Hon. Ms. Barrett, Hon. Mr. Caldwell

Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights

Mr. Otto Mehl, Private Citizen

Ms. Candace Daher, Private Citizen

Ms. Gloria James, Private Citizen

Mr. Bob Land, Private Citizen

Ms. Virginia Larsson, Private Citizen

Mr. A. Glen Anderson, Private Citizen

Ms. Susan Choquette, Private Citizen

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. Our first order of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): I move that the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau) assume the position of Vice-Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further nominations? Hearing none, I declare the Member for Assiniboia to be the Vice-Chair of this committee.

This evening the committee will be continuing with consideration of Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act (Public Schools Act Amended). We have a number of presenters who have registered to make public presentation to this bill, but before we proceed with the presentations, I have a few announcements.

I would like to take a moment to restate the agreements reached by the committee at the meeting yesterday evening.

First, it was agreed that time limits would be set at 15 minutes for presentations and 5 minutes for questions and answers.

Second, it was also agreed to hear from out-of-town presenters in the following order: those who were required to travel a long distance, and the remainder as listed with an asterisk on the list of presenters.

Finally, it was agreed that names would be dropped to the bottom of the list after being called once and that names would then be dropped from the list entirely after having been called the second time.

Mr. Chairperson: I will now read the names of the persons who have registered to make presentations this evening: Judy Edmond or Brian Ardern, Kristine Barr and David Bell, Bob Land, Glen Anderson, Anita Chapman, Gayle Wilson and Kevin Wilson, Murray Grafton, Roland Stankevicius, Marijka Spytkowsky, Virginia Larsson, Wendy Moroz and Paul Moreau, Zeeba Loxley, Colleen Jury, Gwynn Ketel, Floyd Martens, Christopher Saunders, Dale Kallusky, Mike Kukelko, Bert Kornelson, Barrie Stevenson, Joyce Penner, Bob Hooper, Otto Mehl, Candace Daher, Gloria James.

Those are the persons that have registered so far. If there is anybody else in the audience who is not yet registered, and would like to make a presentation, you may register with the attendant at the back of the room. Just a reminder that 20 copies of any written presentation are required. If you need assistance with photocopying, please see the attendant at the back of the room.

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

Mr. Struthers: Can I suggest that we do as we did last night. It seemed to work pretty well, and that is that we go to midnight and reassess at that point to see where we are at with the presenters and decide at that time.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it agreed that we sit until midnight and reassess at that time? [Agreed]

I would like to inform the committee that a written submission has been received from Susan Choquette, private citizen. Also, I have been advised that three individuals who had registered to present have now asked that their briefs be received as written submissions and included in the committee transcript for this meeting.

These presenters are Glen Anderson, private citizen, No. 4 on the list of presenters; Zeeba Loxley of CEDA, No. 12 on the list of presenters; Gwynn Ketel and John Pshebniski of the Duck Mountain School Division, No. 14 on the list of presenters. Copies of these briefs have been provided to committee members at the start of the meeting. Does the committee agree to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed]

We will now continue with public presentations. I will read the names of the out-of-town presenters who will be called first. The first presenter is Colleen Jury, chair of the Rolling River School Division No. 39. Colleen Jury, please take the podium.

That name was called last night, so this is the second time of calling.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Chair, I think it might be appropriate, seeing as it is early in the evening, if we were to recall these names a second time after, to give them an opportunity in case they are running a little late.

Mr. Chairperson: Are you suggesting we start with the people who are actually here? Is it agreed that we call–the problem is then I would be calling those people three times, and we agreed to only call them twice. If there is leave, we will call their names again. [Agreed]

The next out-of-town presenter is Gwynn Ketel, Duck Mountain School Division. She has presented a written brief. Floyd Martens, Intermountain School Division.

Christopher Saunders, Springfield Parent Council. Please proceed.

Mr. Christopher Saunders (Springfield Parent Council): Excuse me. Missing yesterday, I did not realize I was going to be the first one up, so thank you very much for hearing me. I will try to keep this as businesslike as possible. For myself and my family, this is a little bit more of an emotional situation, but we will try.

My name is Chris Saunders. I am a resident and taxpayer of Anola, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in a forum on a major concern to myself, my wife, and the effects the current proposed legislation will have on our seven-year-old daughter's education and the opportunity in future life.

I would like to know, is Bill 14 the start of the current Government's efforts to deny citizens their traditional rights to challenge government on education? A major concern to myself and to our family is the splitting of the school division, not the amalgamation, that will leave the area that my daughter attends with an inferior quality of education and the opportunity that currently exists in the education system that my tax dollars in part pay for. I would also like to speak briefly about the assets in the area. A lot of people ask me my opinion on how to describe my personal take on the assets and where our dollars are going.

How I try to describe it is this: If you owned a house and the house was paid for, someone came along and changed the game rules, and then the next day you find out that you only own half that house, I would be very curious, how did one day I own a full house, and the next day, after paying into it, I only own half a house. Up to this point the assets of what we have has not been explained how these assets are going to be split.

* (18:40)

We have been told to have faith. If I had faith running my business every day, I would be bankrupt. I would like to actually see a proposed plan, something in writing, not a promise, a proposed plan in writing stating that the assets will be not three years down the road, not four years down the road. It is like take away without giving an explanation. Only governments could do this, not in business.

I would have a major concern for the methods, also the communications that have taken place over the past eight months. As a resident I do not feel that I have been informed or worse still able to get the information that I was in need of. What has concerned me since November, since the amalgamation has started, is that what I have seen and what I have talked about to other people in the area is as soon as amalgamation has started, there has not been any straight, clear lines of communication on what is actually going to transpire. There was a lot of hearsay and so on and so forth and promises and people speaking through different sides of their mouth and that. There was no legitimate coming out and actually explaining what is happening.

What I observed during this period of time is that this amalgamation or the split has really divided our community and the good educators that we had. What a lot of these people had to do, they had to make decisions based on their life. At Anola School there have been rumours of the 22 or 23 teachers that we had that were enrolled, up to 18 have asked for transfers. During that time I have asked every possible source to give me the proper answer. I have been embarrassed to say that not one of them had the fortitude, the integrity to give me a right answer. Again, it was an utter insult to my intelligence that people that we paid for from our tax dollars cannot look me in the eye and give me a number. It is a total, total embarrassment.

As I said, I will try to keep the emotional part to a minimum, but, like I said, this is an emotional issue, especially with how unprofessionally this has been handled up to this point. Recently a group of parents felt a need to pursue the education charges in court. The matter was thrown out. I am very concerned with the total fairness of this event. In view of the fact that the Government was well represented by legal team, our group was unable to, in all honesty, compete with–excuse me, I am getting a little upset here. The bottom line of what occurred here, the playing field when we went to court was extremely unfair. We, as a parent council, had to raise dollars for legal fees to fight what we thought was right, but, on the other hand, the Government had our tax dollars. Our tax dollars, does anyone hear me, our tax dollars to fight us, the public that pays your wages. It really upsets me.

How do you win? You could sit down and dance around this gentleman as much as you can and give me all the pretty answers. We know what actually transpired during this. A blind man could figure this out.

I am aware of a group of parents who spent a great deal of time on the concerns of our future in the local education system. They have spent an unbelievable amount of time and effort on the issues. Their efforts for their legitimate concerns should not go unnoticed. I am most appreciative of their efforts, and, hopefully, their work will not be proven to be completely a waste of time. I am speaking of the Springfield Parent Council.

I will do a quick personal, and I will try to keep this as unemotional as possible. The ladies that started this up in November showed more class than any of the so-called professionals that I have seen up to this point. They worked. Their hands were tied. They did their homework, they did their studying. I have nothing but utter respect for all those ladies. They took their time and effort and made this a full-time job.

It is a shame. It is a bloody shame, the public and the government of today and what has transpired, and how these ladies have not been shown enough respect.

The education of my daughter is prime in our family's life decisions. Her future is dependent to a huge degree on the ability to receive an education that opens all doors for whatever she chooses to do. If I am living in an area where changes are made to the education system that promises a substandard level of education, then I may be forced to make some changes based on decisions that will place my family in a school division that will ensure that my daughter will receive the best possible public education in this informal part of her years.

I would like also to say, before I move on, that people have said that your tax dollars will not go up in the near future in regard to this. I would like to bet anyone in this room, and he could look me straight in the eye and tell me that my tax dollars will not go up and then come back to me in four or five years and do the same thing. I do not believe anyone here is capable of doing that.

I would like to thank you again. On behalf of my family, thank you.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Thank you very much, Mr. Saunders, for your presentation today. It is certainly consistent with what we heard from parents that were here last evening. It seems to me that the Springfield parents have made a very, very strong case for maintaining the status quo in the lives of their children. It seems to be the only area of this amalgamation that has this particular problem.

I think that other divisions are going ahead with amalgamation, accepting that they can make it work. My feeling is that we need to find a solution here, and one solution would be to maintain the Transcona-Springfield entity. If it is to be amalgamated, I gather that parents and students and interested people are not particularly concerned who they are amalgamated with as long as the services that they have been used to and the education that they have been used to remains in place. Is that sort of a fair analysis of what you are saying?

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Saunders, I need to acknowledge you before you answer the question, for purposes of Hansard.

Mr. Saunders: Yes, that is exactly it.

Mr. Gilleshammer: A second question, you mentioned your daughter and your daughter's education and how important that was in your lives. Can you tell me what sort of feelings that she has at this time with, I think you said, 18 of 23 teachers leaving the system there, or at least a large number of teachers leaving, and sort of the uncertainty surrounding what school and what program that she would be entitled to go to next year and in future years? What sort of impact is that having on her?

* (18:50)

Mr. Saunders: She is at the age now–she is seven years old, the relevance of what is transpiring and what is going on, that is why she has parents to fight on her behalf and that. So I really cannot answer.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Dale Kallusky, private citizen; Mike Kukelko, private citizen; Bert Kornelson, private citizen; Barrie Stevenson, private citizen; Joyce Penner, private citizen; Bob Hooper, private citizen; Otto Mehl, private citizen.

Mr. Otto Mehl (Private Citizen): I was going to address the Honourable Madam Friesen, the Vice-Premier, but she is not here. I am very glad and happy that there is some fresh air blowing in the political system, that even women are present in government–

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, sir. I hate to interrupt you, but I am having trouble hearing you, and I am wondering if you can get closer to the mike.

Mr. Mehl: I was going to address the Honourable Madam Friesen, the Vice-Premier of this province, but she is not here. But I am just going to read my presentation here as I go.

I am here to protest against the proposed Bill 14 in the present form on the following grounds. Amalgamation of schools divisions was supposed to streamline and improve the system of education, but as I see it, in the case of Springfield, our students became the victims of these changes, and I repeat "victims."

We are not against amalgamation, but we want to remain as an identity of Transcona-Springfield School Division and the use of the facilities in Transcona, which were built up for 40 years and were partly paid by tax dollars from the Springfield municipality.

Instead of improving the education system of our students in the proposed Bill 14, they are being greatly disrupted. I became aware of the situation when the municipality called a meeting in the gym of Springfield Collegiate in February of this year, to which attended over 800 concerned parents of our schoolchildren. By the way, I am a grandparent from kids attending Transcona-Springfield.

The municipality was after the loss of their tax base, which was originally planned in the split to be taken away from them. Honourable Mr. Caldwell was at the meeting, facing hostile parents and Springfield school trustees, who protested then about negative situations affecting Springfield students.

I had faith in Mr. Caldwell, after he heard all the presentations, that he would have taken it to his heart and would have made the right decisions in favour of Springfield students. I got disappointed. The municipality got their money base, which was rightfully theirs. The parents were left holding the bag of uncertainty of the future of the education of their children. That is why we are here again presenting.

All these promises from Mr. Caldwell for shared arrangement services for temporary arrangement for three years appear like a rainbow in the sky which will fade away in the future. I think you will believe it too.

Who will build infrastructure for shops and French language services, which are presently used by our students and are being lost by this split by your proposal? Do you not think it will cost money? Where are the savings from the proposed amalgamation? What you would have is to build new education buildings with millions of dollars on the shoulders of the Government and municipalities. It is absolutely unnecessary to do that, in my opinion. It does not make sense to me when there are buildings which were constructed years ago for the use of our students. In the Canadian Constitution there are rights enshrined for education of children in both official languages, and you are taking them away.

Mr. Chairperson, at that meeting in February after the parents representations had been made, the parents were asking the superintendent of Transcona-Springfield School Division to speak. He was non-committal. He knew best the situation of our students. He did nothing. For that he got rewarded with the appointment for the new named Sunshine school division. But in the meantime we are experiencing an exodus of well-qualified teachers from Springfield, as an example, our very experienced principal and vice-principal from Anola. Do you think that the Springfield parents will have any respect for the new superintendent in the sunshine school division? I would not. I think the others would not either. After he was non-committal, you know what the talk was by very well people from Springfield, he said he was after his job, he did not say anything. That was the response from important people from Springfield. So, well, I do not respect him for that, that he did not do anything to help our children.

I was fortunate enough to be fluent in three languages, German, Polish and English, but I had to learn them the hard way.

As I went through the turmoil of the war, my education ended at age 14. So please do not disenfranchise kids when they have possibilities now the way they are. On my own initiative at age 26, after studying for three years in a correspondence course, I got a diploma in agriculture to be able to hold my job as an agricultural representative in Poland. I never went to English school. I never went to Polish school. I learned all from day-to-day actions. You read my writing. Maybe I make mistakes, but I can make myself heard.

Please do not play political games with the education of our children, as did honourable MLA Reid with MLA Ron Schuler, trying to score points against each other. It does not help our children's education in that respect. Politics do not belong in the classroom. I believe in social justice, in democracy. That includes providing education for our kids without political interference. Take politics aside, create a neutral atmosphere, and provide the students with the best accessibility of a pleasant environment in the school system and remember the parents who take the brunt of all the problems they have now.

I want to add, a government gets elected by the people, for the people, to serve the people. As I see in Transcona-Springfield, that point got missed, and I would like to ask Mr. Caldwell to take it to heart like you did at the meeting in Oakbank. I was there. I was going to put my presentation there at that time, but there were so many representations that I did not speak. But I had faith in you, and you let me down. Thank you.

* (19:00)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mehl, and certainly it is noted, again, the importance that education has played in the lives of yourself and those around you. I just have the one question. The key word here, I believe, is accessibility. If Transcona-Springfield could remain as one entity, then those children would have access to the programs that they have had for the last five, ten, fifteen, twenty years and longer. I think we need to find a solution so that those children have access to those programs, and I think that would probably satisfy your concerns.

Mr. Mehl: My concern is–

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Mehl. I need to acknowledge you every time before you speak, okay. Mr. Mehl, proceed.

Mr. Mehl: I would like to see the system be kept as it was, and nobody got any buts and ifs about it. Mr. Caldwell held us a meeting and I thought he would take it to his heart, but he did not. He proceeded continuously, and we had to take as parents, well, I am a grandparent, I do not have to be here and argue about it. I try to be polite in my presentation, and I think I spoke my word out. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Mehl. The next presenter is Candace Daher, private citizen. Please proceed.

Ms. Candace Daher (Private Citizen): Good evening. My name is Candace Daher. I am a parent at École Dugald. I would like to begin by saying what do you tell your child when she asks you, mom, why are we suing the Government? I had to answer this question last week, and had to tell her, because they will not listen and want to make sure that all children's mommies and daddies in Manitoba will not be heard also. The pride of Canada, our democracy, is being made a mockery of by this Government. First, they thought of election gag laws. Now they want to silence the parents and grandparents of this province. If I had any confidence at all in our elected representatives' integrity and honesty, or even a shred of evidence that they had their constituents' best interests at heart, I believe I could work within the framework they propose.

Unfortunately, this Government is not interested in honest dialogue and true fact-finding. They are into dictating policy and self-preservation at the expense of the disenfranchised, our under-voting-age children. You would think they would realize that these same children will some day be voters. But I think they recognize that the reality is that each generation is less likely to vote. Why, some may ask?

Well, do not question me further, because I have the answer. They know politicians do not care, and it does not matter if you vote for someone who claims to be for the populace, because once they have sipped from the goblet of power they have become intoxicated on it and lose all sense of responsibility and accountability. My children now see the Government as an adversary.

I cannot trust this institution to do what is best for my children. In fact, no institution can possibly know what is best for my child. So that is why I need to use my voice. With this bill, you take this away from me. Why is this necessary? Are you afraid you are not omnipotent? Are you afraid we may see through your schemes of punishment politics, and rewarding those who vote the right way? Why are the voices of those in the trenches not valued and heeded? Because they do not fit the agenda, or conform to someone's idea of symmetry? I am sorry, children are not symmetrical. Special needs are not symmetrical. Vocational training is not symmetrical. French immersion is not symmetrical. Honesty is not symmetrical. Hmm, I think I have used the word "symmetrical" enough, because apparently if you repeat a word continuously, it is supposed to supply its own definition and meaning with no real thought or meaning behind it, at least according to Mr. Caldwell's style of discourse with the public and media.

Symmetry is apparently a very dear concept to the honourable minister. Dear enough that he is willing to gag the very people who voted him into office, and is willing to take the risk that they will have very short memories. Or that they truly like living in the pseudo-democracy he and his cronies are creating.

I would like to know if Mr. Doer has sat back and studied how this law appears to ordinary laypeople, who are not privy to the backroom conversations he has with his lackeys who support their fearless leader in these hare-brained, anti-democratic decrees. He had to realize that more and more people are feeling a sense of detachment from the whole process of governing our society. It is developing into a them-against-us mentality, which is fostering a movement of whole groups of people who will move further and further away from believing that we can all work together and do some good for all. You are driving us to look out for No. 1, and damn those who are not capable of it.

I had my best friend tell me that this is a done deal, and I should just give up. Apparently she does not feel that a concerned mother has any power, and that questioning the Government is pointless, as they do not care anyway. To all of you listening, I hope that you never hear such an argument when it comes to your child. Give up. The Government says you have to wait seven hours at Misericordia to get your child's broken wrist attended. Give up. The Government says your child is not entitled to the level of education you have been paying taxes to support. Give up. You do not have the right to question what Herr Doer wants to do in the Legislature. Give up. Just give up. You do not have the right to question if Mr. Caldwell knows what symmetry is. Just give up. This is the message Mr. Doer and the current Government is sending by proposing this bill. They are sticking to the old adage of, it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. They will bulldoze through legislation, and then give people the chance to comment. I think that is putting the jackass ahead of the cart.

When I tried to register to speak, I was forwarded to Mr. Caldwell's office. My name, phone and fax numbers were recorded. Unfortuately, I was never registered. Was this an oversight? I now know the Clerk's office was the appropriate place to register, but I am haunted by the nagging questions of why did the staffer not tell me this, or simply pass along my info to the Clerk? Was she enacting the bill early, and trying to take my opportunity to speak a little early? I hope it is nothing so malevolent, and that it was simply poor training or typical government screw-up.

What will it take for you to realize how threatened the ordinary citizens of Manitoba feel by your pattern of trying to gag us? Perhaps I should have shown up wearing a burka. I have sympathy for the women of Afghanistan, because for many years they, too, had their voices silenced. All of you who are considering voting in favour of this legislation should be ashamed. You are shaming the very House you sit in. You are shaming the ideals your parents instilled in you as proud Canadians. You are shaming the children who sing of "The True North strong and free!" You are shaming the sailors and soldiers in the Middle East right now, fighting for our freedom. You have no idea of the damage you are doing. At least, I hope you do not, because, if you do, I am truly frightened for all of us. This is wrong. You know, it is wrong. How can silencing anyone be right? I beg of you, please do the right thing.

Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I just have a comment, I guess a question. I am wondering if you are aware that, actually, Manitoba is the only province in Canada, or the only jurisdiction in Canada, that requires that public hearings be held on every piece of legislation before it is passed.

Ms. Daher: That is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. It is the larger issue that I am concerned about. It is nice that now we get a chance to talk, after we have passed the deadlines for amalgamation. That is real swell.

Ms. Barrett: No more comment. I am going to shut up.

* (19:10)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for your presentation today. Again, we have heard similar passion from other presenters last night, and, certainly, I have come to learn that this is a very, very important issue as far as the parents of Springfield are concerned. I truly regret that parents are having this feeling of powerlessness, but I think I understand. It seems that in some areas of the province, where the boundaries have been changed by local NDP MLAs, they have found a proper solution. I regret that, even though a crowd of upward of 800, 900 or 1000 people came together to make this point, we have not been able to move the Government. I ask you, then, if there is some way of just preserving the status quo irrespective of where Transcona and Springfield end up, as long as the entity stays together. Would that satisfy the needs of you as a parent?

Ms. Daher: Yes, I truly think it would, because I think what the minister either has forgotten or has not realized, or has not done his homework, is that Transcona-Springfield by the name implies we already are an amalgamation. We know it works; it has worked for 40 years. So, yes, we want you just to leave us alone. We are an amalgamation that works. We are the flipping poster children for amalgamation. We will stand up and say it works every day of the week. But, no, now you want to take it away, give us to a smaller division and de-amalgamate us to something we have left behind 40 years ago. Yes, Mr. Chairperson, if we could stay with Transcona-Springfield, that would be wonderful–either be with River East, or with Agassiz. We are not asking for anything, I think, unreasonable, or something that we had not been promised for the last 40 years.

My parents and grandparents paid business and property taxes into the division, agreeing for those schools like Murdoch and PET to be built in Transcona with the full understanding and promises of the Government that that would be available for their children and grandchildren. We just want what you said we could have.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Just one other question. I am a bit alarmed by the fact that you perhaps would not have been notified of this meeting. If I follow your information here, you had contacted the Government through Mr. Caldwell's office to be on the list so that you could speak, and the Clerk's office was never informed of this. Do you know of anyone else who perhaps was trying to come to this committee to speak that perhaps received the same treatment?

Ms. Daher: No, I have not had time to do the footwork because I found out about this meeting on the radio. So I phoned back to Mr. Caldwell's office and made his office aware of what had happened. They sent me back to the Clerk's office. I made the Clerk's office aware of what happened, and they were slightly shocked and dismayed at what happened as well.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chair, I wonder, as a recommendation from this committee, whether we can have some sort of investigation of this to see if there were other people that wanted to speak, and whether they simply were not informed of this meeting because they were not directed to the right people.

Mr. Chairperson: Well, as Chair, I am going to suggest that we deal with that after we hear with the presentations. So, if you want to bring that back, Mr. Gilleshammer.

Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Gloria James, private citizen.

Do you have a written presentation?

Ms. Gloria James (Private Citizen): I do not.

Mr. Chairperson: That is okay. Please proceed.

Ms. James: My name is Gloria James. I am a parent at the Dugald School. I live in the Springfield municipality. I am a mother of four children. I have a child in kindergarten, one in grade 3, and one in grade 6 and one in grade 8. As we have been learning about school, and what that means, we have learned that each year a little more homework is required. As they get older, it takes more to complete the work that they are asked to do.

I have a question for Mr. Caldwell: Did you even do half an hour of homework as you prepared and as you worked on this amalgamation, this whole situation? We have been at your meetings. We were at Oakbank. We had a hearing there. We could speak there. At the end of the evening my husband and I wondered how did you ever get this job as Minister of Education. Did you ever do any homework? You had absolutely nothing to say to us as parents that would encourage us that what you have been trying to tell us is good. Yes, you said it is all good for the children, but did you do anything to check that this would be good for my children, the children of the Springfield-Transcona division?

As Candace has already said, yes, we are in amalgamation. It is not the amalgamation that we are against. It is the split that you have now enforced upon us. That is what we are against. We have, in this process of talking about amalgamation, heard that a successful amalgamation is one where the children do not know there has been an amalgamation. Things are so smooth that they will go to school and they will not notice it.

Yes, we have a shared agreement with Transcona now to share the services for three more years. Then those things will come to an end. What will my children have then, and who will benefit from what we parents have built up? Will it be Mr. Doer's children? Is he going to have a child that will now take the toy that I bought, and will he make a rule to say, that is right to take away what I gave my child? Is that how our Government works now? That we have to pass a law to make what is wrong right? Did you do anything to find out if this is going to be good for my children and the children of Transcona-Springfield School Division?

As a child of God, and that is who I am, I am not perfect and so I do tend to get angry at times, and right now, I am angry at Mr. Caldwell. He has been in my prayers for months. I do not know if I can talk about this here, but as a citizen, I believe I can still talk about my faith, and, yes, I believe that is my responsibility to pray for those in power, for those leaders who have been put in position, and it was not by anything that you managed to do. I believe that God is still in control, and that you are in this place because of where my Father in heaven is. He is in control, and, yes, I believe that I have to pray for even those who are in a position that do not belong there. But, you know, when I walked in the door, I do not read Latin, or whatever it is, but I believe there is that rug on the bottom that says something about liberty.

You have a high responsibility as our governors to uphold the liberties of our country. We have been hearing a lot about the firing of the CanWest editor, because he spoke out against Mr. Chrétien. What are you going to do? You cannot fire me. So you will take away my children's education and give it to another division? You will take away my liberties by silencing me with Bill 14. Are we now a dictatorship, that you will legislate that which is wrong? If you are good government, we will know it, and you will not have to legislate in order to cover up mistakes. So that is what I have to say. As Candace has also said, that possibly what I now say will not make much difference. I have a responsibility to tell you how I feel. That is how I have done, and I will continue to pray for you as a government that our liberties will be upheld and that we will not lose them to a government that has not done their homework.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I thank you for your presentation. Again, it is obviously from the heart and with the best interests of your children in mind. You have asked the Minister of Education a number of questions, and I would like to defer to the minister to perhaps answer some of those questions.

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education Training and Youth): I thank the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), who is a wise man in this Chamber. He was part of a government that undertook a report in 1993-94, the Norrie Commission report, that gave guidance to the amalgamation exercise that we are currently undertaking. This is an exercise that took place in the rest of Canada in the last decade. It is a challenging exercise. It is one that is fraught with emotion.

I have certainly been moved by the presentations from Springfield parents, particularly the passion that they have for their children, for their children's education. I can assure you that there was substantially more than half an hour's worth of work that went into this exercise. It is an exercise that occurs in Manitoba. It has historically occurred in Manitoba about every 50 years. The same sorts of concerns have been expressed in previous exercises of this nature; in the 1950s, the 1920s, when the two previous major consolidations of school boundaries took place in Manitoba.

We have, in Springfield, parents, councillors, municipal councillors, trustees. The Springfield trustees, indeed, concluded with the River East School Division, the Agassiz School Division and the Transcona-Springfield School Division the night before last a shared service agreement that runs until 2005 is, as you know, that accommodates the immediate questions. I know that elected trustees, your trustees, as well as the trustees of other school divisions around the province, place the highest value on children and the highest value on the programs that those children are able to receive in the public school system. I fully expect, as you should expect, that the shared service agreement would lay a foundation for either the continuation of the reality that has been known in Springfield for the last number of decades, or for their development of programs in the communities of eastern Manitoba.

Our objective in this exercise is to create in Manitoba a–

* (19:20)

Floor Comment: You are speaking in circles again.

Mr. Caldwell: I will leave it ride. I am not going to be heckled.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I wonder if you are comforted by the shared services agreement and the words of the minister.

Ms. James: No, I am not. Sure, we have them, and so for now for three years we can see what the NDP government will do. He even had to pass a law to take away the budget so that he can make sure we are going to have something in there. Am I confident that our NDP government is going to do anything good for my children? Absolutely not. In three years we are going to look at him and say, Mr. Caldwell, what did you do to ensure that my child will have the programs that you said I could have?

In three years my busing to the schools that carry the shops will be gone; the schools in Anola, where we would have our shops, they are already full. Is he going to build us another school? Is he going to build a school for the French immersion children after those three years are up? Is he going to make sure that we have technical and shops in Beausejour, or build another school in Anola so that my children can go to school and continue with the programs? Is he going to give me enough money in my school that my child will possibly take a program where he will want to have an instrument that is shared, and the one year he has it and the next year, oh, sorry, this is no longer part of your program. Is he going to then buy us another tuba, a drum? What is he going to do to ensure my confidence? No, I am not at all confident that what he says is going to happen.

Mr. Caldwell: I guess, just in response, briefly because I know the time is expired. During the 1990s, the previous administration withdrew $130 million worth of provincial support to the public education system in this province. In the last three years this Government has invested $200 million new dollars into the public education system of this province.

I realize there–

Mr. Chairperson: On a point of order, Mr. Laurendeau.

Mr. Laurendeau: Has the minister got a question for this presenter, or is he just making another political rhetoric speech?

Mr. Caldwell: On a point of order. There were a number of questions that were asked of me. In the first–

An Honourable Member: You said you had answered them before.

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. Let the minister finish please, Marcel.

Mr. Caldwell: I can understand that the member is anxious over the record of the previous administration.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay. It is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Chairperson: Time has expired, so I will ask the minister to quickly put a question.

Mr. Caldwell: That is fine.

Mr. Chairperson: There is no question.

Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Judy Edmond or Brian Ardern, the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Please proceed.

Mr. Brian Ardern (Vice President, Manitoba Teachers' Society): Good evening. My name is Brian Ardern. I represent the Manitoba Teachers' Society and our 14 000 members. I would like to begin by telling you that I was here last night at 6:30 and I looked like a million bucks, had a nice tie on, a suit and by 12:30 last night I looked like 39.95. I was kind of a puddle on the floor. So tonight I just skipped the suit and the tie and everything. I hope you will forgive my informal appearance.

Now the Manitoba Teachers' Society represents 14 000 teachers who work in our public schools. The goals of our organization include positively influencing educational change in our province, and that is why we support the amalgamation of school divisions and why the Manitoba Teachers' Society is here today making this presentation.

There are good reasons to alter school division boundaries. The last major alteration of school division boundaries occurred three years after I was born. In that time, Manitoba, like the rest of Canada, has undergone enormous changes, changes which should have resulted in nominations to our school division boundaries long before today.

These include demographic changes. It includes a student population which, though it has declined slightly, has been relocated to different places drastically. It includes changes to where people and businesses are located in our province, and that means that the property tax base in many divisions has changed dramatically.

Over the last 43 years there have been huge technological changes. Students and teachers can now talk and exchange information instantly. In addition, our transportation system and infrastructure has also changed. These are just some of the reasons why reconfiguration of school boundaries in our province is long overdue. It should be noted that, with one exception, every other province in Canada has already undergone this reorganization.

It is why we have been calling on provincial governments for the past three decades to act in the interests of Manitoba students by estabishing a more effective and efficient scheme of school division boundaries. More than 30 years ago, the society made a presentation to the Boundaries Commission on the reorganization of school division boundaries. A decade ago, we made a presentation to the Norrie Commission on school division boundaries. The reasons that we gave then are basically the same ones that we are presenting today. Unfortunately, on both occasions, government decided to do nothing.

MTS recognizes that it is the provincial government that has responsibility for public education. During 1999, MTS ran a public information campaign with the theme, "Every Child Deserves a Fair Chance." Our message to Maniobans was that every student should have equal educational opportunity, no matter where he or she lives and no matter what their individual learning needs are.

The research we do at the society shows that it is difficult to provide students with a full range of education programs and services in smaller school divisions. It is usually too expensive for small divisions to offer much more than the most basic programs, and when a division does not offer a certain program or service, it may lose the matching funds that the provincial government provides.

Greater equity and access to programs and services can be achieved when there is greater symmetry in operating scale among divisions. Through reconfiguration of school divisions now happening in Manitoba, more school divisions will benefit from the advantages that economies of scale can offer. For example, a school division in Manitoba recently advertised for a superintendent. The division has about 65 teachers and about 800 students. We have a number of schools in Manitoba that are that big. Does it make sense for a division this size to have a superintendent and a busing structure? And, and, and. Eliminating duplication of this type could save money that could be redirected to the classroom.

* (19:30)

Amalgamating school divisions will also reduce tax inequities between divisions. The current variation in taxation bases among divisions means that taxpayers making the same effort with the same special levy generate differnt amounts of money for school divisions. Compounding this problem are the different fiscal policies of various school boards. Some boards resist increasing taxes at the expense of educational programming, while others place a priority on providing their students with a full range of programs and ensure that their budgets meet that need.

In most cases, increasing the size of school divisions will increase access to provincial and local funding and lower per-pupil cost when the same range of programs and services are offered. The funding that government puts into the public school system should go to improving programs for students. The result will be something everyone should be able to agree on: getting more money to classrooms in our province for the 180 000 public school students.

Amalgamation of school divisions will not mean the amalgamation of schools. Manitoba has a tradition of small schools, and Bill 14 will prohibit the closing of schools for a time. More significantly, larger, more solvent school divisions will be better equipped to support smaller schools in our province. With larger school divisions every effort should be made to keep student travel at a minimum, especially in the early years of schooling.

For teachers, Mr. Chairperson, changing boundaries to strengthen operating scale means improvements in our working environment, which is, after all, the students' learning environment. This should enable us to deliver improved educational services to our students. All teachers should have the resources and support services they need to meet what is expected of our public schools by Manitobans. Just as it should not matter where a student lives in Manitoba, it should not matter where a teacher works. We should have the resources we need to do our job.

The 14 000 members of MTS directly deliver educational programs to children in our province. Morale directly affects the quality of education our students receive. That is why, once the amalgamation of school divisions is complete, the blending of our collective agreements should proceed in a manner that will ensure that the needs of teachers in terms of our salaries, benefits and working conditions are protected.

Before closing, I would like to mention two parts of Bill 14 that deserve specific mention.

The first is a criterion for the land transfer by the Board of Reference. Section 7(3) of the bill specifically states that the board should be satisfied that the transfer is for educational purposes and that it should not have a detrimental impact on the school division's ability to meet the educational needs of students within its boundaries. This section marks a significant crossroads for The Public Schools Act in Manitoba. While other provinces have reformed their legislation governing public schools to place a focus on what is in the best interests of students, this is, I believe, the first mention in the PSA that emphasis on what is best for the students should be placed there.

Congratulations to the Government for taking a small step towards acknowledging that the underlying principle of decisions taken under The Public Schools Act should be the best interests of Manitoba public school students.

The second point relates to section 17 of the bill. Bill 14 requires divisions to present their proposed budgets at public school board meetings. Teachers welcome this amendment. Currently, some divisions present an enormous amount of information on their budgeting process to local taxpayers for their consideration. Others offer nothing more than the budget itself, a fait accompli, a budget that has already been passed by the board. Consulting with the public about how trustees intend to spend tax dollars for public schools will mean better informed parents and taxpayers. Hopefully, the result will be better decisions on how we invest our public education dollars.

I would like to offer one amendment to this section. All school divisions should be required to present their proposed budget in FRAME format. If each division uses the same format, Manitobans could compare how each school board manages their money.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, I would like to commend this Government for finally reconfiguring school divisions. More than 40 years is a long time to wait. Better late than never seems apt for today. I would also like to thank school trustees and teachers. More than 40 percent of the teachers in the province are covered by this bill, and, in fact, the transition has been a remarkably smooth one. School trustees have worked very, very hard, and I know teachers have worked very hard as well. There are, of course, difficulties, but for the most part this transition has been a smooth one.

Unfortunately, there is still work to be done. Tiny school divisions still remain. The Manitoba Teachers' Society believes school division boundaries should be renewed on a regular basis. Currently, electoral boundaries are reviewed periodically to provide equality in representation. It is just as vital that our school division boundaries reflect the best interests of public school students.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I urge you to pass the bill so that we can have some certainty as we finish one school year and prepare ourselves for the next. Thank you.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you for your presentation. I asked this question of I believe it was a teachers' representative from Agassiz School Division last night, and I would like to ask you as a repreentative of the umbrella group of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I know you are representing the Teachers' Society, and I am not sure if you are a parent as well, but I know that teachers interact on a daily basis with students and with parents and with the community at large. They are not just isolated as a special interest group as some would have them.

Can you give us a sense from either the MTS's perspective or your own perspective as to how you feel parents and the community at large are dealing with this amalgamation process?

Mr. Ardern: We expected the process to involve a certain amount of difficulty for us this year, given that it involves 40 percent of our teachers, given the work that is going to have to be done now in amalgamating contracts. I, frankly, expected our phone would be ringing off the hook, and I have been quite surprised that it has not. There are certainly issues that we have had to work with, but, generally speaking, my sense is almost that the people across this province have said, you know, we have been talking about school amalgamations for 30 years, let us get on with it. Let us do it, and then let us sit down and do the work that has to be done to make them work effectively. So my sense is that, notwithstanding that there are areas where there are difficulties, by and large there has not been a lot of resistance to the amalgamations that have been announced.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for your presentation, Brian. I do not have any statistics on it, but last night and again tonight we heard parents indicate that there were quite a large percentage of teachers who are leaving the Springfield part of Transcona-Springfield. Has the society had this brought to their attention? Do you have any numbers on the number of teachers who have resigned or are leaving and is it of concern to the society?

Mr. Ardern: Actually, we have talked briefly about that. We do not have any hard data at this point. We do not have any firm numbers, but the impression that we get is that, in fact, the number of transfers this year is nothing out of the ordinary, that they are not significantly more this year than there had been in past years.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): My question is related to the boundaries as they have been drawn up. In your presentation, you described a school division that may have been a generic description, but I have a suspicion that I might even represent a school division that matches the description that you made. What concerns me is that these boundaries did not, in general, follow any of the recommendations of the Norrie report, and yet we have other divisions out there where people were begging to have reorganization. I know that the teachers within those divisions were certainly vocal with me that they wanted reorganization or amalgamation.

Have you had any discussion, or can you confirm what seems to have been said to me that this is the first round of amalgamations? It has come to my attention that members of your society are saying, do not worry; this is just the first round and there is more to come.

Mr. Ardern: Well, as I said in my presentation, we have made no secret of the fact that we think it should have gone further. We think there are still boundaries out there that need to be changed and divisions that need to be amalgamated. We did ask the minister about that, how he made some of the decisions that he made, and he talked about a variety of factors. It is, obviously, a very complicated piece of work.

Whether or not there will be more amalgamations down the road, that is obviously the decision for the minister to make, but our position has been consistent all the along, and I said in our presentation we think there should be more.

Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Chair, I am speaking, I guess, in reference to the question put by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer). He asked about the transfers made in the Transcona school division. There were a number of questions last night and again today. We have information from the Transcona school division that this year, in 2001–2002, there were 23 transfers in that division. In 2002-2003, there will be 24 transfers in that division, 8 of which are rural to urban.

Mr. Chairperson: I do not think that was a question, but it did put some information on the record, so we will go back to Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Cummings: Following up on my last question, and to use the American term, you can take the fifth on this, if you choose to, but was the society consulted prior to the announcement of the boundary changes on the structure of the amalgamation?

Mr. Ardern: Do you mean, were we informed before other parties, or–

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Cummings, we will let the presenter answer.

Mr. Cummings: My question was–I will try and make it more fair–to your knowledge was the society consulted on the structure of the boundaries prior to their announcement?

Mr. Ardern: No.

Mr. Chairperson: We have run out of time. Thank you for your presentation.

Next is Kristine Barr, Trustee, and David Bell, Secretary-Treasurer, Winnipeg School Division No. 1.

Please proceed.

* (19:40)

Ms. Kristine Barr (Trustee, Winnipeg School Division No. 1): Good evening. The Board of Trustees of the Winnipeg School Division would like to take this opportunity to provide its comments on the public record on Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act, which proposes amendments to The Public Schools Act.

We appreciate that legislation is required to provide parameters for amalgamation, but there are several provisions of this bill that we believe go beyond this intent. In reviewing the proposed changes, our specific comments relate to the following areas: local school board autonomy, the budget process, administrative costs, and the consultation process.

On local school board autonomy, our board believes that locally elected school boards are best able to make decisions regarding educational and budgetary issues, as these decisions are typically made following extensive community consultation and with a high degree of understanding of the needs of the local community. Given that local taxpayers are funding education to a substantial degree through the special levy and the education support levy, it is appropriate that local school boards retain the authority for managing educational matters. The funding ratio of the Winnipeg School Division's budgeted expenditures is 44.8 percent through special levy, versus 53.2 percent from provincial funding.

The changes proposed in this bill will have the effect of transferring significant decision-making authority from duly-elected school boards to the provincial government. We have a concern about the role and use of ministerial regulation as a governance style. Regulations can be changed at the Cabinet level with no input from school divisions or from the community at large. We feel that this process is in direct contradiction to the spirit of public input, which is included in section 178(1) of Bill 14. We would strongly suggest that the bill be amended to ensure that the minister and Cabinet cannot make unilateral changes without an opportunity for input from affected parties.

The second issue is the budget process. This legislation effectively provides the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) with full authority to make any change to a school division budget without being accountable for the budget changes directed. There is no requirement or obligation for the minister to consult with the school board and its community, or even to explain the rationale for any budget change. Any ministerial change could have a dramatic impact on a school division's special levy, and could essentially be done without any consultation.

Although the Winnipeg School Division is not directly affected by this provision at this time, we are concerned about the precedent that such a change would set. We believe that school divisions are fiscally responsible in the development of their budgets, and are fully accountable for the decisions that are made. Our board believes there is no justifiable rationale for the minister to have the authority to direct changes to school division budgets.

The third issue I wanted to look at is administrative costs, section 174(1). The Winnipeg School Division is very cognizant of the level of administrative costs and consistently has managed to maintain these costs within a reasonable level. The administrative workload for school divisions is becoming increasingly demanding and complex, and it is critical for school boards to maintain the necessary staff levels, systems and controls to properly manage the operation of the school division. These costs are primarily funded through local special levy, rather than provincial funding; 87% special levy versus 13% provincial funding, and we consider it appropriate that the local school boards retain the authority to make decisions for these expenditures.

It is our understanding that the secretary-treasurers in the metro area have had discussions with representatives of the department regarding the interpretation of what is to be included in administrative costs, as the initial definition included areas such as consultant services, which, in the Winnipeg School Division, have limited administrative responsibilities. We are concerned that one area of expenditure is being singled out for inclusion in the act, and feel that if the department believes it is necessary to review administrative costs, this could be accomplished by another mechanism which would be more flexible to reflect local school division needs.

The fourth item I would like to look at is the consultation process, section 178(1). The Winnipeg School Division is recognized for its long history of consultation and collaboration with its various communities. Our draft budget reflects the educational priorities for the upcoming year, and is created after extensive consultation with our staff and our community throughout the fall months. Following the provincial funding announcement in late January, we produced a comprehensive budget document which is widely circulated throughout the division. Further discussion is held with our communities through a board advisory committee system and parent council meetings. Opportunities are also available for residents to make presentations to the board in writing, or by appearing as a delegation at special board meetings.

It is the position of this school division that public consultation is in place as part of the accountability of trustees to their constituents. However, we support the intent of this section and feel that it should be included in legislation to reflect what is in place, as demonstrated by the Winnipeg School Division and by many other school divisions in Manitoba.

Our budget consultation process is very similar to the process followed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) when he consults with the citizens of Manitoba on our provincial budget. The board of trustees would like to thank you for the opportunity to express our comments on The Public Schools Modernization Act, and hope that you will give them due consideration. Thank you.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Kristine, for a very good brief to the committee. Some of this material we heard last night from MAST, but I am interested a little bit in your last point about the consultation process, and the greater transarency and accountability that are involved with that process. You are quite right. Winnipeg 1 has been a leader in Manitoba in that regard.

Could you give us an idea of approximately how many people participate in that, in any given year, just notionally, and in what kind of context they participate?

Ms. Barr: It varies from year to year, depending on what process we put into place. We have tried a number of different models for our budget consultations. We found that the most effective model that we use is a one-night meeting, initially, where, once the Budget has been brought done by the provincial government, we provide a document with our priorities indicating how we plan to spend our budget in the upcoming year. All parents, community and employee groups are invited to come out to those meetings. Then, they take that document back to their respective groups, consult with people at the grass-roots level, and then come back to us with any feedback they have at special board meetings.

We feel that we provide that opportunity for anyone within the Winnipeg School Division to give voice to any concerns and suggestions they have for budgetary changes, and that, as a member of the finance committee, I can speak to the fact that those are given due consideration and are often interpreted into the changes that we make in our budgets.

Mr. Caldwell: That is just what I was going to ask. There are changes that you make as a result of that process of accountability? That is the experience that you have had?

Ms. Barr: Yes, it is, and we have a large number of advisory committees within the Winnipeg School Division that represent different areas within our school division. Winnipeg School Division, it will be very shortly, is the largest school division in the province and we are serving 79 schools. We find it to be an effective mechanism, to have a large number of advisory committees that meet locally, to bring together schools from one area of the school division to consult and bring their feedback together. Then there are always local parent councils at each individual school.

Mr. Caldwell: Thanks.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for your preentation. On page 1 of your presentation you indicate that in your operating budget that 44.8 percent is raised by special levy and 53.2 percent is provincial funding. What has the trend been over the last few years? Has that been fairly stable, or has there been a growth in special levy and less percentage from the province?

Ms. Barr: Since I am co-registered for this presentation, I will turn the answer to that question over to our secretary-treasurer, David Bell.

Mr. David Bell (Secretary-Treasurer, Winnipeg School Division No. 1): Certainly, over the last two or three budgets there has been a maintaining the level that is coming from the provincial government. In previous years, we had been experiencing a much more significant dependency on the special levy.

Mr. Caldwell: Just to follow on that, if I am hearing right, the last two or three budgets there has been more stability in terms of the funding, and the years before that there was a greater reliance on special levy, or greater, less provincial dollars I suppose?

Mr. Bell: That is correct.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, following that, the special levy has been reduced then, in the city of Winnipeg, over the last couple of budgets?

Mr. Bell: As far as the special levy is concerned, while it has not essentially been reduced because of the increasing costs, obviously, with only receiving the 53 percent from the provincial government, with costs increasing, there is still a shortfall that must be, you know, picked up by the special levy.

Mr. Gilleshammer: So that the percentage of reliance on special levy then has decreased, or has it remained about the same?

Mr. Bell: It has essentially remained around that same figure. It has been in the 43-42-44% range.

* (19:50)

Mr. Gilleshammer: And now it has risen to 44.8 percent?

Mr. Bell: That is correct.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Next presenter is Bob Land, private citizen.

Please proceed, Mr. Land.

Mr. Bob Land (Private Citizen): Good evening. I would like to thank this committee and its members: the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) and his colleagues; Mr. Gilleshammer, who has been to my school, and his colleagues; and I was hoping Doctor Gerrard, my MLA, would be here, for the opportunity to give my views on the bill, and the effects it will have on Manitoba public education.

I am speaking to you tonight as a teacher and vice-principal, with 42 and a half years of service to the students of Manitoba, in both rural and urban settings. I have worked for nine different school boards. Sometimes more than one in one year.

Floor Comment: Is that a good sign?

Mr. Land: Might be, might not be. If only it were true that local boards are in the best position to determine local needs, and provide resources, and establish programs. If it were true, then boards would have ensured that schools would have programs, staff and resources that would be providing much more equitable, effective, cost-effective and up-to-date services for students and residents in their jurisdictions. But this is not usually the case. And from my personal observations of several boards, both rural and urban, large and small jurisdictions, over time, some trustees feel that their role is to be much more trustees of the public purse than trustees of public education. This often operates to the detriment of students, and particularly those with needs which are out of the ordinary.

Having worked in several jurisdictions large and small, rural and urban, and having had the experience of working through the spring '59 establishment of secondary school divisions, and the expansion of school divisions to include elementary and junior high students in the mid-sixties, I have heard many of the same objections to larger jurisdictions, to changes in legislation, to changes in regulations on these two occasions, as we heard last night and are hearing tonight.

Trustees fear losing control, feel that local people will not be heard, fear that imposition and taking control by the Government and/or the minister. With the changes that have taken place in the world, in Canada, in Manitoba, in education, in technology, as Brian said, and in jobs and careers over, at least, the last 50 years, there has always been, as there is now, need for the Province to take a leadership role, as it is doing now.

To quote the principles of the Norrie report on page 125:

The Province needs to provide the best governing structure which will further education excellence; facilitate effective and efficient program delivery and development in the public school system; facilitate the goals of education of the province; and ensure that education reflects principles such as equity, openness, responsiveness, excellence, choice, relevance, and accountability; ensure flexibility in student movement between and among divisions and districts; acknowledge the increase in applicability of technology to facilitate program delivery; foster partnership between and among government, community, parents, labour, business and industry; and receive public acceptance, because it is the Province with the primary responsibility to provide for education, and to provide appropriate structures for delivery. It is necessary that there be a provincial leadership role for change, as exemplified by this bill.

While there will, of course, be situations to work through, most, if not all, boards affected by this most recent round of amalgamations are making good progress towards the goal of improved operations as of the fall of 2002.

In my own school of Murdoch MacKay Collegiate, in the current Transcona-Springfield School Division, soon to be in the River East-Transcona School Division, we feel that we will continue to function as an excellent school, and as a part of a larger jurisdiction we feel that our ability to continue to meet a variety of students' needs will be enhanced. Our first meeting last week with the newly appointed CEO of River East-Transcona makes us enthusiastic about being part of a larger jurisdiction with him as our new educational leader.

This small personal example will, I feel, be typical of how beneficial change can be as we seek to adapt, to change and to grow in response to student needs and parent wishes.

I would like to thank the minister and the Government for the leadership which they have shown in moving Manitoba's education into the 21st century. Thank you for your attention to my presentation.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Land.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you for your presentation. If I had a hat, I would doff it. Forty-two years in the public education system is a remarkable achievement. Being in this system, whether as a teacher or a paraprofessional or administrator, is a very, very challenging role. I am telling you something you already know.

I was particularly struck by the fact that, with your range of experience and your years of experience, you bring a perspective to this discussion that we have not heard a whole lot from, because, well, there have been some presentations with a large number of years of experience. But I think it was very helpful, certainly to me, to have your perspective, kind of through that lens of such long years of service. So I guess it is more a comment. Congratulations and, on behalf of us all here, job well done.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Land, do you want to respond?

Mr. Land: Thank you. I do feel that I am a member of a rather special group. Comments were made last night about sort of narrow jurisdictions, and I guess I am a kind of a special interest group. There are not many of us white-haired older folks left. There is you, me, and Art Reimer, and that is about it. [interjection] No, no, you are not there yet.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you, Mr. Land. As someone who is closely associated with the Transcona-Springfield School Division, and you have been here and listened to a number of the parents from Springfield, do you see any solution to their concerns that they have brought forward that they feel that potentially, very soon, they are going to lose out on some of the opportunities that they have seen within Transcona-Springfield over the last number of years? You have heard their concerns. What do you say to these folks about the future of education for their children?

Mr. Land: When I have received calls from some Springfield parents, as I have, with students who are not already in my high school, Murdoch MacKay, which has the vocational programs which have been referred to, and they ask, will my student who is presently in Grade 8 or 7 or 6, be admitted, I say that will be a matter for the new boards, first the interim boards to decide after July 1, and the newly elected boards to decide after October.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for that answer. So I would expect that you can see why there is a great deal of anxiety out there in that school is ending, it will start again in two months, and these decisions will be put onto the backs of an interim board which is yet to be identified or just recently identified, and again put forth in elections next October. From your answer, I think it supports the view that these parents have a right to have this anxiety because there is some uncertainty in the future of the education of their children.

Mr. Land: Partly, in response, parents are always concerned about what their children's future will be. I can compare it with a situation when I was teaching in my home town of Tilston, Manitoba, about 38 years ago. When the decision was made to change what had been a three-grade one-room high school into a two-grade one-room high school and the parents in the community could not understand why I would not go and protest to the board with them, I said, you know, it is not really my place. I work for that board. I understand your concerns, but you are going to have to do this, not me.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Caldwell, for a quick question.

* (20:00)

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the report. I appreciate it very much, the presentation.

In your experience with trustees over the many years that you have been an educator, Mr. Land, how would you characterize their interest in providing greater opportunities, I guess, year in and year out for students in terms of their decision making? How would you characterize?

Mr. Land: I believe that most trustees want to provide better education for the students in their charge. They are sometimes not operating with the best of knowledge, the best of experience, the best understanding. I believe that most of them honestly feel that they are doing the best job they can. I think that some could do better with better advice.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Land.

The next presenter will be Anita Chapman.

Ms. Anita Chapman (Chair, Board of Trustees, St. Boniface School Division): Thank you. You will see at the beginning on the first page of the brief that this was supposed to be presented by Marilyn Seguire, who is the chair of the St. Vital School Division. She could not be here, so I am the next one. I am the chair of St. Boniface School Division. We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express our concern and recommendations with respect to Bill 14.

As you know, our divisions will be amalgamated upon the passing of this legislation. We, therefore, have a vested and direct interest in ensuring that the legislation passed by government assists and does not hinder the process of amalgamation upon which we have embarked.

Our comments today will be focussed on the most important concerns we have with regard to Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act.

Our concerns are twofold. First of all, we are alarmed with the provisions of Bill 14 that transfer significant decision-making power from local school divisions to the Minister of Education, Training and Youth (Mr. Caldwell). Our boards believe that decisions on budgets and property taxation, as well as those decisions that can affect program and service delivery to students are best made at the community level by locally-elected school boards. Not only are these boards accountable to the community, they also possess the knowledge required to make the informed decisions that are sensitive to the students' and community's needs.

We are also concerned with specific sections of the proposed bill. In particular, Bill 14 does not address certain critical legal issues about amalgamation. It impedes local control of education by shifting significant decision-making authority from elected school boards to the Minister of Education, which may hinder the amalgamation process or add to the challenges which have been imposed on school divisions being forced to amalgamate. The sections of Bill 14 that we strongly feel should be amended or removed are sections 22, 16 and 12. I would like to elaborate on those.

Section 22. Amalgamated divisions to submit budgets. This section of the bill requires amalgamated school divisions to submit their annual budgets for review to the Minister of Education, Training and Youth in each of the three years following amalgamation. The proposed legislation would give the minister the authority to direct a revision to a school division's budget and the power to withhold provincial support should the revision not be included in the final budget. Given that school divisions that are not amalgamated are not subject to this requirement, we can only assume that the Government's inclusion of section 22 represents an attempt to control the expenditures related to amalgamation. This opportunity was afforded to governments when our school divisions shared with the Minister of Education and with officials of the Schools' Finance Branch estimates of the costs which would likely be incurred with amalgamation of our two divisions. In fact, these estimates were shared well in advance of the minister's announcement that our division would be amalgamated.

A very large portion of these costs is related to the harmonization of employee collective agreements. In this area, we have difficulty understanding how the minister could impose a revision of salary expenditures in a budget without providing some form of legislation or mechanism to assist divisions in controlling these costs. In the absence of such legislation, any budget revision imposed by the minister in this area would only serve to reduce the level of programming for students. The costs of salary harmonization do not benefit students.

To further confuse and compound this problem, section 22(2) specifically states: In the fiscal year of amalgamation, which in our situation would be 2002-2003 fiscal year, and each of the next two years, which means 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, an amalgamated division must: a) submit its proposed annual budget at the time and in the form and manner determined by the minister for the minister's review.

It seems that we may be in violation of this portion of the bill before amalgamation even occurs, as our boards have finalized their budgets for 2002-2003. Once consolidated, these budgets will effectively become the budget of the amalgamated division. It is our interpretation of the wording of section 22(2) is not what is intended by the legislation, and if the 2003-2004 budget is the first which requires ministerial approval, we would suggest that the wording be clarified. Also, if this is the case, if the minister's intent is to review amalgamated costs, then he should know that our 2002-2003 expenditures budget includes some amalgamation costs. This section of the proposed bill will, therefore, not accomplish what we believe is intended to be accomplished.

Section 22 authorizes the minister to impose the revision to a school division budget, but does hold the minister accountable for budget revision. In fact, it is the locally elected school board that becomes accountable for the revision and its potential negative impact on the quality of education for students in the division or the level of property taxation in the community. For this reason alone, this section should be removed from Bill 14.

An integral part of the process followed in the development of our school division's budget is consultation with our community and parent groups. This is done through publication of budget documents and, primarily, through consultative meetings. Under section 22, the minister could alter the budget for a program or a service, that has been identified during the consultation process by the school board and its community, as being a necessary component of the educational plan for the upcoming school year. There is no mechanism for the school board and the local education stakeholders to discuss budget revisions dictated by the minister.

From a practical point of view, the submission of the annual budget to the minister for review and approval further constricts the amount of time available to school divisions for conducting meaningful and important consultation with local educational stakeholders. The Province is supposed to announce its level of support to divisions by January 15. On occasions, the announcement has been delayed until nearly February. It will require some time for the minister to have the review of the submitted budgets completed and for a determination to be made as to whether or not revisions are imposed.

* (20:10)

Given that school boards must finalize their budgets by March 15, it would be very difficult, if not logistically prohibitive, for a division to prepare a proposed budget, consult stakeholders, submit the budget to the minister, wait for the minister or officials from his department to review and approve the budget, advise and/or consult the community about the minister's imposed budget revisions, should there be any, or make further adjustments that may be necessary to the budget as a result of the minister's revisions, and, finally, to pass the budget.

Our board has been, and will continue to be, fiscally responsible in the planning and establishent of our budget. We strongly feel that section 22 will cause logistical problems in budget development and consultation for amalgamating divisions.

We believe the budget consultation process and the disclosure of amalgamation costs during these consultations are the most effective mean of ensuring local accountability. For all of the above reasons, we are recommending that section 22 be struck down from the proposed Bill 14.

Section 12. Subsequent regulations. Under this section of the proposed bill the minister will be authorized to issue regulations pertaining to the effective date of amalgamation, the establishment of the interim board of trustees and other matters, such as the altering of school division fiscal year-ends. It is our understanding that this proposed bill might not be enacted until after July 1 and that the effective date of amalgamation may fall after July 1. If this becomes the case, we would recommend that school divisions be consulted regarding the altering of the fiscal year-end.

Depending on when the legislation is enacted, the regulation may be useful in altering the year in such a manner as to eliminate the need for the preparation of multiple financial statements, thereby reducing the costs associated with conducting multiple audits.

Section 16. Control of administrative cost. Our boards have been fiscally responsible in all the areas of their budgets, including administrative costs. Despite pressure in this area to address the increasing demand on management and board members to provide information to parents and the public and the minister's department, our boards have maintained costs at reasonable levels. In fact, after the transition stage of amalgamation, we will be within the 4% administrative cost limit.

Mr. Chairperson, we believe that the accountability of our locally elected boards to our constituents through budget consultation is a mechanism that best ensures the appropriate level of administrative costs. We would urge the minister to consider the potential harm which could occur should administrative costs be kept at, or reduced further than, the 4% current limit currently being proposed. Adequate levels of administration are necessary in order to properly manage the operation of a school division, including the maintenance of systems and controls.

To recap, the proposed bill shifts significant decision making powers from local school divisions to the Minister of Education, Training and Youth. We believe that school boards, through their consultative approach with the community, possess the knowledge required to make informed educational and budgetary decisions that are sensitive to local students and community needs. This decision making should not be transferred to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Anita, for a very thoughtful brief. A lot of the material that you have covered was covered by boards yesterday in their presentation, and it has influenced my thinking as we have moved through the committee process. So thank you very much for that and please give my best wishes to Jean-Yves and Marilyn.

Ms. Chapman: We will certainly do that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I, too, thank you for your presentation tonight. Can you indicate what the amalgamation of St. Boniface and St. Vital school divisions is going to cost in the next year? Have you sort of got your head around additional costs?

Ms. Chapman: We have done some preliminary costs; they are not solid. St. Boniface, having been through an amalgamation process once before with Norwood, realize there are definitely amalgamation costs. I guess at this point we are certainly looking at perhaps one time costs of $1.7 million, and perhaps ongoing costs of $1.2 million.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Does that take into consideration the harmonization of collective agreements?

Ms. Chapman: In the harmonization of collective agreements, yes, that would be coming under the 1.2.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The minister indicated when he made this announcement that he expected to see a $10-million savings across the system due to amalgamation. The numbers you have given us of $1.7 million for the immediate costs and $1.2 million for ongoing costs would seem to make it difficult to understand what contribution St. Boniface and St. Vital would make to this $10-million savings.

Ms. Chapman: Certainly, as far as I can see, there would be no savings in the immediate future. Perhaps maybe four or five years down the road, there may be some savings when there are less administrative people or perhaps there are some cuts, but at the moment when you are trying to harmonize collective agreements and you are bringing school divisions and programs together it is very difficult to even consider there are going to be any kind of savings.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Chapman: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Laurendeau, did you have a question?

Mr. Laurendeau: Yes, just one question.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Chapman, Mr. Laurendeau has a question.

Mr. Laurendeau: Thank you, Ms. Chapman. My question was on that section 12, the subsequent regulation. Looking at the bill, were you saying it was under 12(c) then that the minister could alter the fiscal year?

Ms. Chapman: I guess what we are saying is the end of the school year is June 30. If we are looking to go into a new year, like after July 1, still as St. Boniface and St. Vital, then are you into a situation where you are reopening your books and starting a new year? Is there going to be perhaps some legislation or some approach where those costs would be eliminated, some regulation that would indicate the legislation would be diverted back to July 1, or something along that line? The cost of hiring auditors does not come cheap, and it would be an added cost to amalgamation.

Mr. Laurendeau: Were you aware of that section (ii) in 12 that gives the minister the ability to do that altering of the fiscal year and the timing and the scope of its financial reporting and audits required under the act?

Ms. Chapman: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Laurendeau: It was right in the act. They have the power.

Ms. Chapman: Did I miss something?

Mr. Laurendeau: He has the power to do it. He has that power to change it.

Ms. Chapman: He has the power to change it, but–

Mr. Laurendeau: Right in the act.

Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, I need to acknowledge people. Did you have another question, Mr. Laurendeau?

Mr. Laurendeau: No, we are done. Thank you, Ms. Chapman.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

Mr. Laurendeau: We had our discussion right there.

Mr. Chairperson: We would like to be part of these discussions. The next presenters are Gayle Wilson and Kevin Wilson, private citizens.

Murray Grafton, Louis Riel Teachers' Association. Please proceed.

Mr. Murray Grafton (President-Elect, Louis Riel Teachers' Association): Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill 14. My name is Murray Grafton. I am a high school teacher in St. Boniface and president-elect of the Louis Riel Teachers' Association. I am here to speak in favour of amalgamation of school divisions.

* (20:20)

When the Norwood and St. Boniface school divisions amalgamated four years ago, I was past president of the St. Boniface Teachers' Association and was involved in the processs of merging the two divisions. Teachers of St. Boniface and Norwood are pleased with the results of amalgamation on our students and staff.

Norwood had been the smallest metro Winnipeg school division with only one high school. Mr. Chairperson, as excellent a school as Nelson McIntyre is, student options were sometimes restricted by the size of the school. Amalgamation allowed for increased options for those Norwood high school students such as a wider choice of vocational and technological courses available in St. Boniface. Norwood French immersion students previously had to leave their school division to continue in the immersion program for high school. Amalamation ended that situation.

Amalgamation created more opportunities for special needs students, including involvement in the occupational skills program and the well-known Crackers bistro program in St. Boniface.

St. Boniface-Norwood amalgamation was also positive for teachers. Teachers now had wider horizons, more opportunities for movement and professional growth. Imagine being the physics teacher in your division's only high school. Whom do you collaborate with on your division's professional development days? Amalgamation provided increased opportunities for professional development and sharing of teaching practices for all teachers but it has been especially helpful for teachers in more specialized areas. The Louis Riel Teachers' Association understands that this more efficient professional development helps teachers to be more effective and benefits our students in all our classrooms.

Now we, again, have the opportunity to amalgamate. The teachers of St. Vital and St. Boniface are proud of their schools and their students. We feel that our school divisions are among the best in Manitoba and that the blending of our school divisions will result in an even better public school system. We look at the success of the Norwood-St. Boniface amalgamation in 1998 as a model for the amalgamation of St. Boniface and St. Vital School divisions. We are confident that this is a change for a better future.

The Louis Riel French immersion program will be a leader in western Canada with two immersion high schools. Teachers in Louis Riel anticipate more options for their students such as a possible reintroduction of practical arts at the junior high level throughout the entire division. Louis Riel students seeking education in the smaller or larger high school setting will now have easier access to the smaller high schools in St. Boniface or the larger high schools in St. Vital. All of our students may now have better access to the vocational, industrial, technological programs at the Winnipeg Technical College and the St. Boniface Arts and Technology Centre. There may also be increased opportunities for special needs students. Increased numbers allow for enhanced programming and the ability to offer more choices to more students.

Amalgamation provides a chance to review and re-evaluate programs. This re-examination of our practices is a healthy exercise. More teachers working together will generate a broader spectrum of ideas. The larger system of Louis Riel will allow for a greater possibility of creating divisional magnet schools such as a school of performing arts or a school offering a full range of advanced placement or international baccalaureate programs. The future for our students is very exciting.

In looking at the past, I would like to speak from my personal experience as a teacher in St. Boniface since 1975. The major partner with the parent in every student's education is the classroom teacher. As a classroom teacher I have enjoyed strong community support of my school, as have my colleagues in the 40 schools of St. Boniface and St. Vital. We appreciate that support very much. Government support has been another matter. In my situation there are three professionals whose work helps me to deliver the best educational experience possible for my students. The vice-principal helps with school discipline and student attendance. The teacher librarian is one of my students' chief resources for research. The department head co-ordinates big picture planning and curriculum implementation at the grass roots level. They allow me to be a better teacher and better meet my students' and their parents' expectations.

Unfortunately, it has not worked that way for some time. During the 1990s, government cutbacks in funding caused distress in public schools. By 1995, class sizes grew larger as teachers were cut. Our vice-principal and teacher-librarian had their time reduced by 50 percent and the department head position disappeared entirely. Textbook costs continued to rise while textbook budgets were reduced year after year. The loss of teachers, administrative time, teacher-librarians, department heads and learning resources are some clear examples of the need to put dollars back into the classroom now. Although there has been some relief to the system in recent years, more remains to be done. The expectation of teachers in Louis Riel is that amalgamation can achieve some long-term savings to invest in our students' futures.

Mr. Chairperson, the communities of St. Vital and St. Boniface share much in common beyond Bonivital baseball and soccer or the Bonivital Pool. The Louis Riel School Division makes sense to the residents of St. Vital and St. Boniface with whom I have spoken over the past few months and will be positive for students and their teachers. The teachers at Louis Riel believe that amalgamation will provide enhanced learning opportunities for all students. This concern for our students encourages teachers to support the principle of amalgamation and Bill 14. Thank you.

Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): Mr. Chair. I know that doing some of the research on school divisions in the past, I have looked at some school divisions like North York, which has about a quarter of a million people. You have some divisions in Manitoba, that was like, 250, 300 people in the entire division. Just wondering whether you have done any or you have an opinion as to what the best size of a school division is to get the best programs for the kids or the best bang for the buck?

Mr. Grafton: I thought the Norrie Commission in 1994 came very close to what my idea of what metro Winnipeg should look like. That is the part that I am most familiar with. They called for four school divisions in the city of Winnipeg and we are getting very close to that now. I would say that our school divisions are, in terms of metro Winnipeg, are large enough that they are going to be able to provide excellent services to the students and the community at large.

Mr. Cummings: Thank you for your thoughtful presentation. I have a concern that some of the boundaries, and obviously you are quite comortable with the ones where you are the most familiar, but some of the boundaries and some of the exclusions from amalgamation were rather more political choices than they were for the betterment of the education of children. We do have some divisions out there, following on Mr. Rondeau's question, we have divisions out there that are still rather small and were candidates for amalgamation, but for some reason have been avoided. Have you any advice?

Mr. Grafton: I thought you were going to ask me a hard question. I am not quite sure what you are seeking advice on.

Mr. Cummings: Well, my point is that there are divisions out there of less than 800 students who were not included in this amalgamation process, and I am wondering, through your association or through your colleagues, if you have any knowledge about why they may not have been included or if you have any suggestions about whether or not they should be included in the future.

Mr. Grafton: I am not sure that the Louis Riel Teachers' Association has a position on that. Personally I would agree with the position of the society that there is more to be done. I think that a school division of 800 students is severely challenged to be able to offer strong programming to all its students.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Mr. Stankevicius, River East Teachers' Association. Please proceed.

* (20:30)

Mr. Roland Stankevicius (President, River East Teachers' Association): Good evening, everyone. My name is Roland Stankevicius, and I am serving as president of the River East Teachers' Association. I am here to speak on behalf of the approximately 875 teachers who are its members. We are the teachers who are employed in the River East School Division which is amalgamating with the urban portion of the Transcona-Springfield School Division.

I am also the parent of three children. My son and daughter attend Collège Béliveau, and my youngest daughter attends school at École Guyot, schools in the newly amalgamated Louis Riel School Division. Speaking as a parent of children in public school, I heartily support Bill 14, as I believe it will provide for greater flexibility for program options for my children and a more efficient use of education dollars towards school programs.

As well, since April 15, 2002, I am also serving as president-elect of the River East-Transcona Teachers' Association, which will be the successor teachers' association upon the amalgamation of the River East teachers and the urban portion of the Transcona-Springfield teachers' associations.

This amalgamation will occur at the end of this school year and our new association will have a combined membership of approximately 1275 teachers. I am very pleased to be here tonight to speak in favour of Bill 14 and to encourage that the Manitoba Legislature move quickly to pass this bill into law.

Very many of the teachers in our association are also citizens, parents, taxpayers and voters in the community of North Kildonan. In my questions and conversations about school division amalgamation with teachers, the respones vary from "I think it is a good thing" to "it is about time the Government did something about that" and the always popular "that is a no-brainer." Teachers believe that amalgamation will provide better programs and opportunities to the children in our schools, and over time amalgamation will also provide for greater efficiency in allocating for more and better classroom resources.

Teachers in our classrooms of our public schools know all too well about the very scarce resources available to provide a quality educational program to our children. Doing well for our children without sufficient resources for all learners and all types of learners is a credit to the creativity, dedication and commitment that our teachers bring to their profession. When we as teachers see expenditures in areas that do not directly enhance the quality of learning in the classroom for our students, we see this as a huge opportunity cost that cannot be recovered. It is too often the case that too many public education dollars are allocated to non-instructional areas.

Eliminating the wasteful and unnecessary duplication of administrative expense, and redirecting these scarce public dollars into our children's classrooms is the right thing to do. I believe Bill 14 does provide the necessary framework for a successful transition to a more efficient administrative structure for our newly amalgamated school divisions. I believe that teachers very clearly see the opportunity to improve quality in the classrooms by eliminating duplication of administration and establishing a cap to the level of expenditures on these items.

The Public Schools Modernization Act is the necessary tool for allowing the amalgamation of school divisions to complete the work that they have been pursuing since November 8, 2001. There is no need to delay as most of the public is well aware of the advantages of amalgamation. The discussion and debate around school division amalgamation has been going on for my whole lifetime. There has not been any comprehensive change during that period, but it has been generally agreed that amalgamation should take place. I applaud this Government for being somewhat brave on this issue, and although they probably should have gone further, I do believe this is a very important big step forward.

School divisions are ready to go with amalgamations. They have been working very hard to organize themselves to be ready for the new reality. From the very beginning, Mr. Chairperson, school divisions understood the importance of embracing this change and have been working to plan for a successful transition.

Back in November 2001, after Minister Caldwell announced the amalgamation of school divisions, Mr. John Carlyle, Superintendent of the River East School Division, stated in a press release that we are committed to making this process work effectively in order to preserve quality education for our children. Today, the most recent press release from Mr. Carlyle states in part that the trustees of Transcona-Springfield and River East school divisions are pleased to announce that the transition organization chart for the superintendent's department of the River East-Transcona School Division has been established and will take effect when the new school division comes into being.

So, in River East and Transcona, we have come a long way from an early commitment to the process for a change to the announcement of a new organizational structure. Now, we need to see this work completed with a swift enactment of Bill 14.

Our new teacher association is also ready to go. After many meetings and discussions with our colleagues in Transcona, we have developed a bond of trust and commitment to a positive amalgamation. To this end, we have already adopted a new constitution, established a new name, elected a new executive, passed the first budget and conducted a successful founding meeting. We are looking forward to our future challenges as a larger, more diverse and more talented teachers' organization.

Thank you for allowing me to make this presentation this evening.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Rollie, for a good presentation from River East. Could you give us a sense of how the morale is with the teachers around this issue? One of the things we heard earlier in Springfield, one of the biggest benefits of amalgamation was the new sense of energy and revitalization that goes on. Do you have that sense in River East?

Mr. Stankevicius: I have a sense that the River East teachers, as a group, there was some initial anxiety about where will my career end if there are transfers, but that has all been laid to rest, and there have been some assurances there will be no changes in the near future. I sense from many of our colleagues in Transcona they are looking at it as an opportunity to expand career opportunities, and as our River East teachers reflect on this expanded school division they are seeing their opportunities for career and profesional development as also being enhanced.

Generally, I believe it is in keeping with what we were saying about the kids in the classroom. The amalgamation should be seamless. It should not disrupt how teachers see their role in the classrooms. Hopefully, it will be an enhancement to their professional development and career.

Mr. Cummings: Thank you for your presentation. Obviously you are very well organized and have given considerable thought to not only this presentation but to the future of your organization and your colleagues.

I wonder if you have been privy to or have had any discussions or been given any information that would demonstrate the amount and the magnitude of dollars that may or may not be achieved from this amalgamation.

Mr. Stankevicius: In terms of what? In terms of savings, or in terms of the cost for the amalgamation? I am not clear on your question.

Mr. Cummings: Savings.

Mr. Stankevicius: I do not have anything concrete, but just from looking at the elimination of a school division office and the staffing of that and issues of fewer trustees, it does not take a rocket scientist or even a teacher to figure out there will be considerable savings over time. I am glad to see that we are modernizing the public school system to something that is more efficient, and with the commitment of this Government to put the money back in the classrooms where the fundamental objective of public school finance should be.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I am not a rocket scientist. I am a farmer and a former trustee. Can you tell me how much a trustee makes in these amalgamated school divisions, if that is where some of the savings is going to come from?

Mr. Stankevicius: I understand the basic remuneration for a trustee is approximately $9,000 in River East per year, plus some additional benefits. It does not sound like a lot of money, but over time. There are other issues in relation to administrative staff and their support which would increase that number significantly.

Mr. Struthers: Yes. Thank you very much for your presentation. I am interested in knowing, rather than the amount of savings that might be realized and given back to a government, my preference is to think of this as a redirection of money that we are putting forth as a provincial government, and that if we use some common sense that we can actually achieve.

I am interested to know what that redirection of money means in your classroom. What kind of things can you, as a classroom teacher, look forward to doing within the classroom–look forward to having in the classroom–that are going to make a real difference for your students? Because, I think both sides of this table, and testament by all the people we have heard from in two nights, that is what the bottom line is. What difference will this make for your kids in your classroom?

* (20:40)

Mr. Stankevicius: It is pretty straightforward. In the high school I taught at, there was a chronic problem with such basic items as desks for students; having enough desks, desks that did not rip your pants when you sat in them, desks were the right size. Those are not huge capital expenditures, but the money just was not there. Having enough textbooks for everyone that is registered in the course; you have some textbooks, but you would not have enough.

The issue of numbers of students per class, you would often, as staffing was achieved in terms of the budget, you would have very large classes where, of course, quality can be compromised where a teacher is overloaded with too many students, too few classroom textbooks and not enough places for people to sit in. So there are some very clear deficiencies and, hopefully, we will redirect some of the money through amalgamation to these issues.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. The next presenter is Marijka Spytkowsky, Transcona-Springfield Teachers' Association. Please proceed.

Ms. Marijka Spytkowsky (President, Transcona-Springfield Teachers' Association): Thank you. Good evening. My name is Marijka Spytkowsky. I am currently president of the Transcona-Springfield Teachers' Association and, as of July 1, I will be president of the Sunrise Teachers' Association.

I am here to present some recommendations for consideration in future amalgamations. I applaud the Government for finally making the decision to amalgamate school divisions. School divisions cannot provide a full range of programs and services to students if the divisions are too small. Every Manitoba student, whether they be in elementary school or enrolled at an adult learning centre, is entitled to have equal educational opportunities and access to programs and services no matter where they live in the province.

Since the November 8 announcement, life in Transcona-Springfield School Division has changed. I must admit that the splitting of our school division and the subsequent amalgamations have been most difficult. The effects of these amalgamations will be felt for a long time. As a teacher who has worked through the amalgamations with River East and Agassiz teachers' associations I would like to request that the Government consider the following recommendations.

School divisions that are too small may benefit from amalgamation. However, cultural diversity needs to be recognized. Merging two or more culturally divergent school divisions may cause more problems. School divisions should stay intact when merging. To do otherwise creates turmoil, frustration and anger. Working with colleagues since November 8 has been very emotionally draining. Many in the rural area of the Transcona-Springfield School Division are still very bitter.

Teacher morale in the division is low, and low morale impacts on the quality of education as teachers are the direct providers of the educational programs in the school divisions. Services to assist school divisions through the onerous job of amalgamation should also be extended to the employee groups within the division. A resource manual outlining procedures, timelines and resource personnel should be developed and distributed prior to any future amalgamations. For the most part, the various teacher associations develop their own strategies for working through the amalgamation. In Transcona-Springfield, a time line and checklist were developed to address the various tasks, such as the division of assets and liabilities, committee structures, meeting locations and times, and the development of a constitution, to name just a few.

Funding for the amalgamations must be extended to the various employee groups. School divisions will receive $50 per pupil over the next few years. Mr. Chair, money for amalgamation-related expenses of employee groups, such as teachers, comes out of the local membership fee. The expense borne by the Transcona-Springfield Teachers' Association has surpassed the $10,000 mark, with the total still rising. Even with the support of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, costs and expenses have become prohibitive.

Communication is of the essence. Everyone needs to have the same information and remain up-to-date in the process as it unfolds. The Government should consider requesting monthly updates as the school divisions work through amalgamation. Mr. Chairperson, the Transcona-Springfield Teachers' Association regularly sent out newsletters, as well as one-page flyers, The Informal, to keep members informed of the progress. In fact, those documents were also shared with the amalgamating partners.

There should be a review of the amalgamation procedure in the next year. It is important to know how the merged divisions are functioning in order to alleviate any future difficulties. The metro group of amalgamating presidents has decided that it is important to meet on a regular basis in the next year to review and share information. This round of amalgamations has provided many of us with an interesting task. From my perspective, it has been a learning experience for everyone, one which I will remember for a long time.

We are here to improve the public school system in Manitoba. It is an important goal for teachers as well as the Government. I therefore ask the Government to take the recommendations into account when deliberations begin on the next phase of boundary review. Thank you.

Mr. Caldwell: Thank you, Marijka, for your presentation. I think your comments, as highlighted by the points, are very instructive for us now, let alone in the future and looking back. I wonder, we have heard a lot about, I guess, the fears around the quality of education in the Sunrise School Division in the future and so forth. Could you, as a teacher in Springfield, and president-elect of Sunrise School Division, the first president of the new division, could you give us some comments on the quality of education in the new division? And maybe, if you have some vision that you may have with your colleagues in terms of building excellence in the new division?

Ms. Spytkowsky: The quality of education is not going to change in Sunrise. Looking at colleagues in Springfield, looking at colleagues in Agassiz, they are all committed to providing the best with what they have. That will continue, regardless of amalgamation. I see a camaraderie developing very quickly. In fact, we have met on many instances and already the sharing of ideas has occurred, the networking has started, the different groups have started to meet, I am talking in specifics to administrators and resource personnel, consultants, they are all out there working. They are ready to do the work that needs to be done.

Mr. Caldwell: How many teachers are in the new division?

Ms. Spytkowsky: From my last total, approximately 387.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you for your presentation. You indicated that teachers will perform their tasks and work the way they are supposed to, and I believe that to be true. What about the question of access to programs? Is there an issue? I think this is what we have been hearing from residents of Springfield, that there is a fear that the children that have access to certain specific programs now, like music and French immersion and others, is there a potential problem here of a lack of access to the programs they have become accustomed to.

Ms. Spytkowsky: As the minister indicated yesterday, the announcement of the shared services agreement that has come forward–that will give us a beginning. I think, as a group together as a collective–parents, teachers and the trustees–we can put forth the programs that we need to have to maintain the viability of the educational system in Sunrise.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I am wondering if you would clarify something for me. I taught for many years in a very culturally diverse school division, and I notice one of your concerns was merging two school divisions that are culturally divergent. Now, Canada is known for its diversity of cultures. So there are some very positive things to this, as well. I was just wondering, what are the negatives, in your opinion? I am not clear what you mean by this. Can you be a little bit more specific?

* (20:50)

Ms. Spytkowsky: See, I waited this time. Thank you.

Looking at the culture within Transcona-Springfield, we have been described as a "rurban" division. We have the Springfield component, which worked together with the urban, so we accessed many of the benefits from the city. Looking at what Sunrise will now encompass, very community based schools, and I think in those communities are various cultures and they are very distinct. So, we are looking at merging, not only two school divisions but also separate entities that now will be performing as one. It does not have to be an ethnic culture. It can also be within the locale were the schools are located. So that is something that we have to address and be cognizant of.

Mr. Gilleshammer: On the first page, under point 2, you say teacher morale in the division is low. Low morale impacts on the quality of education. What impact has this amalgamation and this low morale had on students over the last few months?

Ms. Spytkowsky: I cannot answer that because I have not seen it from the student perspective. I can only speak to what I have seen with colleagues.

Mr. Gilleshammer: When you say teacher morale in the division is low and low morale impacts on the quality of education, in what way has it impacted on that quality of education from the teacher's point of view?

Ms. Spytkowsky: At this point in time teachers are uncertain of what they are doing next year. Reassignments are still occurring. Transfers are still occurring. With that uncertainty in the air, there is a sense that perhaps that transfer will not come by June 30. Looking at what teachers do in the classroom and taking into account that students pick up vibes very easily, I am sure there is some, but I have not seen it first-hand.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Virginia Larsson, private citizen.

Ms. Virginia Larsson (Private Citizen): I come bearing gifts.

Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed when you are ready.

Ms. Larsson: I waited a while to get here. Good evening. My name is Virginia Louise Larsson. I am here as a Charleswood constituent, splendidly represented by Myrna Driedger, who, I think, is a close personal