive as some of the previous presentations, and I am sorry that I cannot apologize for that.

My name is Lauren Andrushko, and myself and my husband are the parents of four children attending École Dugald School in Springfield municipality, which belongs to the Transcona-Springfield School Division.

Up to this date, many members of our community have been speaking out against the separation of our school division and not the amalgamation of our present division with another. We personally were open to whatever division that we would be amalgamated with, but it seems that Springfield, of the Transcona-Springfield School Division, has come up with the short end of the stick. Right from the start we were not fairly represented by our own trustees, the Minister of Education, Mr. Caldwell, and the final blow, our justice system.

I naively thought that justice would prevail when our Springfield Schools Parent Council went to court on June 17, this month. It may have, if the whole truth came out. Needless to say, it was disgusting how the truth was left out by Mr. Caldwell's lawyer and our school division's lawyer. From what I heard that day in court, Mr. Caldwell's lawyer firmly stated that Mr. Caldwell was not ordering anything to actually be done for the separation and amalgamation of Transcona-Springfield division, but for the division to just prepare for when Bill 14 would be passed.

To my knowledge, our school division has been doing and not just preparing. If only their lawyer would have told the court some of this evidence, like how many teachers are leaving Springfield schools, that the new Sunrise School Division has hired the Transcona-Springfield School Division's present superintendent when the amalgamations are finalized, and, to boot, our school division has already been celebrating all of this with a pancake breakfast, et cetera, with our taxpaying dollars.

We have learned many things that day in court, including that challenging the Government in the court of law is definitely a no-win situation, even when it involves children. In hindsight we did not have a hope. It is so disheartening when no one is really listening or caring about the negative effects that these unjust decisions have on our children. Many parents have tried so hard to be heard through letters, newspapers, phone calls, and in person. Just maybe all of our efforts were not in vain.

So now we hope, which may be a long shot, that Bill 14 will not be passed. We the people have the right to speak, even if you do not want to listen. The fact that Bill 14 is being considered by this Government is appalling. It says to me that we are moving closer to a communist government more than a democratic one.

What is going on here? This is unbelievable that this is happening in our country. Many of us are here tonight and it is very clear that we refuse to sit back and let this happen without a fight. Our children and their future matter. They should not be treated as a number or statistic to go down into your books after your day is done at work. Our children's future should not be based on political wars and then be left for us to pick up the pieces.

* (20:30)

I am disgusted how Mr. Caldwell has handled this situation and in such an unprofessional and uncaring manner. We hope that each of you will put more thought into your decision. You, the Legislative committee, have the obligation to choose what is right and know that your decision will affect our children and their future.

So on behalf of our four children, I pray that you will consider all the facts in this matter and do what is right in the name of justice. Do not deny us of our rights and possibly yours. Maybe one day one of you will be in our situation and will want to be heard too. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: I would like to remind the public that you are prohibited from participating in the proceedings.

Mr. Schuler: Sounds to me like the parents have heard that for many months, Mr. Chairman. Lauren, I want to congratulate you. I am sure this is not something that comes easy for you. I think the committee appreciates, it is nice to actually hear from parents and not just special interest groups, and certainly they are lined all the way out the door. It is important to hear from parents with children in the program, to hear what the effect will be.

I am also very concerned about some of the things that have been happening. On June 20, our Premier (Mr. Doer), when he was speaking about you the parents and in particular the Springfield Parent Council, said: Are the minority going to be the tyranny against the majority of people to speak out? Do you believe that you are the tyranny against the Government, or do you believe that the Government has been using tyranny against the parents?

Ms. Andrushko: Can you explain that to me a little bit better? I am not quite sure what you mean by that. See, I said I was not politically–

Mr. Schuler: What it means is that you, the parents, have been trying to push around the Government instead of the Government pushing around the people.

Ms. Andrushko: No, definitely not. The Government is pushing around the people, and that has been very obvious.

Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Chair, I appreciate your remarks, and I know that I have certainly had a lot of dealings with Springfield trustees, as well as attended meetings, most famously, I suppose, to one at Springfield Collegiate, where there were approximately 900 in attendance.

I was just wondering, Ms. Andrushko, if you were aware of the conclusion of a shared service agreement between the River East, Transcona-Springfield School Division, the Agassiz School Division, that would ensure continued access for Springfield students to French immersion and vocational programs, transportation services and existing programs. As well, I guess I was wondering if you are aware that we had accommodated the taxation concerns that were raised by the Springfield councillors and residents and that the R.M. had raised in terms of the tax base and providing the tax base, I guess, lastly, if you were aware that the assets would be divided fairly between the divisions and that the new Sunrise School Division would have a significantly higher per-pupil assessment than in the Transcona-River East scenario.

Ms. Andrushko: Okay, I do not know if this will answer your question completely, but we have children ages 6 to 12. Your shared agreements have nothing to do with us. It is for three years for the children who are attending in Transcona at this point. Our children will not be attending Transcona for another year and a half, so our kids do not have a school to go to as of next year. My oldest one does not have a school to go to. It has nothing to do with shared agreements, as far as I understand. Can you answer me, where are my kids going to go?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening, we found that, when residents and ratepayers in Dauphin and Duck Mountain put some heat on the NDP MLAs up there, there was a process by which some boundaries were changed. Have you had an opportunity to put some heat on the minister on this issue, and do you think he has listened to you?

Ms. Andrushko: I am hoping that today I am trying to put some heat on Mr. Caldwell.

Ms. Allan: I would like to thank you very much for your presentation. I am a parent of two children that have gone through actually amalgamations. They went through the Norwood and the St. Boniface amalgamation-[interjection]-and now voluntary amalgamation. That is correct. Now they are going through the amalgamation of Norwood and St. Boniface directed by our Government.

I can tell you that, as regards both amalgamations, the Norwood-St. Boniface amalgamation was a very positive amalgamation for our family and for my children, and I have every confidence in the school division, the new Louis Riel School Division, that it will be a positive amalgamation for my children in that school division, as well. I know this is a very difficult time, and you are going through a very difficult time in the transition, but I just wanted to tell you that, as a parent, it has been positive for my family.

Ms. Andrushko: I would like to respond to that. You know what, I have nothing against amalgamation. I mentioned that. It is the split. If we were not splitting and our division was staying together, we would be part of River East, part of Agassiz, I would not be here tonight. There would be no problems. Our kids would have a school to go to.

Again, where are our kids going after a year from now, Mr. Caldwell? Do you have an answer for that? I would like to know. My child that is in Grade 7 is going to be leaving École Dugald School next year. He has no school to go to. He is asking me: Mom, where am I going in Grade 8? Can you tell me where my child is going so I can tell him tonight?

Mr. Chairperson: The time is expired. Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Mr. Andrushko. Number six, Greg Andrushko, private citizen. We have a point of order from Mr. Schuler.

Mr. Schuler: Can you canvass the committee to see if there is leave to give the minister time to respond to the parent? I understand this is all about the parents and the children, so why do we not just take some time and actually respond to a real parent who actually has her children here? Why do we not give the minister an opportunity to respond to a real parent instead of special interest groups?

Mr. Chairperson: On the point of order, I am going to rule that the minister does not need leave, that he is free to answer or not to answer.

Mr. Caldwell: The Member for Springfield has talked a lot about special interest groups. I do not consider school boards who are making presentations before us here tonight to be a special interest group. I do not consider teachers' associations who have been making presentations before us here tonight to be special interest groups. I do not consider individual parents or parent councils to be special interest groups, and I am quite shocked at that sort of rhetoric from the Member for Springfield. I will say, however–

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Minister. We are getting into debate and we are here to hear presentations from the public. We can debate the bill after the public presentations are finished.

Mr. Chairperson: I am going to ask Mr. Andrushko to make his presentation now. Please proceed.

Mr. Greg Andrushko (Private Citizen): My name is Greg Andrushko, and my wife actually stole most of my speech. Along with my wife, Lauren, we have raised four children, all in French immersion at École Dugald School. I am not speaking just for them but for the 200 of their classmates who, once this bill is passed, will be separated from Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau high school. Hundreds of other students who relied on Transcona for shops and other programs will also not know where they will attend classes once Springfield and Transcona are separated.

No other children in the entire province of Manitoba are being affected directly the way Springfield children are. I am tired of my son asking me why he may not be able to go to PET high school. I cannot properly explain to him why this misguided decision was made. I cannot explain to him why the Minister of Education cannot admit that he made an uneducated decision and change his mind. While he would like to believe that somehow shared services agreements could be worked out guaranteeing the right of every Springfield student now enrolled to have access in programs in Transcona, I am disheartened by the River East School Board. Just last week the board unanimously denied the request of 11 kindergarten children whose parents wanted to enrol them in the German bilingual program. Robert Fraser, a trustee, summed up the rationale for all the trustees: It is all about money. Bringing in students from other divisions costs River East, and, in order to be as fiscally responsible as possible, especially in an election year, the children must suffer an inferior education.

* (20:40)

Hopefully, this committee has the resolve and the honesty to take all the information received by you tonight and amend this bill. It is your duty to listen to each and every presentation. You must look at the facts and figures that parents who really care have taken long hours and days to work on. More effort and care and investigation has been carried out by them than by any government official, any school board trustee or administrator. The work has all been done for you. All you have to do is read it and come to the same conclusion that they have. Nothing in this bill protects our children and their right to a quality education. You are a last hope that someone has the moral fibre to change a flawed bill, to get the Government to stand up for all students no matter what division they come from.

Thank you for taking the time to hear this.

Mr. Schuler: Greg, thank you very much for that presentation. It takes a lot of courage to get up in front of a lot of people, especially parliamentarians.

Can you just tell me what the status is of Springfield Collegiate? From what I understand, and I know the minister knows this, that Springfield Collegiate currently is over capacity, meaning that Springfield is full and then some. Is that part of the problem of not knowing where your child will go to school? If your child is denied a school in Transcona, and Springfield Collegiate is too full, what you are saying is where then will your child go. Is that what we are supposed to understand?

Mr. Andrushko: Yes. We have no idea where our kids will go if they are not allowed to go to French immersion in Transcona. If the new school board at Agassiz decides that they want to build a new program for French immersion somewhere else out in the division such as Pinawa or Beausejour, it is entirely in the wrong direction. None of us travel that way. It takes eight to ten minutes for our kids to get to school in Transcona. It would take forty, forty-five minutes to go in the opposite direction to Beausejour, if that is where they decided to have the program. They do not have the numbers of kids to have a French immersion in Beausejour anyway, and transporting a hundred kids from Dugald to Beausejour would not make any sense.

Mr. Schuler: If you decided to take your child out of French immersion and you want to just put him into regular stream, Springfield Collegiate is over capacity, so there is no room there either. Is that correct?

Mr. Andrushko: Yes. That is correct, and we could not go to PET high school in Transcona. There have already been surveys done that most of the students at Dugald School would pull their kids out of French immersion, thereby forcing them to go to Oakbank, which is overcrowded. So, therefore, there is no school for them to go to.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for your presentation. We are near the end of June, and your children will be going to school somewhere next year, but you are not sure where.

Mr. Andrushko: Actually, my oldest is graduating from Grade 7 this year, so he has one more year in Dugald before we have to actually worry about where he is going to go to. So, hopefully, within a year, we have a shared services agreement for all kids from Springfield to maybe go to Transcona, right from K to 8, so that they can all finish off their education.

Mr. Gilleshammer: So, if I understand it, if the current Transcona-Springfield School Division can stay as an entity, you are not concerned whether you are amalgamated with River East or Agassiz or anyone else, as long as you stay together and you have the services that you have grown accustomed to?

Mr. Andrushko: That we have had for the past 40 years. In fact one of your presenters earlier, the principal/teacher that was out in the country somewhere, he was bragging about growing up in Oakbank and having all the educational opportunities that were available to him. Well, with the separation from Transcona, all that has been taken away from us. So he is living proof that he had these opportunities, and my kids will not have these opportunities.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciated the comments you have.

As I mentioned, the last presenter, that a shared service agreement for current students was concluded yesterday between the divisions in question and the region to provide ongoing programming for current students. I appreciate that we are talking about students that are not in the system yet. Current students, of course, will apply under the shared service agreement. For those students who are not currently in the program, Schools of Choice is available, and most importantly, I think, in this regard, the new trustees of the two divisions are available and are keen on creating programs of excellence in the communities of eastern Manitoba as well as ensuring that program opportunities are maintained for students who want to access them. So I just want to put that on the record.

Thank you for your remarks, because they have been a concern of mine and the Government. That is why we have been so aggressive in pursuing shared service agreements and in supporting, fiscally and with human resources, the efforts that are taking place by your locally elected officials.

Mr. Andrushko: But I just read in my letter that, with Schools of Choice, 11 kindergarten kids applied to go to school in River East and were denied access this year, so they have no school to go to for German bilingualism. Anytime a school board decides not to accept students, what are we supposed to do?

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The time has expired. The next–[interjection] Sorry. There is leave for the minister to answer the question.

Mr. Caldwell: Well, just again, the comments about the elected officials, elected trustees, whom I have a great deal of confidence in in providing for the best educational opportunities for students.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter is No. 20, Reg Klassen from Garden Valley School Division. Is Mr. Reg Klassen in the room? Is there someone on his behalf?

Ms. Hilda Froese (Chair, Board of Trustees, Garden Valley School Division No. 26): I am not Reg Klassen. I registered with the Clerk under my name, Hilda Froese. I am the chair of Garden Valley School Board.

Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed. Maybe for the record we could get your name again please?

Ms. Froese: Hilda Froese.

Mr. Chairperson: Hilda Froese from Garden Valley School Division. Please proceed.

Ms. Froese: First of all, the Board of Trustees of Garden Valley School Division wants to thank you for the opportunity to present here tonight.

Garden Valley School Division believes that each school board has the elected right and the moral responsibility to govern their school division in a manner where the interests and the needs of their students are the priority. Bill 14, as it is currently being proposed, has the distinct potential to undermine this elected right and responsibility. At a complex time like this there needs to be legislation that provides leadership and structure for smooth transitions during the time of amalgamation. Garden Valley School Division affirms the minister for displaying a measure of leadership in this regard.

However, Bill 14 goes beyond what is needed for amalgamation, and, if passed, it will fundamentally and permanently alter the relationship between school boards and the provincial government at the expense of local school community and students.

It is unfortunate that the July 1 deadline drives this legislation, because Bill 14 requires more time for reflection and discussion. The consultative approach adopted by the department in some areas, for example, the minister's conference of May 11, has been appreciated, which makes it even more difficult to understand why the minister would not consult on such important matters as governance. The time taken to consult with MAST, Manitoba Association of School Trustees, and the other important stakeholders in this issue is appreciated.

* (20:50)

There are a number of areas in this proposed legislation that raise concerns. The first one, the proposed changes affecting the Board of Reference, section 5, will substantially inhibit the voice of local communities and school boards. The right to appeal a decision is paramount if we are to be heard. Under this proposed legislation the right to appeal would become a right to judicial review, which looks at only the processes by which a decision is reached rather than the substance of the decision itself. Most alarming is the proposed legislation will not allow for discussion through an appeal process about important community issues that have significant relevance to the decision.

Secondly, this new legislation would give even greater powers to the minister in future amalgamations. These open-ended regulatory powers with regard to future amalgamations would limit the voice of the local taxpayer and the school board. As we well know, regulations are not subject to the same public scrutiny as is new legislation. New legislation is open to debate in the Legislature and through the Law Amendments Review process. This seems to fly in the face of the democratic principles that our country was founded on.

Thirdly, section 16 would expand the role of the minister in the day-to-day operations of school boards. The minister would also have the power to withhold funds from school boards that exceed the administrative caps as set by the minister. Decisions by the minister of this nature would undermine local board autonomy and hinder the working relationship between boards and the minister.

Fourthly, this legislation under section 22 has the potential to unfairly hamper amalgamating school divisions. With this bill the minister has the authority to require revisions to the budgets of amalgamating school divisions up to three years. When acted upon, this would create an inequality between school divisions as to their right to make decisions regarding financial priorities.

In summary, we find it disappointing that a bill drafted in such haste would now also be rushed through the House. We can only reason that it is politically driven. As has been stated earlier, this proposed legislation gives the Minister of Education sweeping powers at the expense of local autonomy. Such a loss of governance, power, results in an increased difficulty for local boards to meet their mandate as elected officials to provide quality education for their school community.

In closing, Garden Valley School Division asks that you reconsider this proposed legislation, fashion it in a manner for which it was intended, to provide legislation for amalgamating school divisions as opposed to legislation that creates a significant shift in power. Thank you.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Before I recognize Mr. Gilleshammer, just a little housekeeping. Unfortunately, we require leave for Ms. Froese to replace Reg Klassen. The question was asked, but we did not get leave.

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank