Manitoba Committee Hansard — 28 October 1996 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 13, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-la13

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Law Amendments Chairperson Mr. David Newman Constituency of Riel Vol. XLVI No. 13-6 p.m., Monday, October 28, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Mem1Ders1 Constituencies and Political AtTiliation Name Coostih•enc)' � ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON·, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATH LIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. - MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Nia.kwa PC . RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon.

Kirkfield Park PC . STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Ross mere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

643 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Monday , October 28, 1996 TIME-6 p.m. LO CATION- Winnip eg , Manitoba CHAIRPERSON -M r. David Newman (Riel) VICE-CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Pete r Dyck (Pembina ) ATTENDANCE-11 -Q U ORUM-6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Derkach, Hon. Mcintosh, Hon. Messrs. Pallister, Reimer Ms. Cerilli, Mr. Dyck, Ms. Friesen, Ms. McGifford, Ms. Mihychuk, Mr. Newman, Mrs. Render APPEARING: Mr. Gary Kowalski, MLA for The Maples WITNESSES: Ms. Betty Green, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Ms.

Carolyn Duhamel, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Ms. Betty Ann Watts, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Mr. Howard Friesen, Garden Valley School Division No. 26 Mr. Cordell Barker, Pine Creek Teachers' Association Ms. Val Thomson, Private Citizen Ms. Lisa Martin, Private Citizen Ms. Caroline Evans, Souris Valley Teachers' Association Ms. Linda Dyrkacz, Agassiz Teachers' Association Mr. Greg Fritske, Brandon Teachers' Assocation Mr. Paul LaRiviere, L'Association des Educateurs/Educatrices Francophone du Manitoba Ms. Aurele Boisvert, Francophone School Division Ms. Erica Stecheson, Private Citizen Mr.

Dean Jonasson, Private Citizen Ms. Nancy Trush, Private Citizen Ms. Gail Eliasson, Evergreen Teachers' Association Mr. Ernie Schiman, Intermountain Teachers' Association Mr. Geoff Robson, Morris-Macdonald Teachers' Association Mr. Harry McKnight, Private Citizen Mr. Steve Lawrie, Private Citizen Mr. Adam Grabowski, Private Citizen Mr. Fred Veldink, Private Citizen Mr. Lawrie Kyle, Private Citizen Mr. Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Henry Wedel, Transcona Teachers' Association Mr. Donald Teel, Winnipeg Teachers' Association Mr. Ron Munro, River East Teachers' Association Mr. Murray Grafton, St.

Boniface Teachers' Association Mr. Jean Beaumont, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents Mr. Jake Peters, Assiniboine South Teachers' Association Ms. Val Goodridge, Assiniboine South Teachers' Association Ms. Phyllis Moore, The Retired Teachers Association of Manitoba Ms. Patricia Gendreau, Private Citizen Mr. David Harkness, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 72- The Public Schools Amendment Act

(2) WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: The Manitoba Association of School Business Officials Inc. Mr. Edward H. Lipsett, Private Citizen Ms. Betty Green, Ms. Carolyn Duhamei,Ms. Betty Ann Watts, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Ms. Tricia Hallson, Private Citizen lllr lllr lllr

644 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 19 96 Mr . Chair person: Good eve ning. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. Bef ore comme ncing with the business before the committee, a Vice-Chairperson must be elected. Are there any nominations? Mrs. Shi rley Render (St. Vital): Mr. Chair, I nominate the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) . Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dyck has been nominated . Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Dyck is elected as Vice-Chairperson to the committee .

The business before the committee this eveni ng is the considemtion ofBill 72, The Public Schools Amendment Act (2). Bef ore co ntinuing on with consideration of the bill, there are certain matters regard ing process to clarify at this point. For the com mittee's and public's inforqtation, there are currently 55 persons registered to speak to Bill 72.

A list of the presenters should be before all com mittee members, as well as, postt:d at the back of the room For the publ ic's information, if there is anyone present this evening who wishes to appear before the committee and is not yet registered, you may register with the Chamber staff at the back of the room and your name will be added to the list. * (1810 ) In terms of the order that we will hear presente rs, there are two factors that the committee may wish to consider. First, there are currently 22 persons registered to speak who are from out of town.

They are indi<".ated as such by the asterisk after their name on the list. It has been a Manitoba pmctice to hear from persons who are from out of town first, as a matter of courtesy for tlile distance they have trav elled. Is there a wish of the committee to have out-of-town presenters go first? Is that agreed? [agreed ] A second factor considers that there are two persons who have requested translation services in order to make their presentation in French and they are presenter No. ll , Paul LaRiviere, and presenter No. 38, Aurel e Boisvert, who are also from out of town. How do the committee wish to proceed?

Do the committee wish to set a time limit on the public presentations? Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley) : Mr. Chairman, I think in order to give some certainty to the many people who are here tonight, I think we need to estab lish a time beyond which names will not be called. I would like to move that the committee not call names after midnight, but that anyone who wishes to present after midnight, the committee will remain to hear them. Mr. Chairperson: Any further discussion on that suggestion?

There being no further discussion, do I sense that there is unanimous consent for that approach? [agreed ] What about a time limit with respect to individual present ations? Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Chai rman , in light of the fact that we have many presenters and I believe for common courtesy for all of those who have come out, I would like to move that we allow lO minutes for presentations and five minutes for questions. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Chainnan, it is our position that Manitobans who come to presen t to these hear ings should be allowed to present the position that they have come to on behalf of themselves or on the groups that they may represent. Mr. Chai rperson: Any further discussion? Maybe at the outset, I could indicate that it is not permi tted, under the rules of the House, to have demonstrations of support or opposition to committee decisions or performan ces by presenters. It does cut into the time and there are good practical reasons for it.

Also, no one would want to hurt the fee lings of someone that did not get applause, and let it go to their head if someone got too much ap plause. In any event, that is the rule and I would appreciate observance of that rule, whatever the rationale for it. With respect, then, to the time limit on individual present ations, we have the suggestion of Mr. Dyck. Are you moving, Mr. Dyck, that the time limit be l 0 minutes on the initial presentation and five minutes for question and answers? Mr. Dyck: I so move.

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 645 Voice Vote Mr. Chairper son: That is an overriding matter already agreed to. Is there someone prepared to then make a Mr. Chairperson: All in favour of that motion, please motion to the effect? say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperso n: The motion carries. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division. * * * Mr. Chairper son: Another matter to deal with is that of persons whose names are called to make their presentation and they are not here.

It has been a practice of the committee that in such a situation the name is dropped to the bottom of the list and, if the name is called a second time and the person is not present, the name is dropped off the list. Did the committee wish to follow this practice? An Honourable Member: No. An Honourable Member: Agreed. Mr. Chairperson: We have a difference of opinion here, it appears. Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I was under the impression that people were called twice and then on the third time they would drop off the list. Mr.

Chairperson: That was an except ion to the practice held in one particular committee meeting considering one particular bill, but that was a departure from the practice, I am advised, and that is my own knowledge as well. Any further discussion on this issue? Ms. Friesen: This is just to clarifY that no names will be called after midnight. Mr. Dyck: Mr. Chairperson, I would move, then, that we call the names twice and then that we delete them from the list. Mr. Chairperson: All in favour, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yeas. Mr. Chairperson: All opposed, please say nay. It is so agreed.

Finally, the committee has received written submission to Bill 72 from The Manitoba Association of School Business Officials Inc. and from Edward Lipsett, private citizen. The submissions have been distributed to committee members. Does the committee wish to have these submissions appear at the back of the Hansard transcr ipt of this committee's meeting? Is that agreed? [agreed] We will now begin to hear public presentations but, before that, I understand that the honourable mi�ster wishes to give some prior notice of some amendments which she proposes to introduce.

Is that the will of the committee, to hear what those proposed amendments are? [agreed] Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Just for the information for the members and also for presenters who may be interested in these particular ones, I have three amendments that I am planning to introduce at the end of the hearings that-I mean, there may be more, I do not know-but these were three that we know we will be bringing forward. I would indicate that Clause 129(3) in

Section 18, which has been much discussed since the biD was first put together, is the clause on the ability to pay and, for two reasons, one, the Manitoba Teachers' Society felt that the wording of that clause could lead to a predetermined conclusion and would give too much power to boards; similarly, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, after consulting with trustees at regional meetings, felt that in a boom economy it would give too much power to teachers, and for very differing reasons.

646 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 In fact, for diametrically opposed reasons, both parties have come to the conclusion that they would like to see the word "primarily" removed and the items, inability to pay listed simply as a list of factors. We have no problem doing that. I will be bringing forward an amendment. I understand teachers would prefer not to have an ability-to-pay clause but, if w(: have one, this is the wording they had requested in writing to me. Trustees have now asked for the identi<cal wording.

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

Legal counsel is aware of our request for this amendment. The second one, again, is one that both trustees and teachers have indicated a similar requ1:st on, and again because it is coming from both groups and since what we are trying to achieve here is something a1;ceptable to both groups, again we are pleased to comply with these requests for rewording on Clause 110(1.1), which currently indicates that bargaining is to begin on April 1.

Teachers had indicated that their objection to that clause, and trustees, again, at the regional meetings after consultation with member boards had also approached me to indicate that there are a large number of boards that would also like the flexibility to begin prior to April l. So we are bringing forward an amendment that says where there is mutual agreem ent, boards and teachers can begin earlier than April l; where there is no mutual agr eement, then the April l will kick in.

This should allow for local flexibility since give 111 the number of boards that would like to start earlier than April l , there should be many instances where they could come to mutual agreement. That, of course, is always our first preference. The third amendment we are bringing forward is a small amendment requested by teac:hers. It is a clarification, basically, to

Section 32 where it is in terms of the date in which everything comes into being. Teachers were concerned that the board's obligation to act fairly be made very, very clear that it would come into being at the same time as the act, and that will be reworked to reflect that Legal counsel has the indication of the concern and that will be addressed. So those are the three that we were planning to bring forward, and I indicate that now for the benefit of committee members and for any presenters who may be interested in those particular items. Mr.

Chai rperson: I will just make an announcement before the ftrst presenter comes forward that Room 254, down the hall that way, is operational without a video but with audio, and if any people that get tired of standing but want to hear what is going on, that room will be open and available for that purpose. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could table the amendments that she has. It takes a while for Hansard to catch up with committee hearings, I think it would be useful for us to see them in writing as soon as they are available. Mrs. Mcint osh: Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to do that.

I cannot do that right now, but I will provide them to the members as we continue on through the course of the hearings. I will ensure that you get them prior to the debate on the amendments. *

(1820) Mr. Chairper son: The first presenter then will be Betty Green, president, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Betty Green please come forward. You have a supporting cast, Ms. Green. Did you want to identify them? Ms. Betty Green (Manitoba Association of School Tr ustees): Yes, I would. I have with me this evening Betty Ann Watts, vice-president of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, as well as our past president, Carolyn Duhamel. Mr. Chai rperson: You may begin your presentation.

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 647 Ms. Green: Prior to beginnin g, may I ask for permission to exte nd the time that it will require to make this presentation with the reasoning that we are presenting on behalf of the 56 school boards in the province? Mr. Chairperson: That permission has not been granted with the initial dec ision. Now a request has been made for leave for more time. What is the will of the committee?

Can I suggest this, rather than debating this now, perhaps you can proceed and then if you need more time maybe they will be prepared to consider it at that time, and in making your presentation you can make the request that your entire brief be put into Hansard without any vari ation. If you would like to make that request now, then that could be dealt with and you would have the knowledge and comfort that it is going to be put into the record as is. Ms. Green: Yes, I would certainly put that request forward. Mr. Chai rperson: Is the committee in agreement with that request? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr.

Chairperson: So agreed. That will then be done. You may begin your presentation, Ms. Green. Ms. Gr een: The Manitoba Association of School Trustees welcomes the opportunity to present to the Law Amendments Review Committee its views on changes to the collective bargaining provisions of The Public Schools Act, as proposed in Bill 72. In recent years, school trustees have pursued with government a number of fundamental changes to the process of collective barga ining between school boards and teacher assoc1at10ns.

From the trustees' perspective, the cornerstone of the collective bargaining process is the continuation of bargaining at the local level. MAST welcomes the legislative direction which reaffirms the imp ortance of collective bargaining between school boards and teachers at the school division or school district level. MAST's positions on Bill 72 have been shaped primarily through two processes. As always, the association's policies, as determined by resolutions at its annual convention, are a critical determinant of any stance taken by the association.

Where appropriate, these policies have been forward ed annually to the Minister of Education and Training and other ministers where appropriate for consideration and possible action. These policy positions were also contained in MAST's brief to the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee this spring. We are pleased to see that some of the changes proposed in Bill 72 and other legi slation before the Legislature reflect the concerns that the association has recently brought before the minister.

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

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

Sectio ns 8, 9, 21, and 23 of·Bill 72 outline the provisions of the conciliation, mediation and arbitration processes. Trustees generally support the proposed changes to the collective bargaining process. Several of these changes are supported by resolutions passed by school trustees in recent years. Although mediation has not been considered by a MAST convention, most school boards would seem to view its inclusion as an improvement to the collective bargaining process. School boards do, however, have some concerns about the changes to the collective bargaining process outlined.

One of the most widely spread is the off-loading of the conciliation costs to school boards and teacher associations and the divergence between The Public Schools Act and The Labour Relations Act in this regard.

648 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 At present, the government pays the cost of a conciliator in the school board/tea cher association negotiations, as it does in negotiations conducted under The Labour Relations Act. Amendments contained in

Section 9 of Bill 72 would see these costs divided bc�tween the school board and the teacher association. We believe that the government should either continue to pay this cost directly or provide categorical funding to enable school boards to do so. In a similar vein, we are concerned about discrepancies between the mediation provisions of The Labour Relations Act and those proposed for Thte Public Schools Act. At present, mediation under The lLabour Relations Act is paid for by the government.

If changes proposed under Bill 26, The Labour Relatioos Amendment Act, are implemented, the government will still pay one-third of the cost of Labour Relations Act mediations. The proposed add ition to The Public Schools Act would have school boards and teacher associations splitting the cost of mediation. We believe that the only fair and reasonable approach is that the provision of the two acts be parallel in this regard.

Our preference would be that the status quo of the curre nt Labour Relations Act be maintained and that these provisions be extended to mediation under The Public Schoo ls Act At a minimum, we would ask that if the mediation provisions of The Labour Relations Act be amended so that the government pays one-third of the associated costs under that act, these same provisions be extended to mediation under The Public Schools Act. School boards are also concerned about the proposed method of appointing the mediator/arbitrator. We are concerned that the list envisioned in

Section 9 would be unduly restrictive. We also believe that the Chief Justice rather than the Minister of Labour is the appropriate individual to select the mediator/arbitrator. In

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

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

(1830) Ms. Carolyn Duhamel (Manitoba Association of School Trustees): The next

section deals with the ability to pay and requirement for fmancial information. School boards support the inclusion of ability to pay as a con sideration in an arbitrator's decision and, in fact, asked for this inclusion in a convention resolution in 1996. MAST requested consideration for ability to pay because school boards believed that arbitration boards assign more weight to other bargained settlements, in other words, comparability, than they did to a school board's ability to pay. School boards also recognize that the implementation of a concept such as ability to pay poses some practical problems.

Specific issues that will require further discussion and clarification include whether or not or how much of a school division's surplus will be taken into account when determining ability to pay and the relat ionship between ability to pay and increasing local taxes; i.e., the willingness-to-pay argument. School boards are also concerned that this legislative amendment not be interpreted so as to give arbitrators authority over programming decisions.

A situation could arise whereby an arbitrator decides that a school board would have an increased ability to pay if that board were to reduce or modifY program offerings to students. No arbitrator in our view should have the ability to compel a school board to change its educational program or support services. We are see king a commitment from the go vernm ent that authority over educational progra.nuning will remain with the elected school board.

Many school boards have also expressed the concern that the implementation of this concept will lead to incre ased inequities in public schools throughout the province unless efforts are made by the province to equalize ability to pay. We would urge the government

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 649 to implement ability to pay concurrently with renewed efforts to increase equalization support for school divisions and districts throughout the province. Most school boards would agree that for ability to pay to be a consideration in arbitration awards, teacher associations need to have access to relevant fmancial info rmation. In fact, many school divisions already provide such information.

However, we do have concerns about how relevant financial information may be defined, and in particular school boards are concerned that this not be interpreted to include the budget line for projected salary increases. The potential for confusion and conflict in this regard could be alleviated if the legislation were amended to indicate precisely what financial information boards are required to provide. MAST is suggesting that Sections 110.2(1) and (2) should be amended so as to delete the phrase relevant financial information. Mr.

Chairperson: I must interject now, because the 10 minutes has expired, and now is the appropriate time to discuss, without encroaching further on your time, how we will proceed. Perhaps I could offer a suggestion for consideration of the committee.

Given you or the Manitoba Association of School Trustees and your counterpart for the teachers is the Manitoba Teachers' Society, which is item 21 on the list, and because the commitment has already been made to not have anyone exceed 10 minutes in presentation, five minutes for question and answer, and the desire I am sure of everybody here to be at least bal anced, would that be a possible solution to allow a certain time to make your complete presentation and have the five minute question and answer after your complete presentation, and then have the same opportunity extended to the Teachers' Society? Ron.

Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Aff airs): Two groups only? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, that is my suggestion. Floor Comment: We think that would be appropriate. Mr. Chair person: Leave is granted on that basis then for you, and that will be extended also to the Teachers' Society. Thank you. You may proceed. We will allow you time, then, to go through your presentation. Ron. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services) : Just for clarification if I could, Mr. Chai rman . That was leave for the presenters, not a departing from the previous agreed upon time for questions. Is that correct? Mr.

Chairpers on: The time for questions, and what my suggestion was that the question and answer would be five minutes, the presentation would take whatever time it takes to complete the presentation of this brief. Ms.

Duhamel: Just to summari ze on the issue then of ability to pay, we are suggesting that the wording be amended so as to delete the phrase "relevant financial info rmation" and substitute instead "audited financial statements and most recent approved budget." With regard to the wording of the clause on ability to pay and the amendment that has been announced this evening by the minister, we both appreciate and support the intention to remove the word "primarily," and while there is some suggested wording here, I will not read it all at this time.

We would simply support any wording which reflects flexibility in terms of a consideration of the various factors which contribute to or influence ability to pay. Matters not referred to arbitration and the obligation to act fairly, Sections 15 and 22. Manitoba school boards generally support the list of matters not referred to arbitration contained in

Section 15 of Bill 72; however, serious concerns have been expressed about the way in which the obligation to act fairly, described in

Section 22 of the proposed legislation, could affect the policies and decision making of school boards. The obligation for school boards to act fairly and the legislative recourse in the event they fail to comply, new PSA Sections 131.4(1) and 131. 4(2), are linked with matters not referrable for arbitration, new PSA

Section 126(2). While school boards do not oppose a fairness test, these sections of proposed legislation, read together, expose school boards to literally thousands of individual grievances. These amendments make school board practices and policy grievable under the collective agree -nt. Grievances not settled locally will be referred to a grievance arbitration

650 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 board, and no process is proposed within which the arbitrator will decide the grievance. This would be a very diff erent process than the fairness test described in

Section 80 of The LaboJUr Relations Act. In that act, the process is clearly d':fmed. Specific collective agreement wording forms the basis upon which an arbitrator settles the grievance. The parties then take the arbitrators' decision into consideration in ensuing collective bargaining and clarify or modify the collective agreement wording. Bill 72 proposes that arbitration boards review a school board's practice or administration of board policy to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. Ar bitrator's decisions could become intrusive in the school board's setting of policy.

School boards do not accept the proposition that significant issues such as class size, teacher evaluation and staff mg decisions could be decided by an arbitrator. The proposed

Section 131. 4(2) would allow an arbitrator to usurp the right of an elected school board to decide these matters. In those few divisions with coiiC4;tive agreement wording covering items contained in Se�;tion 126(2), we have further concerns that a teache:r could access grievance arbitration both Wlder the legislation and based upon specific collective agreement provisions. In

summary, MAST supports the list of matters not referable for arbitration contained in Se:ction 15 of Bill 72. MAST supports the obligation to act fairly contained in

Section 22 of Bill 72. MAST is opposed to the provisions of the subsection failure to comply, contained in

Section 22 of Bill 72. MAST supports, instead, replacing the proposed PSA

Section 131.4(2) with the same wording as is currently contained in

Section 80 of The Labour Relations Act. Ms. Betty Ann Watts (Manitoba Association of School Trustees): The

section I will refer to is the term of collective agreement, notice provisions and transitional provisions, Sections 4, 23, 32, 33 and 34. To begin, Madam Minister, we appreciate the amendment on the notice provisions. However, MAST believes that there is no compelling reason for school boards to have a �on collective agreement expiry date, and that school boards and teacher associations should continue to have flexibility to negotiate the term of collective agreements. *

(1840) There are benefits to various models. A July 1 effect ive date would bring collective agreements in line with the school board's fiscal year. The budget year would correspond to the term of the agreement as is contemplated in the proposed legislation. The existing January 1 date is the best fit for scheduling of negotiation meetings. A September I date is the start of a teacher's work year for divisions which pay teachers' salaries on a 12-month basis. The July and August payments are for work performed in the previous I 0-month school year.

Other sections of this legislation support local decision making, based on the unique circumstances of the division or district. The term of agreement should con tinue to be determined locally between the school board and the teacher association. Tra nsition sections 33 and 34 would provide for a collective agreement of less than one year. If legislation proceeds to mandate a common expiry date for all agreements and that date is other than December 31, MAST proposes that any transition agreement should be at least 12 months in duration, plus the number of months to the new expiry date.

For example, if there were to be a June 30 expiry date, the transition agreement would be for 18 months. As collective bargaining consumes con siderable amounts of time and energy, it seems reasonable that the transition should be accomplished by a longer rather than a shorter term of agreement. In

summary, MAST believes the current Public Schools Act provisions allowing school boards and local associations to negotiate the term of collective agreement and notice provisions should be continued. Should an expiry date other than December 31 be legislated, transition agreements should be at least 12 months plus the number of months to the new expiry date. On related matters, new provisions for

Part 8 of The Public Schools Act regarding employee vote on school board's final offer. In 1984, MAST adopted a policy that prior to arbitration, the positions of the school board should go before its teachers for a vote of acceptance or

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 651 re jection. That resolution read as follows:

Be it resolved that MAST urge the Minister of Education to have legisl ation enacted to provide that all of the teachers within a school division or district would have the oppo rtunity to vote upon whether to accept or re ject a school board's offer prior to the application for arbitration; and, be it further resolved that MAST urge the Minister of Education to have legislation enacted to provide that the school board vote upon whether to accept or re ject the teacher's proposal prior to the application for arbitration. A proposed change contained in

Section 72 of Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, contains a provision that would mandate a process such as the one envisioned here. There is no similar clause in Bill 72. In

summary, MAST proposes that The Public Schools Act be amended so as to include a process to allow employees to vote on an employer's final offer, similar to the amendments proposed for

Section 72 of The Labour Relations Amendment Act. Ms. Gree n: Within our presentation, we have also made some comments on Bill 57. Those are for your con sideration. We have no formal presentation on Bill 57. In conclusion, on behalf of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, thank you once again for the opportunity to convey to you the views and concerns of Manitoba public school trustees regarding proposed amendments to The Public Schools Act contained in Bill 72. These amendments have the potential to impact signifi cantly on public education in our province.

We trust that you will give due consideration to the sugges tions we have offered in our presentation. We trust also that you will accept them in the spirit in which they have been offered with an eye to improving education for the more than 195,000 young people enrolled in Manitoba public schools. Mr. Chair person: Thank you very much for that presentation which, for the record, took 21 minutes and 20 seconds, and we will now proceed with questions. The honourable minister first and then Ms. Mihychuk. Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you, MAST, for your presentation and for your support of the bill in the main.

Just for the record, I want to get some clarification from you on two items. One, for the record here, it is your opinion that the grievance provisions outlined in the act pertaining to the fairness clause would give teachers the right to grieve things like class size even if it were not in a collective agreement, and double jeopardy, that they would also, if it was in the agreement, get to grieve it not only under the collective agreement for those few that contain it but also to an arbitrator. Is that your main concern with that? Ms.

Duhamel: Our concern is that school boards-that there is the potential here for a large number of grievances on many issues that fall outside of collective agreem ents and are rather issues of school board practice or school board policy. The difficulty with submitting those to an arbitrator for a grievance process is that there are no parameters within which to examine the issue and within which the arbitrator must frame his or her response.

So we have concerns there about an open-ended kind of process, where we could be bombarded with one grievance after another on issues that are not part of the collective agr eement. We think it would be in the best interest of teachers and school boards to find some other way of dealing with some of those things, because it can tie up a tremendous amount of time and energy and resour Ces in that kind of a process. Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I have three fairly short questions. I know my colleagues and other members would like to ask you some questions.

Can you tell me when MAST becam e dissatisfied with the way the presently existing negotiation methods have existed? I unders tand that they have been in existence for approximately 40 years, and perhaps you can elaborate when MAST raised these issues and perhaps enlighten us as to why these issues are coming forward at this time. Ms. Green: We have been bringing these issues to the government's attention for quite some time now. Certainly, in the last 1 0 years, there have been resolutions being brought forward to annual conventions expressing these kinds of concerns. Ms.

Friesen: I want to thank you for your presentation and for the proposals that you have made, but I also want

652 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 to ask you about what the implications have been for the Manitoba Association of School Trustees as of the last six months of debate over this particular bill. This bill does not come out of the blue. It comes out of the context of the minister's discussions of teachers' salaries, of proposals for referendums on teachers' salaries, proposals for lower starting wages for teachers, the whole Render Dyck proposals, and the hearings that were held then.

I wondered if you could give us some !;ense of what the impact of these last six months has been on the relationships between you and yow employees, the teachers, in particular. Ms. Green: Certainly the discussions as of the last six months ·have caused some strain within teacher associ ations and school boards. Anytime there is significant change to a process that has been utilized for some time , that can be expected. What we want to do is ensure that the end result is one that will mean a better system for all involved and, most importantly, for the childlen in our schools. Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Mihychuk, you have a minute. Ms. Mihychuk: Would you say that the: settlements that you have negotiated using the present system have been exorbitant compared to other wage settlements and various other workers' units? Ms. Green: I think our main concem is that we have seen an increase in the occurrence of arbitrated settlements, and school boards and teachers would be well-served by having more of the collective agreements at the local level. Mr. Chair person: Ms. Cerilli, you have 15 seconds. Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarifY if I am understanding this.

You do not want to have the arbitrator make decisions that would intrude on educational programs, support services. What is left? What is there that- Ms. Duhamel: What we are saying here is that the specifics of any reductions or cutbacks should be the school division's, the school board's responsibility.

If an arbitrator is going to propose a settlement that is going to cause a dramatic shortfall, that means some very critical program priorities might have to go by the boards, then we think that the balance of the decision rests with the elected school board as opposed to an arbitrator who does not have to make the thing work. Mr. Chairperson: Thanks, Ms. Duhamel. Thank you committee members. 1bank you presenters. The next presenter is Rob Hilliard, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Please come forward. An Honourable Member: Out of town. Mr. Chairperson: Oh, I am sony, out of town.

Howard Friesen, Garden Valley School Division No. 26. My ap ologies. You may begin your presentation, Mr. Friesen. *

(1850) Mr. Howard Friesen (Garden Val'ey School Division No. 26): 1bank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Minister and committee members. I will take this opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of the Garden Valley School Division Trustees. I certainly recognize that the issues surrounding Bill 72 and the teacher collective bargaining are complex ones and sensitive ooes but feel that they need to be addressed. Change in the economy and the workplace, we feel, have necess itated changes in the collective bargaining process.

We do support bargaining procedures that are fair, reas onable and just and will provide high-quality education at an affordable price. Our board of trustees and our teachers oppose strike and commend Mr. Dyck's and Mrs. Render's report for advocating a method of bargaining that respects and strengthens local autonomy, sets some reasonable parameters for the process and places a high value on the uninterrupted delivery of quality education.

The items that we would like to address, I will number them for you as we go along, the frrst one being: Secti ons 114(4) and 147, the cost-sharing of remuneration and expenses of the conciliation officer. Garden Valley School Division supports the principle of both partners equally sharing the actual costs incurred in our bargaining process. With shorter time lines and, hope fully, a greater urgency to settle the terms of an agreement, we hope that the overall costs will be reasonable.

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 653 The second point is selection of the arbitrator or a medi ator-arbitrator: Our board has supported the selection of a local conciliator, mediator or arbitrator. When the parties provide the minister with the name of a person selected by them jointly to act as arbitrator or medi ator-arbitrator, the minister shall appoint that person. In this instance the appointee could be local. Our question is, would any other criteria apply to the appointee who is mutually agreed to?

In the instance when the minister makes the appo intment, the person selected must be on a list approved by the Collective Agreement Board or the Man itoba Labour Board. These lists would probably exclude local persons, and our board is not totally comfortable or in agreement with this arrangement. The board would request that the list would include a representative from each region within the province. The board of trustees does support that the person selected be know ledgeable about all matters affecting a collectiv e agreement.

The third item pertains to matters not referable to arbitration but subject to a "grievance process set out in the collective agreement." Our board recognizes that the matters included under

Section 126(2) are management responsibilities and supports the wording of this crucial clause with respect to: (

a) the selection, appointment, assignment and transfer of teachers and principals; (

b) the method of evaluating the performance of teachers and principals; (

c) the class sizes in schools; and (

d) the scheduling of recesses and midday break. The board also supports that these matters should be dealt with "reasonably, fairly and in good faith." The board, however, does disagree with

Section 13 1.4{2) which delegates the resolution of any dispute or grievance to the settlement of differences as provided for in tha t coUective agreement. The outlined grievance process in our collective agreement is in fact an arbitration process and negates the intent of

Section 126(2). Garden Valley would support that any employee have the right to an appeal of an administrative decision made with respect to

Section 126(2). The full board of trustee s would conduct a hearing to review the decision in term s laid out under this section. All decisions made by a school board can ultimately be appealed to the minister. Item 4, term of collective agreement to coincide with the school year, our board supports that the term of the coUective agreem ent coincide with the existing June-July school year. It would be desirable that the term of the school budget year, the collective agreement and the written contract all coincide.

Item 5, with respect to ability to pay, our board supports that the primary factors to consider in reaching an arbitration settlement are current revenues including federal, provincial and local taxes. A reasonable surplus should not be considered as part of the definition of the ability to pay. While the board recognizes that other factors certainly need to be considered, the subjective nature of the comparable employees in the public and private sector serve to somewhat blur the clear guidelines given to an arbitrator. The last item, No. 6.: School boards to provide financial information.

Our board considers the budget and relevant financial information as public information and affirms that this information be made available to the bar gaining agents. The board will willingly provide available background information. In conclusion, the Garden Valley School Division supports the spirit and intent of Bill 72. The bill del ineates a process that will facilitate fair and equitable bargaining to ensure that the primary purpose of our school division focuses on providing quality instruction for all of our students.

We are willing to ent er into more specific detailed discussion at your request, and we hope that there will a long-term effect on provincial and local bargaining. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Friesen. Mr s. Mcintosh: Thank you, Mr. Friesen, for your pres entation. Just as an aside, before my question, and that is that if you locally have a person that you are both happy with, that person can be appointed and put on the list.

The question I wanted to ask: You indicated in 3 that the items not referable to arbitration by virtue of the fairness and grie vance procedure that we have laid out, in fact, allows teachers to take an arbitration, take them to

654 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 arbitration and negates the statement that they cannot be arbitrated. I wonder if you would be good enough to just expand that a little bit, for our information. Mr. Friesen: Our collective agreemenlt has a provision for the contesting of any items in the collective agreement, and that decision-making process is an arbitration I, so any items where teachers feel that we have not acted in good faith, even though they are under these items, would still be referred to alfbitration under our collective agreement. Mrs. Mcintosh: I am not quite sure- Mr.

Chairperson: Do you need a clarification? Mr s. Mcintosh: So what you are saying is, you have this in: your collective agreement so teachers can already grieve it, but if you did not have it, they could still grieve it, too? Is that-okay , thank you. Ms. Friesen: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Friesen. I am interested in your conclusion, that your school division, like every other school division, wants to focus on providing quality instruction for students .

One of the difficulties with this bill, and it is one that the school trustees pointed out in their present ation, is that the arbitrator may indeed be given authority to compel a school board to change its educational program or support services as a result of the wording and indeed the intent of this bill. I wondered if your trustees in particular had discussed this and wha t conclusions they had come to. * (1 900) Mr.

Friesen: Our conclusion on that would be similar to the presentation made by MAST, that the ability or that the arbitration decision not be of such magnitude as to effectively create situations for school boards to have to alter their programming significcmtly. Those respons ibilities should rest with school boards . Ms. Mihychuk: Thank you for your present ation. understand that you represent a rural school division. Good relations between the teachers and the board have gener ally been the norm in a lot of our sc.hool divisions.

Are you concerned about the actions in recent months with this legislation souring relations between yourself and the staff? Mr. Friesen: Well, I think any time you have change, there is going to be some anxiety somewhere in the system, although I think that all-certainly in our division, there is clear thinking on both sides and not a move to panic. I think there is good reason for some of the intent of the bill and I think that some ofthat is understood. Ms. Mihychuk: WeU, there are many good intentions in the school system.

I know many teachers give up many hours of time to provide extra services , and that is particularly true in rural Manitoba where they often lead the Scouts or the Girl Guides as well as the teams and are involved with the concerts . Have you seen any pulling back of that type of volunteerism by teachers in your community, or is that a concern of your boards? Mr. Friesen: I have not seen a decline in the number of extracurricular activities in our school division, not to say that there is not some concern over some of the changes being talked about.

Certainly there is still a good spirit of putting in time in our school division. Ms. Mihychuk: Has the board ever, for curiosity, calculated what the average number of hours a teacher did put in, and how much more that would cost your school division? Mr. Friesen: In actual mathematics calculation, no. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns about this bill is the intent appears to be to introduce differential wage rates across the province, with its reference to local employee incomes, and I wondered if you could tell me what the average, or what kind of reference wouJ d be used in your school district.

What are the average incomes of people in your district, do your know? Mr. Friesen: The exact numbers I could not quote for you, but I certainly know that wage earners in our area are less than they certainly would be in the city of Winnipeg. Whether that creates inequity in this system, I think rural Manitobans already live with the reality of inequity in many other areas and know that that is just the way it sometimes is.

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 655 Ms. Friesen: Do you agree then with the intent of the bill to introduce inequities into teacher salaries across the province? You say the city ofWinnipeg, but the city of Winnipeg of course has many variations. The average income in my riding, for example, is $1 9,000. The average income in the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) riding or the member for Springfield's (Mr. Findlay) riding is over $50, 000.

I do not know what it would be in your area, which is why I asked, but those seem to me to be quite large differentials, and the intent of this bill is to introduce differentials. Is that something that you can support? Mr. Friesen: I do not think that this bill is going to result in large inequities. I think that rural Manitoba will always need to address salaries in terms of being competitive enough to attract teachers.

I think there are also many opportunities, affordable opportunities, in rural Manitoba that I would personally not be able to afford in Winnipeg, and I think that sometimes needs to be reflected in earning ability as well, because not only do I perhaps earn less but I also can afford many other things that cost me less in rural Manitoba. Mrs. Mcintosh: Oh, thank you very much. I did not think I would get back to ask my other question. Picking up on the question that was just asked, it is my understanding that at the public hearings both teachers and trustees asked for local bargaining, not provincial bargaining.

Local bargaining has always been in place in Manitoba, that was reaffirmed. With local bargaining of course we have always had historically a differential of some few thousand dollars, rurally and in the urban setting. Is it also your understanding that what your division was asking for was a reconfirmation that local bargaining should continue as opposed to provincial bargaining? Mr. Friesen: We have affirmed that local bargaining is what our division is asking for. I think that is consistent with the MAST recommendations over the years. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Friesen.

The next presenter is Cordell Barker, Pine Creek Teachers' Association. You may begin your presentation, Mr. Barker. Mr. Cordell Barker (Pine Creek Teachers' Associa tion): I would like to start by thanking you for this opportunity to appear before this committee and to raise concerns on behalf of the 93 teachers in Pine Creek. Pine Creek, for those who are not aware, is a rural division. We are centred on Austin, MacGregor, Gladstone, Plumas, Langruth. We are rural folk. We know a duck when we see a due� we know a goose when we see a goose; and we do not like what we see here, to be polite but to be blunt.

The teachers in Pine Creek have endorsed this brief that you are receiving. They have endorsed it unanimously. It was discussed at a general meeting, and every single teacher there spoke against Bill 72. The message that the teachers in Pine Creek want me to bring to you is that this bill is unfair, this bill is unbalanced, this bill needs to be scrapped, it needs to be deep-sixed, it needs to be filed under W, and the government should go back to square one and start over again. I am not going to read the brief. Everyone here can read because they had a teacher who helped them learn.

I am going to talk on two ideas that are kind of outlined in the brief, but I have to adjust it because the minister announced that there are three major changes, three major amendments to this bill. I was sitting here listening to MAST, and, as they were going through their brief, I see they want at least eight changes to the bill. So here we are. The House is going to end its session on November 7 and the minister at the last minute is introducing amendments. MAST, who as you can tell likes this bill, still wants aid. I think it is time to rethink this, to re-look at it and to maybe re examine it.

Is it unfair and unbalanced? Well, I would be willing to say that the school divisions that are going to stand up here and the trustees that are going to stand up here may want some changes, but they will support it. The teachers groups that stand up here are going to speak against it. That should send a clear message that this is not a fair, balanced bill. This bill will do nothing for relationships between teachers and trustees. All it will lead to is long-term teacher-trustee antagonism. There are things in this bill that are just not fair in a free, democratic society.

656 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 * (1910 ) I guess two of them are open-scope: bargaining, the right to bargain all terms and conditions: of employment. Teachers had that prior to 19 56 when they were covered under The Labour Relations Act. They gave that up back then; over 40 years ago they gave that back up. Now the government wants to take away some of those rights and freedoms to negotiate all terms and conditions of employ ment. Would teachers today, given that c:hoice, with the protections under The Labour Relations Act, give up that right for this bill?

Anybody that thinks that teachers would do -that, come out to Pine Creek, visit the teachers in their· rooms, ask them one on one, and they will give you a clear message. They would not do that. I am looking at the amendment for the abilit y to pay, and it is kind of difficult to speak to it because I have not got a copy of it here, but I see that MAST, in their presentation, made a suggestion. I wonder if that is the mini ster's one. But if it is, I still look at it, and it still talks about abilit y to pay in the main paragraph with a subcate gory (a), (b), (c), (

d) and (e). It still uses the terminology, current revenues. The concept of ability to pay is not a fair conc ept. There are many, many factors that should be considered when teachers' salaries are being detennined. But the ability to pay, tied into current revenue, basically, if it were followed, would mean that a school board should approach Manitoba Hydro and say, I know you are charging this much for electricity but we (Jinly raised taxes by this much, so our ability to pay for hydro is only this much and that is all you are getting. Mr.

Chairperson: I have already made the admonition at the beginning, and I can assure you that the time you are spending applauding is eating into the time of the presentation and so is my interjection at this point. Mr . Bar ker: I could go on about that, but, again, I would say that if you ask teachers today, in the year 1996, if they had the rights and protections that they had under The Labour Relations Act back in 1948, '49, '50, '5 1, '52, '53, '54, '55 and that they gave up because there was a mutual agreement between three parties, would they go into this kind of a bill, and teachers will say no.

That is why it is unfair; that is why it is unbalanced; and that is why you should scrap it and go back to square one. It will do nothing for education. It will do nothing for teachers or trustees, and although the trustees are enamoured by it because they are achieving a couple of their goal s, I think that they will not be happy with the outcome . I would just like to close by referring to my last page in the brief, because this is something that kind of upsets the teachers in Pine Creek quite a bit.

That is the concept that has been referred to the odd time that there are teachers and that there are real teachers, and that the real teachers are the ones who work in the classr ooms , and then there are the labour leaders, the ones who are off leading the rest of us down some alley looking for trouble. Well, the teachers in Pine Creek would like everybody to know that the people whom they elect at their local executive and the people whom they elect at their annual general meeting are their real leaders , that these people speak for them and they speak the message that the teachers want spoken.

If you do not want to listen to the message, that is your choice, but the message should be clear and it represents what teachers think. Again, I woul d like to close by thanking you for this opportunity to bring the concerns of the 93 teachers in Pine Creek. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Ms. Friesen and the honourable minister. Ms. Friesen: Thank you for your presentation. One of the is sues I think that is driving this legis lation is the removal of over $43 millio n from the public school system.

I wondered if you could tell us what the impl ications of that have been for your school division and from the perspective of the classroom. Mr. Barker: Very briefly, over the last few years the $43 mill ion directly led to our board eliminating programs last year. Home Ec was reduced entirely throughout the school system There is no more Home Ec in Pine Creek. Industrial Arts was elimin ated in the junior high. We had elimination of 4.2 teachers in our division. lbat means that because of these elimi nations, everybody is teaching slig htly larger classes and has less preparation time.

Teachers in Pine Creek on average have four periods, a si x-day cycle, to do preparation work. They are doing the rest of their work, as teachers

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 657 always have done, at home in the even ings, on weeke nds. My best estimate from talking to people that I know is that they are spending about 55 to 60 hours every single week doing that, becau se you cannot walk into a class, regardless of what it is, without being prepared and we have to evaluate them . We do evaluate students. We have to prepare quizzes, we have to prepare tests, we have to mark those, and the boards do not give us any time to do that.

But, while you are asking that, I think what has genemted a lot of this is that teachers have in the last fe w years been standing up for a fe w rights, and the boards are getting a little concerned about it. I think, for examp le, a duty-free lunch, after many, many years of working through lunch period, teachers finally realized that they were people and they should have a lunch hour too, you know, 40 or 50 to an hour, where they could sit and have something to eat and relax and unstress and, gee, you know, that was asking for the world.

The whole school system was going to fall apart because teachers wanted a duty-free lunch period. So trustees have to go to the minister and they have to say, gee, the teachers are getting unreas onable. What they want is going to destroy our school system. Well, I am sorry. I am a human being and I like lunch and I think most teachers do, and is that going to destroy our school system? Well, I do not think so. If our trustees cannot manage that, I am sure there are trustees that could. Mrs. Mcin tosh: Just a bit of a correction to an implication in the opposition critic's statement.

This issue was a big issue of concern for trustees beginning back in 1984, so it certainly did not arise with the 2 percent reduction that was experienced in school divisions. It has been an issue for about 12 years , a large issue discussed at convention of that magnitude .

What I wanted to ask, we have been told and I have it here in writing from the society that while teachers do not wish to see a clause on ability to pay that if there had to be one, the wording that is now being proposed is the wording that teachers could accept in a clause if it were to be in the act, so I think your criticism of the wording maybe does not fit with what your executive has told me, although your position on not having ability to pay certa inly does fit.

Can you tell me why you fe el that it is wrong for trustees to ask to have their arguments on ability to pay considered, not necessarily accepted, but at least considered by an arbitrator? Why is it wrong for trustees to wish to have their ability to pay considered bef ore an arbitrator? Mr. Barker: Is this mike on? Just bef ore I answer that question, I am speaking for the teachers of Pine Creek, not for the provincial exe cutive, and if they actually support that, they should have to explain that in some detai l.

If it is that you have to have some wording and so you take the lesser of two evils, I guess that might be their position. That is like giving a condemned man three choices of how he would like to leave this ear th. Mrs. Mcint osh: I would like an answer to my question . Why is it wrong for a school board to ask to have its ability to pay at least considered, not necessarily accepted, but at least considered by an arbitrator? Mr. Barker: I think it is. I have a long-time experience in Pine Creek ofperhap s being fairly active. In 1971 when I went to Pine Creek farmers were going through a really difficult time.

Crops had been not very good and actually Pine Creek settled for someth ing very less than what the going rate was and was highly criticized for it. It was a factor that was taken into consideration at the time . It is a factor that is always taken into consideration. When teachers and trustees are sitting do� and negoti ating, they are each presenting argume�ts about why something should take place. If they go to an arbitration, the trustees make their case. They bring up the points they want, the teachers do the same, and three arbitrators listen to those arguments presented by both sides and weigh them .

They weigh the arguments of the trustees against the argume nts of the teachers , and I think that syste m works well, because there should be weight given to all those arguments . They should all be considered, but I do not think there is a priority that should be followed year after year. I think it is up to the arbitrators to listen to 12 arguments and decide how to assess the weight to those individual 12 arguments, and boards have always argued that they cannot afford it, that the tax base is lower or whatever, and I think that is just one of the factors.

658 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 * (19 20) Mr. Chair person: Ms. McGifford, quickly. Ms. Diane McGi ffo rd (Osborne): ·Thank you, Mr. Barker, for your presenta tion. We notice that you did say that you were endorsed by all 98 teachers in Pine Creek, so congratulations on your unanimous approv al. When the minister spoke on this bill in the House, she said it was a victory for teache rs. I think she said this mainly because she is very proud of the "failure to comply," Clause 131 .4(2). I wonder ifyou know of any teachers who fee l victorious, because I know I do not. Mr. Chai rperson: Mr.

Barker, quickly. Mr . Barker: Just to clarifY one thing. At the general meeting, we had 51 of the 93 teachers out . Several of them . were in volleyball games . There were three sets going on in the high school and a number of ac tivities, but the 51 teachers that were at the general meeting unanimously passed this. I think that a very strong indication of that is all 93 . The other one, the short answer is no, I do not know any teacher that would agree with that either. Mr . Chair person: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Barker. . Lisa Martin, please. Ms. Martin, you may begin your presentation.

Is it going to be a duet? Maybe you could identifY yourselves. It looks like there is a duo. Ms. Val Thomson (Private Citizen): I am Val Tho mson. I teach in Birds Hill River Sc:hool Division. Mr. Chai rperson: Welcome. You may begin your presentat ion. You are Lisa Martin? Ms. Lisa Martin (Private Citizen): I am. Mr. Chair person: Okay, who is sta rting. Okay, Val Thomson. Ms. Thomson: Well, we have heard a lot about Bill 72, and I am sure we will hear more tonight .and also the lip service that somehow this will serve our kids.

Well, we have to do mae than pay lip service because we live with these kids, and we have come here just to wonder out loud, how did the government of Manitoba get so far removed from the real world of education and the desperate needs of our kids? Ms. Martin: In my world the needs of our kids demand that I am not simply a disseminator of content designed to program a student to meet standard X. I am a counsellor, facilitator, nurse, physiotherap ist, dietitian, fundraiser, inventor, social worker, security guard, probation enforcer , behav iourist, psych ologist, coach, tutor, pare nt.

And you thought I was just a teac her. Mr. Chair person: That was Lisa Mar tin. Maybe before you speak you could identifY yourself? Ms. Martin: We are just going to be switching back and forth . Mr . Chai rpers on: Okay. We will just call it the duo without attribution then to one or the other. Ms. Thomson: I brought you some of the individuals that are in my world so that you can meet them. Last spring, two 12-year-<>ld boys came to a school dance with razor blades taped to their arms and they used them. Ms.

Martin: A Senior I girl, so filled with hurt and anguish, conunitted suicide leaving our students and staff re eling. Some were so affected that there were other attempts and many, many threats of suicide even to this day. Ms. Thomson : One young man's brain was so addled by his drug and alcohol addiction that he burnt his father's house to the ground and then, armed with a rifle, he ba rricaded himself and his girlfriend into a house. He was taken to a treatment centre, he escaped , and then called the school and some teachers with whom he was close to give him a ride home .

We waited a day and a half to see if he would appear on our doorstep with a gun, because he was looking for his girlfriend within our sch ool. This summ er there was a Canada-wide search for this student after the murder of a 14-year old girl in a neighbouring community.

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 659 Ms. Martin: A young women pumm elled her school counsellor, shouted obscenities at her because her mother had been called to discuss concerns about her aggressive behaviour. Ms. Thomson: One student is eight grade levels behind in mathematics, and I wonder which standard he is going to be tested to? Ms. Marti n: A student said to me the other day: I know I am only 16 , but I am really looking forward to getting married and having this baby. We can be a family.

This family will include a hard-drinking, controlling husband, a young wife whose medical and emotional trauma early in life has caused her to believe in fairy tales. Ms. Thomson: Another student with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity, has run out of the medication he has been prescribed to control his behaviour. Everything that comes near him he has to fight, his teachers, students, his locker. Ms. Martin: A girl, exceptionally bright and artistic, stares into space and wanders aimlessly. Eventually she stops and cries and cries, unable to say why. Ms.

Thomson: Last Thursday a student said: I have to miss this afternoon. I have to take my dad somewhere. I have to be nice to him so he will be nice to me. Ms. Martin: A middle-years student said to his teacher: If you kick me out, I will go home and I will come back with a gun and I will shoot you. The next day I found a bullet on my desk. Ms. Thomson: While a principal was downtown, two adults threatened to shoot him because of what they saw was unfairness towards a student. Ms. Martin: One of our kids has been beaten up twice.

The last incident required the student to be hospitalized here in Winnipeg so he could receive appropriate treatment. This student was an exceptionally talented musician. He may never be able to reach his potential because of the extent of his injury. Ms. Thomson : A 22-year-old student has been advised by his lawyer that a judge will look more favourably on his three breaches of probation and his new assault charges if he is in school. This young adult registers in a Senior 2 with 16 -year-olds. We have no adult education program in the vicinity but we must teach him nonetheless. Ms.

Martin: Would you like to teach in my world where poverty, violence, abuse and neglect damage my kids? When is this government going to say, as Lyndon Johnson did, that poverty will no longer be a bar to learning, and learning shall offer an escape from poverty. Ms. Thomson: So what qualifies a person to meet all these needs, and the others? We need the best, the brightest and the most innovative people to enter education.

How can we convince such people to enter a lifetime career in education if they face continual government cutbacks, unilateral wage determination by mana gement, deteriomting working conditions, increased stress and the concomitant increase in sickness? Ms. Martin: Teachers have fought hard for the current system of collective bargaining, evaluation and professional development, which does not come close to valuing public educators the way a civilized society should. Manitoba teachers deserve better than this bill, and so do our kids. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Mrs.

Mcintosh: Thank you very much for your presentation and for the anecdotal information you have brought forward. It think it is important information, I think it is real informa tion and I appreciate, I believe that you brought it forward because you think we do not know these things.

I just wish to reassure you that I too have had students who have missed a day of school because they could not come to school that day because mumm y got put in jail for stabbing daddy to death, and I too have had students who have attempted suicide, and I too have had classes of 34 with six special needs kids, that I do know what you go through out there. I have been chairman of a board when one student walked to the school with a shotgun and literally blew the head off another student, and we had to cope with the effects of that in the school. I do know what it is like to

660 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 take a child who has fried his brains oult completely and try to get help for him, appro priate medical help. I understand, and do not let anybody try to tell you that I do not, because I do. I agree with your concerns about trying to keep and retain and attract those very dedicated JX:Ople we need in the classroom. Unlike the fears that you have been given, I believe that this bill gives you the right to grieve some of these things, even if your division is not able to get it into the collective agreement for you.

You may not be able to get it in a collective agreement, biLlt I am giving it to you as an individual right, and if you think about it- Ms. Martin: Is this a question? With all due respect, I think I would way sooner see it in the collective agreement. Mrs. Mcin tosh: Well, okay, then I will ask you my quest .ion. Ms. Martin: Yes, please. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Hold it, wait. Order, please. Please direct your remarks through the Chair, and we will get a civil dialogue going here. Honourable minister, maybe you can pose your ques1tion. * (1 930) Mrs. Mcintosh: I will ask one question then.

Do you believe that you will have a greater right m greater ability to achieve the right to grieve class size through negotiating it in a collective agreement or having it entrenched in The Public Schools Act? Ms. Thomson: Ask it again, because I need to think about it, please. Mrs. Mcintosh: The question was do you believe that you have a greater ability to negotiate the! right to grieve class size in a collective agreement than you would have to be given it as a gift entrenched in The Public Schools Act? Ms. Martin: We have a grievance procedure in our collective agreement that has proven to be quite adequate.

I would fee l far more comfortable with it in the collective agreement. Ms. Friesen : Mr. Chairman, thank you for the present ation. It is important not only that the minister understand these things but that they be put on the public record so that all Manitobans can understand what is happening in the classroom. I am very grateful that you put that on the record in so much det ail. I am struck at the app alling circumstances that you are facing on a day by-day basis, and my sense is that you seem to see them as dete riorating.

I do not know whether this would be on a daily basis <I over a longer cycle and that what you are registering here is your concern, perhaps to put it mildly, at the lack of support from your own government. It is not just this bill. My sense is the kind ofthings you are describing, the lack of support, come from other bills as well. I wanted to ask you in particular about the suicides that you talked about at the be ginning. Can you tell me what it is in your communities and your part of the province of Manitoba in 1996 that is driving young JX:<>ple to suicide? Ms.

Martin: Thank goodness, we have only had one, but there has been many, as we said, attempts and many, many threats . I think it is an individual situation for kids but certainly poverty, I would think, would be the No. I concern. Families are not being supported the way they used to be, and I think that that certainly aff ected this student's life. Mr . Chairpenon: Thank you very much for your presentations . We will now call on Henry-1 am sorry. The out-of -town ones first. Chris Hicks, Souris Valley Teachers' Associatioo. You may begin your present ation. Ms.

Caroline Evans (Souris Valley Teachers' Association): My name is actua lly not Chris Hicks. My name is Caroline Evans, and I will be repr esenting the Souris Valley Teach ers' Association. Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee given for Caroline to proceed? An Honourable Member: Leave . Ms. Evans: Bill 72 is a piece oflegislation that is aimed at weakening the rates of teachers and at ultimately decreasing government support of the public education system. The government has done little to promote the

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 66 1 work teachers are doing so that the public might actual ly know their tax money is well spent when it goes to supporting the public education system. The effects of Bill 72 could be profound, and I am not convinced the gove rnment has thought through these effects carefully enough. Cutting costs, through making teachers unable to fairly bargain for their salaries and working conditions, has far more reaching effects than simply taking money out of teachers' pockets or making them work even harder for the money they earn .

If labour strife is introduced to Manitoba's teaching pro fession, children ar e going to suffer and, hence, Manitoba will suffer. If teachers are not shown that they are valued by this gov ernme nt for the extremely important job they do, their mora le will suffer. Qualified people will not enter the profe ssion or they will not stay, and Manitobans will suffer. If public education is not valu ed by this government, then Manitobans will suffer. Why does this gov ernm ent seem to want to diminish the effectiveness of teachers to deliver quality educatio n to the children of Manitoba?

By creating labour strife and by pushing teachers to the limits of not only their professional capabilities but of their human capabilities and by making them teach more and more with less and less funding and resources, surely this government can see that children are going to suffer. Does this government want to see children suffer? Is it the gov ernment's agenda to see the effectiveness of our public education eroded? Does the government want to weaken the public education system so that people will look elsewhere for the education of their children? Not all Manitobans will be able to afford that option.

Does this government understand why a strong public education system is of vital importance to Manitoba? Does this government not realize, as was pointed out by Winnipeg 2000 in this Saturday's Free Press, that Manitoba prospers because of its educated workf orce? Who, in today's complex society, could possibly question the value of a well-rounded education? Does this government not realize that by weakening the public education system it will also be effectively attacking one of the basic means through which people's democratic rights are saf eguarded?

Our public education system must not be under attack, least of all, by our own governm ent. Has our government truly considered what its legislation can do to Manitoba, or has it never looked at the big picture? Bill 72-and I am going to quote here from the Report of the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee from May this year, grew out of the go vernm ent's apparent recognition of society's investment in public education because it is one of the best ways to promote the social and economic well being of its citizens.

The government wanted to seek solutions which would best address the needs of Manitoba's students both for today and for the future. Bill 72 does not address the best interests of Manitoban, and it is clear that the government has not set a strong public education system as one of its main priorities. Rather than attack the public education system in Manitoba by attacking teachers and programs, the government needs to look at ways in which the system can be strengthened. Teachers need to be rewarded fo r doing the job they do and valued.

The education of children or the product of the system, if you would prefe r that I use business terms, has to be safeguarded and encouraged. The gove rnment should be looking at ways in which education can be improved and then act upon them. Reducing the rates of teachers in their workplace and trying to break their spirit are not ways in which to the quality of education can be improved. The government of Manitoba needs to set a strong public educatio n system as one of its top prio rities.

The government needs to send a strong message to the public that their tax dollars are well spent when they go to support the system. The government needs to support the public educatio n system through funding and must remember that the education of children is not something that we can afford to sacrifice. I hope that Bill 72 will be changed to better reflect the needs of the public education system. I hope that, if the government begins to see the effects of Bill 72 as not being beneficial to society, Bill 72 will simply be shelved when it comes to time to vote on it.

There are a lot of more positive ways to improve the public education system than to stomp on the rates of its employees and to reduce its effectiveness to the children of Manitoba. Thanks.

662 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am just interested in something-all the presentations so far have talked about the grievance procedure, failu re to comply on the fairness clause. The two trustee presentations indicated that while they support a fairness cl ause, they wanted to see the grievanoe procedure for fail ure to comply removed, because they f<elt it opened up too much opportunity for teacher s, and th{: teachers so far have all said they do not like the grievan<:e clause either.

You did not ref er to it, and I am just WOJildering, do you support removing the grievance clause?--because as the trustees and teachers have said, it does 111ot do any good anyhow: The trustees want it out. The teachers fee l it is of no conse quence. It does not do what W{: thought it did, which is to give them a right to grieve to 1m arbitrator on these things that many of them have never been succe�sful in getting into col lective agreements .

Given that the trustees fee l it gives too much advantage to teachers, and teachers say it does not do anything good for them anyhow, would you also support its removal at amendment time? Ms. Evans: I think that having things such as classroom size and so on put into law could poss1ibly be a good thing if it were put in there in favour of, say, that these things should be conside red in a fair way. The fact that these kinds of things are put in at tne end of the legis lation where it says that they cannot be arbitrated makes that system unfa ir. Mr .

Pall ister: I just wanted to thank you for your presentation and say I have great respect for classroom teachers, having been raised by one and having been one, and I also have great respect for peopl{: with positive ideas. You had mentioned you have a lot of positive ways in which you fe el the public education system could be improved. I just wanted to give you the opportunity, if you would like, to just clarifY what some of those would be. * (19 40) Ms. Evans: The first thing the governmt:nt needs to do is support the public education system with funding.

The second thing it needs to do is promote the importance of the public education system to the peop le of Manitoba, so people will stop complaining about paying taxes towards it, because it is very important. I think to get some good rea sons, the government simply has to li sten to teachers because teachers are trained to teach . They are in the classroom and teachers can tell you best what kinds of things need to be changed in the schools. Some other things I have heard talked about were, for instance, student evaluation .

Student evaluation should be made into a very positive process, and this process should not be used in a way by the government to punish schools where maybe students' results are not that great. Instead, those results should be used to put more funding or whatever it takes into those schools, so that those schools can do better and better help their students. Ms. Cerilli: I was going to make one comment to you, because I think that a number of the presenters have talked about the whole issue of the grievance procedure and putting more working cooditions and issues under the grieva nce procedure.

It see ms to me we are going to force teachers into a situation where they are going to spend most of their time or more of their time dealing with issues that should be in their collective agreement rather than working with kids and deve loping education programs in their schools. I wanted to ask you similar to what Mr. Pallister had raised about some of the suggestions you have, but at the beginning of your presentation you talked about how the government is not promoting the public school system and the good work that is occurring there.

I am wondering if there are some things that the government has done that would make you say that. Ms. Evans: Simply by not funding the school systems adequately. That is No. I, not promoting the school system. It is not promoting public education and its imp ortance to our society by making changes to the colle ctive bargaining agreement in a way that is unfair towards teachers and biased against them. That is not supporting the system, because it is going to hurt teachers. Teachers deliver the programs.

It is going to aff ect the way teachers deal with their school boards, the trustees, and it is going to make a poor atmosphere, a bad atmosphere . It is not a way to promote the pu blic

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 663 education system. It is not a way of making things any better. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Evans. I want to get leave of the committee-it has been brought to my attention by the Clerk that one of the No. 7 presenters, that is Loretta Basiuk and Linda Dyrkacz, is from out of town. Is there leave of the committee to have that duo present next? [agreed] Please come forward, Loretta Basiuk and Linda Dyrkacz.

While they are coming forward, might I also seek leave of the committee in order to save the taxpayers of Manitoba some money. We have the French translation equipment here. We have two presentations that are intended to be in French and translation to English was neces scuy in that situation. That is presenter ll and presenter 38. It seemed to make good sense and it was suggested by Mr. Reimer that they could go one after another and then that would allow the interpreters to leave. Is that the will of the committee? [agreed] Thank you very much and thanks for your patience, Ms. Basiuk and Ms. Dyrkacz.

Who will go first? Ms. Linda Dyrkacz (Agassiz Teachers' Association): This is Loretta Basiuk. I am Linda Dyrkacz. I will be making the presentation. Loretta is the support to help answer questions. Mr. Chair person: Fine. Go ahead, Ms. Dyrkacz. Ms. Dyrkacz: We are real teachers. We were in the classroom today and we will be in the classroom tomorrow. We are tired, tired from teaching all day and preparing and marking at night. But we are more tired from spending our spare time trying to protect ourselves from a hostile government.

I am here this evening to speak on an issue that is of utmost importance to the future of both the teachers of this province and Manitoba's education system as a whole, the issue of the collective bargaining rights of teachers. It is the focus of Bill 72, which you now have before you. Its implications are far reaching.

Although many concerned, articulate, impassioned and, yes, outraged people spent days trying to convey their concerns about the future of education through the Dyck-Render hearings, this government saw fit to propose legislation that would force teachers to take financial responsibility for the state of Manitoba's economy. This government has failed to recognize that a well educated, economically secure populace is the greatest indication of a progressive, stable society.

The ability-to-pay clause of Bill 72 presumes that in all cases, for the bill does not allow for exceptions unless teachers wish to pursue the matter in court, boards of trustees would offer fair remuneration to teachers based on local economic conditions at the particular time or, stated in another way, based on the ability to pay. This is not an original concept. Some parts of the United States fund education in this manner. Over time it has resulted in a system of discrimination and ghettoization.

There is already in Manitoba a discrepancy among areas with respect to band programs, computer access and other services and resources. Can we rely on local school boards to recognize long term benefits of education in the face of short-term requirements? No. We need a strong provincial govern ment to guarantee that all children in Manitoba receive equal access to the best programs, the best resources and the best teachers. I stated that ability to pay was not an original concept.

In another sense, ability to pay has been considered part of the basis by which we teachers have been given salary increases and improvements in worlcing conditions for the past 40 years under the present system of binding arbitration. It is a method fair to both parties in the bargaining system, the trustees elected to represent the local citizens and the teachers who are in the employ of school divisions. Also, as this government has been reminded frequently, it is a system that has kept Manitoba students in the schools, not outside, victims of employer/employee malaise, disputes, lockouts or strikes.

According to all available information, teachers' salaries have been in line with those of other professions with similar training and experience, both within the province and nationally. Even some trustees who have felt burdened by shortages

664 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 of educational funding and by the need to raise local taxes have expressed surprise and concern about how heavy handed Bill 72 is. Perhap s, like teachers, some believe the current system of funding education dlfough property taxation needs considerable study and revision. Perhaps they fee l the government has gone too far by making teachers the scapegoats in the issues of education finance. Perhaps some have a gnawing doubt about whether ability to pay really means, in many cases, willingness to pay.

If we look at the track record of school boards in terms of their willingness to pay, or rather to tax their constituents in order to fund programs and to ensure that teachers receive a reasonable salary incre ase, we find that at no time have trustees really considered their taxpayers able to pay for education. Given the choice, who would not profess an inability to pay?

Certainly this government will say that it is the trustees who are demanding more power, more management rights in deteniuning teachers' salaries. * (1 950) Make no mistake about it however, the: decisions that trustees have to make at every board meeting, the programs to keep, the ones to cut, the resources that are necessary and the ones that can perhaps be done without until some future time, the special needs students that cannot be ignored nor turned away from our classrooms or redirected to private schools or to some other division, these decisions are very much affected iby the kind of financial support given the local tmstees by this provincial government.

Back in 198 1, the contribution from the provincial government toward educational funding was 82 percent of the total cost of public school programs and services compared to the present governm ent's contribution of 62 percent. Let us give that some thought. Even though we have had a public commitment from P1remier Filmon some years ago to strive for 80 percent government funding and despite assurances from d1e Minister of Finance, Mr.

Stefanson, of unprecedented economic growth in Manitoba's economy, this government's contribution to educational spending has dropped to 62 percent of the yearly cost of services and programs in 19 96-97. Can the people of Manitoba trust this government to appoint fair and impartial arbitrators when their commitment to education has decreased to 62 percent?

The Filmon government has eroded the power of the local trustees to offer quality programs to its students, to keep class sizes manageable and to offer fmancial remuneration that will continue to attract the very best and brightest into the teaching profession. It is simplistic and grossly unfair to imply that by curbing or curtailing teachers' rights to bargain for fair salaries that our educational system will improve, that the social ills that permeate our society-the racism, gang wars, poverty, unemplo yment, to name a fe w-will be cured. If only it were that simple.

These problems will not go away by themselves, and as schools continue to bear the brunt of social malaise, we will need not just good but exceptional teachers as we move into the next millennium. How can we convince dedicated, talented people to work hard to build a career in education if they know they will face continual government cutbacks, wages determined by management, deteriorating working conditions, increased stress and the increased illness that goes with it? Government must work closely with teachers in order that together they might solve these problems .

This government can start by showing that it values its teachers. It can scrap Bill 72. Pedlaps many of the members present have not been in the public school classroom lately. Perhaps some of their chi ldren attend private school. Please consider that care fully. We do not begrudge the exceptional opportunities and experiences that can be afforded some children. What is wrong is giving private school children opportunities to the neglect of the democratic majority.

By consistently cutting funding to the public schools while increas ing funding to private schools, by using issu es of teachers' salaries and working conditions as screens to hide the bigger issues of unemployment, poverty and other social ills affecting Manitobans today, this government is shirking its respo nsibility as leaders and is undermining the trust of the people who elected it. Teachers work very hard. They have to in order to survive. [interjection] I was waiting for attention. They have to in order to survive-sorry, teacher habit, cannot help it-they have to in order to survive in this present

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 665 economic climate by being asked to do more with less, of increasing social problems and of high unemployment . In fa ct, at times, it seems to teachers that, given this pervading climate, perhaps our most useful role as teachers might be to train students how best to cope with unemployment . Perhaps better times are ahead. We hope so, but we also know that teachers increasingly are being asked to take on more and more demanding roles within the educational system.

Schoolsite-based management, fo r example, purports to give teachers empowerment in making grassroots decisions but necessarily would demand more of them in terms of time, responsibility and accountability as teachers would be taking on many of the respons ibilities traditionally designed to the school's administration.

These are not tasks that can be taken care of during 1 0- minute coff ee breaks but require commitment, study, reflection, collaboration and a great deal of time and eff ort, this in addition to the already very significant role we have as the core of educational instruction, as planne rs, motivators, fa cilitators and evaluators of learning and as general student advocates. Does it not make sense that if we expect teachers to be so many things to so many people that we respect their desire to have significant input into the process that deals with their working conditions, remuneration and general welf are?

Look around. Read the paper. Watch the news . Our province is hiring extra police gang units, advocating ni ghtly curf ews and crea ting special task fo rces to deal with the problems of youth in our present-day society. Study after study tells us that teachers and education make a real diff erence in the lives of these kids. We are in the front lines every day. Why does this government begrudge the teachers of Manitoba the opportunity to bargain in a fa ir and unbiased system, a system no other group has been denied?

Honourable members, Bill 72 is an affront to teachers and to anyone who is committed to a strong education system. It cannot be allowed to become law by any government that calls itself democrati c. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Dyrkacz. Mn. Mcint osh: I indicate again that we do understand the work you do, and we do value the work you do. We are not asking fo r wage rollbacks or any of the things that are implied in some of the comments that have been made.

In fac t, if we look around this table we would probably have as many teachers around this table as we do per capita in the audience, and I indicate to you that eight of our own caucus members are teachers. Many others have daughters or sons who are teachers or spouses who are teache rs, so we do know and understand. I emphasize that because I sincerely believe with all my heart and soul that what we are bringing f orward has much good in it fo r teachers . I wanted to ask you a question in terms of funding because I know funding is a frustration fo r all of us.

It is a particular frustration fo r me as Minister of Education and fo r this government wanting to give fa r more than we are able to give, and I wanted just to ask you a question about your observations on this statistic. You mentioned 19 81 and the percentage of operating costs that were fu nded compared to today.

I do not have 1981 figures here because all I have with me is starting 198 7, but I can indicate to you in 1987, the Province of Manitoba funded public schools by $633 million, and that is the year we took office or the fo llowing year, and now we fund it to $745 million, which is a $1 13-million increase. Most of that increase was given in the years prior to the fe deral transf er cuts. Since the fed eral transf er cuts, you have experienced the $43 million coming out in the last three years.

Even so, there is still a net increase of $1 13 million, and the size of the fe deral transf er cuts has not been passed on to the system. We have a 35 percent cut. You are experiencing a 2 percent. And just ask Mr. Reimer what it fe els like to have a department that is down to nine people, which is what his Urban Aff airs is left with, to say how we have done it to ourselves bef ore we do it to anybody else.

My question is this: If today, when we are putting $113 million more into the system, the percentage of operating costs that it covers is less, one can only conclude, the only logical explanation fo r that is that operating costs have risen. That is the only rationale fo r the change in the percentage of covering operating costs. Would you comment on that fo r me. please? What operating costs do you think have increased so drastically

666 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 19 96 that the percentage of coverage of operati ng costs would go down even when the number of dollars have gone up? *

(2000) Ms. Dyrkacz: I believe that percentages are the only thing really that makes any sense to me. We can talk real dollars, we can talk inflationary dollars, we can talk any amount of dollars. That is only significant in terms of relative ter ms. Mr. Chai rperson: We are running out of time. Ms. Friesen: I would like to thank you for your presen�tion and also for coming so far to make the presentation as wel l. I think I wanted to begin with the financial issues.

The minister has suggestlxl that the cuts to public educatioo are due to the fed eral c111 tbacks, but of course I think, as we all know, that those cuts to public education began in a systematic way ye:ars before the fe deral cutbacks were in place. Thc::y have been accompanied by regular increases to the private schools in almost every year that this government has been in office. I think you draw attention to that in your brief.

I also noticed and underlined for myself your argument that the government saw fit to propose legislation that would force teachers to take financial respo nsibility for the state of Manitoba's economy, and I just wantlxl to put on the record that of course the Manitoba economy had an operating fund surplus last year of $15 7 million. Ms. Dyrkacz: We are waiting for our in,creas e. Ms. Friesen: Thank you. I wanted to ask you about the inequities that you draw our attention to. 1l!tere is already a Manitoba discrepancy among areas with r1espect to band programs, computer access and other services and resources.

Could you give me a sense from your perspective of those growing inequitic:s across the province? Mr. Chair person: I am afraid we are out of time. Ms. Friesen: Leave. Mr . Chai rperson: I am afraid you arc� out of time. [interjection] Not unless leave is granted . Ms. Dyrkacz: It is too bad. We would be happy to at some other time. Mr. Chair penon: Leave has not been granted. Greg Fritske. Greg Fritske, Brandon Teachers' Association. You may begin, Mr. Fr:tsi<e. Mr. Greg Fritske (Brandon Teachers' Association): Thank you very much for the opportunity to present at the committee hearings tonight.

It is my pleasure and privilege and honour to represent the over 500 members of the Brandon Teachers ' Associatioo. I am a teacher in Brandon. I teach Grade 6 and I was elected by my pee rs to rep resen t their inter ests, and that is what I am here doing tonight. I am not here repr esenting my own, but I am representin g theirs and, I would submit, the interest of most teachers and all public school teachers in Manitoba. Bill 72 is neither fair nor reasonable, and its effects will be disastrous for public sch ooling in Manitoba, let there be no doubt.

Why this is so can best be seen in the answers to three questions . The first question, what do we have now? In 19 56, through amen dments to legislation, teachers in Manitoba and their employers entered into a form of collective bargaining which both sides recognized as fair and reasonab le, a form of collective bargaining which was a progressive improvement over traditional bargaining systems because of its method of dispute resolution. That dispute resolution did not involve lockout or strike.

Teachers gave up the right to strike and employers surrendered the right to lock out, and in its place we got binding arbitration, which you have heard much about. It was fair then . It is fair now. This has been a reasonable exchange. Arbitratioo panels are cootpOSed of three membe rs, one representing employees, one represen ting emplo yers and an independent arbitrator, and because these panels have been able to rule freely on the basis of evidence, they have imposed fair settl ements. As it is, the system works. Some inter esting facts .

In the 19 90s settlements achieved by negotiation and those imposed by arbitration have been virtually the same . Arbitration does not create large, unreason able settlemen ts. Only once in the 40 years of this system has the initial settlement in this province been reached through arbitration. Thirty-nine

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 667 times out of forty, the bargaining pattern in the province has been set by a negotiated agreement. Another interesting fact. Since 1983, of more than 700 settlements reached, only 42 were arbitrated. In that time not one minute of pupil time at school has been lost to job action, strike or lockout. This system serves our students well; it serves our boards well; it serves taxpayers well; it serves teachers well. What are we getting? Bill 72 is not fair.

At the heart of its unfairness is this requirement that arbitrators must base the financial aspects of the arbitrated settlements on school divisions' ability to pay. Bill 72 stipulates that ability to pay is determined by current revenu es. School board revenu es, whatever their source, are derived from taxation, and the level of taxation is a unilateral de cision. It is not a matter of bargaining. Within the bargaining structure proposed by Bill 72, a school board can arbitrarily limit its ability to pay by setting its tax rates to whatever level it wants to.

In tum, the provincial government can do likewise through reduced support to school boards. Once that is done and arbitration is implemented, the arbitrator's hands are tied. He or she can only work within the artificial limits imposed by a school board decision which is made in advance of even the first stage of negotiati ons. In effect, the arbitrator must impose a settlement based on a school board's willingness, not ability, to pay. Moreover, in arbitration, certain matters relating to teacher welf are and working conditions cannot even be considered. This is not free and open collective bargaining.

This resulting situation is absurd, and it is unjust. Once a school board has def med its own ability to pay, real negotiation and true arbitration are impossible. How does this fit into fair collective bargaining en joyed els ewhere across Canada and across Manitoba and the world? Why are teachers in Manitoba being subjected to this? Since we do not have the right to strike, how can our concerns be heard? Every other employee group in Manitoba can freely negotiate. Why are teachers having this right taken away? Some interesting information about money.

In my view, the most important aspect of all of this is the government's willingness to pay. According to Finance department reports, government revenues have increased by $750 million in the past two fiscal years. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars. Why then has this government attacked those most vulnerable and def enceless by lowering support for their futures? Our children deserve better than that. Arguments of the need to cut the deficit are bald-faced lies. The deficit dragon in Manitoba is slain. There have been accumulated surpluses, and law now requires balanced budgets.

So where has this three-quarters of a billion dollars gone? Why should children have to be hurt by cuts when all of this money is pouring into government reve nues? It is a true shame to our children, and it is a shame to our province . Keep in mind, too, that Bill 72 itself not only addresses mechanisms for arbitration but collective bargaining generally and in doing so sets severe time limits in which negotiations may occur. Most negotiators on both sides are people with full-time jobs. The 60-day minimum provided for negotiation will prove inadequat e.

Even if parties agree to something else, it falls back to 60 days. Nego tiations will almost inevitably find themselves in arbitration. So the arbitrator will find him or herself making a de cision, determined in a large part not by the evidence and arguments presented during negotiati ons, nor by the realities of ability to pay, but by a school board's budgetary deci sions and a provincial govern ment's commitment to funding education. Bill 72 will not work. Another question. Where will it lead?

The Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee has reported, quote, teachers are working in an environment where much more is expected of them today than in the past. They are dealing with problems which require previously unheard-of skills, time and energy. Teachers are fe eling blamed, attacked, targeted, devalued and unappreciated. Bill 72 will only make this worse. Why does the government wish to go ahead with this when that is the case? Teachers in my division tell me that they have never experienced as low a morale as they have now.

At a mee ting in Brandon, the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh) personally told us that the Enhancing Accountability: Ensuring Quality document had a negative eff ect upon teacher morale. It is still at an all-time low, and the No. l cause of it is the attacks that teachers are facing from the provincial government. The Minister of Education was unable to give me solid answers about how she could improve teacher morale. The answer is quite clear. The

668 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA October 28, 1996 provincial governmen t should stop its attacks on teachers and halt the passage of Bill 72. * (2010 ) A perso n who receives a Bachelor's degree invests several years work and tens of thousands of dollars in the course of his or her education over and above ordinary living expenses. Anyone who makes such an investment merits a career that will reward him or her with job satisfaction and a reasonable salary. Do we wish to provide the employees of Manitoba with !these things, or do we fee l that they are overpaid and und<:rworked?

Bill 72 will prevent these things from occ urring for teachers even if we wish them to. The con ditions created by Bill 72, to quote the Winnipeg Free Press, will frustrate and demoralize teachers. That is certainly occurri ng. Wages will drop and the best and brightest will move away. The quality of Manitoba's public school syst,em will slowly but S':lfely decline. Financially poor scho ols- Mr. Chai rperson: Mr. Fritske, your l 0 minutes is up. Mr. Fritske: I have about two paragraphs, three more paragraphs. Mr. Chai rperson: With leave of the com mittee. This will encroach on the question and answer time.

Agreed? Procee d. Mr. Fritske: Thank you. Financially poor school s and divisions will stay poor and possibly get poorer, creating mequality of educational opportunity. Where is the equity of education that it is the respo nsibility of the province to provide? It is said that we are just a special-interest group, and that is true. I can tell you we are very proud to be a special- interest group because our special interest happens to be children and the yow11g people of Manitoba.

Teachers cannot think of a higher purpose or a better cause, and fe w of us, given fair remuneration benefits and working conditio ns, can think of a fmer vocat ion. All the same, many of our colleagues who are nearing retirement say that they are glad to be getting out soon and that they foresee that Bill 72 and other legi slation will lead to greater hardship and diminished reward. It is obvious that this government fee ls that teachers are overpaid .

Perhaps a low-paid babysitting service is the type of setting that individuals who fe el this way wish our children to be in, instead of a setting where highly trained professionals offer the best education possible. In conclusion, if Bill 72 is passed, what sort of teachers are Manitoba's yOlDlg people going to have in the future? What sort of education? The Brandon Teachers ' Association urges the governm ent to halt Bill 72 to allow fairness in the bargaining proce ss and, more importantly, to ensure that our children will have the best future possible.

Bill 72, in our opinion, is nothing short than targeting teachers for political gain. Unfortunately, targeting teachers is targeting kids. How sad it is for a government in a democratic society to do such a thing. Thank you. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Mr. Fritske. Ms. Mihychuk: Thank you very much for that presentation . Can you tell me what you have seen in your clas sroom in terms of the effects of the reductions of funding by the provincial government? Can you put it into a context that the public can understand? Mr. Fritske: We see increas ing class sizes in Brandon.

We see ever-incr easing amounts of spl it-grade class rooms at the elementary level. The biggest concern that teachers in Brandon have is class size. We just did a survey that indicated that. An arbitrator cannot arbitrate on that. We want the right to be able to grieve that, and we appreciate it in Bill 72. I am teaching a new grade for the third year in a row. I have eight text books to teach a new science curriculum to my students . It is very difficult. Ms. Mihychuk: For how many children? Mr. Fritske: That is for 20 students . It is very difficult.

For any type of home study that kids have to do, it is almost impossible, and I am not allowed to break copyri ght rules. So it raises some challenges that way . Ms. Mih ychuk: Many of the ch allenges are very impressi ve . We know our children are coming in with more things for you to deal with as a teacher, and there

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 669 are more challenges from the outside world in a lot of different factors. If you had your druthers, where would you like to be focusing your attention, and the other side of it, where are you focusing your attention? Mr. Fritske: Teachers get into teaching to teach. Teachers love working with kids, helping them learn, helping them to expand their knowledge, helping them to become well -rounded citizens.

We deal with all the social issues that kids bring to school because we care about them, we love them, we want them to have what is best and we try to offer things that they might not have in their home life or other situations. But I think, given our druthers, we would rather focus on academic pursuits for the most part, even though we certa inly see the benefits and the need for the other areas. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for that. Your time has expired, and thank you for your presentation, Mr. Fritske. I would now like to call on Paul LaRiviere, and Aurele Boisvert will follow Mr. LaRiviere. Mr.

LaRiviere, you may proceed en fran�ais. Mr. Paul LaRiviere (L'Ass ociation des Educateurs/ Educatrices Francophone du Manitoba) : Je m'appelle Paul LaRiviere et je suis ici au nom des 350 enseignants et enseignantes de l'Association des educatrices et des educateurs franco-manitobains. Mes collegues ensei gnent dans les 21 ecoles de Ia Division scolaire franco-manitobaine. Notre division s'etend de Saint Lazare a La Broquerie et nous sommes representes par une quinzaine de membres a l'Assemblee legis lative . Je suis ici pour vous vehiculer notre colere vis-a-vis le Projet de loi 72.

Ce pro jet de loi vise a desequilibrer un systeme de negocia tion qui a bien desservi les citoyens de cette province depuis 1956. Cette loi est punitive et regressive, car, effectivement, elle nous enleve le droit a !'arbitrage executoire, un droit pour lequel, il y a 40 ans, nous avions volontiers echange le droit de greve . Ce fait, par lui-meme - et ici je cite I' editorial du Free Press du 23 rnai 1996 - ". . . embarrasses all Manitobans who believe in equality and fundamental democratic rights".

Ce projet de loi est particulierement punitif pour les ensei gnants et les enseignantes de Ia Division scolaire franco-manitobaine. Selon Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques notre commission scolaire n'a pas de controle sur ses revenus etant donne qu'elle n'a pas le pouvoir de prelever les irnpots fonciers. Comme resultat, nous sommes a Ia merci des decisions fiscales des divisions scolaires dans lesquel les resident les eleves de Ia DSFM. De plus, des la mise en vigueur de Ia DSFM huit des neuf divisions cedantes ont refuse de remettre la juste part de leurs surplus a Ia nouve lle division scolaire. Des fonds auxquels Ia DSFM avait droit des sa mise en vigueur ne lui ont jamais ete remi s.

Pour nous, ceci est un exemple de l'effet nef aste que le manque de volonte politique peut avoir sur le fmancement pour Ia DSFM. Meme si les divisions scolaires dans lesquelles nos eleves sont residents ont !'obligation statutaire de transferer des fonds a Ia DSFM, ces divisions ne sont aucunem ent tenues de se soucier des besoins fmanciers de Ia DSFM. De plus, toutes ces commissions scolaires ont le pouvoir de determiner leurs politiques fiscales par rapport a Ia taxation. Les decisions fiscales se font a partir de leur volonte de prelever des revenus au plan local.

Par consequent, nous sommes clairement otages des divisions d'ou proviennent des eleves de Ia DSFM. *

(2020) II est faux d'affirmer, comme l'a fait Madame Ia ministre Mcintosh tout recemm ent, que !'arbitrage a servi les enseignantes et les enseignants mieux que les autres employes du secteur public au Manitoba. De fait, entre 19 88 et 1994, les hausses salariales negociees pour les principaux groupes d'employes du secteur public au Manitoba ont varie de 21 pour cent a 28 pour cent. Parmi ces groupes, certains beneficient du droit de greve plutot que de !'arbitrage executoire .

Selon l'analyse de Travail Canada, les echelles salariales du personnel enseign ant de l'ensemble de Ia province auraient augmente, en moyenne, de 25 pour cent au cours de Ia meme periode, ce qui les place au milieu du tableau. Madame Betty Green, pres idente de Ia Manitoba Association of School Trustee s, a publiquement declare que le comite Dyck-Render a largement depasse le mandat qu'on lui avait confie. Madame Carolyn Duhame l, presidente sortante de ce meme organisme, a egalement enonce des propos semblables dans le Lance du premier octobre 1996, et je cite: "Duhamel added the

670 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 19 96 association is concerned about the heavy··handed tone of the changes and whether some of the amendments are even necessary. 'Is there something not working that needs fixing? What is the prob lem?', asked Duham el.

The association also doubts the educational value of the proposed disclosure of public sector employee salari es. 'What will this do for children to publi1;h salaries and benefits ?', asked Duhamel ." Je me rends compte que ce dernier oommentaire de Madame Duhamel touche le Projet de loi 57, mais nous voyons tous ces Projets de loi 72, 26, 33, 47 et 57 d'un meme oeil. lls ne viennent que perturber lies relations de travail entre les enseignants et les ense1ignantes et les commissions scolaires.

Ces projets de loi risquent de nuire de fa�on irreparable a Ia bonne relation de travail que nous avons avec nos employeurs dans Ia DSFM. D'apres nous, le Projet de loi 72 ne touche pas le vrai probl�me. II ne s'agit pas d'un systeme de negociation def ectueux mais plutot d'un sous-financ:ement et d'un manque d'appui ideologique de )'education de Ia part de ce gouvemement. Oil est l'engagement de M. Filmon de financer le systeme des ecoles publiques a 80 pour cent? C'est aussi une question de valeurs . Une societe qui n'est pas prete a investir dans sa jeunesse n'a pas d'avenir.

Souvenez-vous des paroles du chef fe der al, M. Jean Charest, qui a dec� are dans un discours lors du congres national du Parti conservateur : We must look at values . We have to support teachers and we have to support schools. I find it unusual that we do not value people like teachers mae, that we claim tht:y are paid too much. They have one of the most impor

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-la13
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf la13.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	05b4038b98700e54ed4ec3c328a56128a27ce375

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).