ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker · WEDNESDAY, 2 JULY, 1980,8:00 p.m. Printed by The Office of The Queen's Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL V ThirtJ - First Legislature Members, Constituenc ies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON,Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY,Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER,Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Riel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Os borne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC lnd NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. J. Wally McKenzie (Roblin). MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with Bill No. 31, The Public Schools Act. I, as Chairman of the committee have before me presentations before this committee. No. 1, the Certified General Accountants Association, Mr. W.R . DeGraves; No. 2, Parent Coalition, Brenda Scarcella; No. 3, the Societe Franco-Manitobaine, Ron Bisson; No. 4, Mr.

George Forest; No. 5, Federation Provinciale Comite de Parents, Denis Chenier; No. 6, Mike Taczynski from Gypsumville; No. 7, Mrs. Carolyn Garlich, Concerned Parent; No. 8, Manitoba Society for Autistic Children, Moira Grahame; No. 9, Education of Manitoba of the League of the Physically Han dicapped, Michael Rosner; No. 10, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties; No. 11, Manitoba Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, Mrs. Helen Jenner; No. 12, Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Manitoba, Mr. J.A.

Carmichael; No. 13 , Canadian Association for Mentally Retarded, Winnipeg Branch, Executive Director, Mr. Dave Wetherow and Mr. Keith Walker, President of the Board; No. 14, Mira Spivak, telephoned June 17, 1980, advising she was sending out a circular letter to encourage presentations to this bill; No. 15, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, Joyce Sononecki; No. 16, Mrs. Taylor, Mayor's Office, The Pas, wished to be advised when bill goes to committee - nothing said about representations being made; No. 17, Manitoba Teachers' Society, Mr.

Gordon; No. 18, Elkhorn Save the School Committee, may wish to appear - contact Mr. Aitken; No. 19, Commissaires d'ecoles Franco Manitobains, President, Lorette Beaudry­ Ferland or Vice-Chairman, Dr. Gerard Archambault; No. 20, Mr. Joe Stangl; No. 21, Fraser Dunford, Liberal Party of Manitoba; No. 22, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents, Roland Ledoux; No. 23, Manitoba Association of School Trustees, Norman Harvey; No. 24, St. Vital School Division, Mr. Alex Boyes; No. 25, Winnipeg School Division, Mr. John L.

Condra, Solicitor; No. 26, Canadian Association of Mentally Retarded, Manitoba Division, Jim Rodger, President and Dale Kendel, Executive Director; No. 27, Manitoba Association of School Business Officials, contact Ron Mann; No. 28, Lord Roberts School, Elma Gerwin; No. 29, Winnipegosis and Area Concerned Citizens Committee, contact Art Erickson. May I ask, with the permission of the committee, that those from the rural areas of our province who would like to make a presentation tonight and return home, would you please come to the microphone? If there are none, ah, there are. Could I have your name, sir?

BILL NO. 31 THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT 1 MR. ROLAND LEDOUX: Roland Ledoux, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents. MR. CHAIRMAN: Where do you live, sir? MR. LEDOUX: I live at Gladstone, Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, what's your number? MR. LEDOUX: No. 22. MR. CHAIRMAN: 22, okay. Okay, thank you, sir. And the other gentleman? MR. TERRY LEWIS: Terry Lewis, Renaissance International, No. 30, Steinbach, Manitoba. MR, CHAIRMAN: I don't have that, sir. MR. LEWIS: The fellow behind you does. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. Could I have your name, Sir, again? MR. LEWIS: Terry Lewis. MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, Steinbach is it? MR.

LEWIS: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you left a copy of your presentation? You spoke to the Clerk? MR. LEWIS: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. With the permission of the committee, is it agreed that we hear those two presentations first? Mr. Walding. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Chairman, can I suggest that you ask whether there are any others present who wish to make a presentation to the committee? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any more from the rural areas .. . MR. WALDING: Or the city. MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . that are not on the list that I . . .

By the way, may I also remind the committee that we will be sitting until 12 o'clock tonight and the committee will resume hearings tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. So in the agenda if you feel at some hour that you may not be heard by the hour of 12, the committee will sit tomorrow morning again at 10 a.m. May I therefore call Mr. Roland Ledoux from the Manitoba Association of Association of School Superintendents, No. 22. MR. LEDOUX: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ledoux, do you have a brief or copies of your brief for the committee? MR. LEDOUX: Yes, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. MR. LEDOUX: Would you like them now?. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll pick them up. Proceed, Sir. MR. LEDOUX: The Manitoba Association of School Superintendents is pleased that the outdated, repetitive and sometimes confusing Public Schools and related Acts have been revised. The reduction in volume is a clear indication that many redundant passages have been removed. Even without an index, items are easier to find in the proposed revision.

The new Act will be considerably updated through deletion or references to services and district organizations which are no longer relevant. However, with respect to the organization and leadership in school divisions the bill reflects, in our opinion, 1960 rather than 1980. Beginning in 1959 and continuing for a few years, the province reorganized into larger units of administration. School Divisions appointed superintendents to provide leadership at the local level, to assist with attendant problems of school consolidations and closings, planning for new schools, and the establishment of transportation systems.

This was a time of delicate negotiations between districts, a time of intense political activity. lt was a time of enrollment increase and major curriculum revisions. Gradually the province pulled back its centrally appointed educational leaders as locally appointed superintendents became responsible for teacher evaluation and permanent certification. Since that time the responsibilities of the superintendents have changed but always increased. Many superintendents are now managing declining enrollment rather than expansion.

They are continually balancing educational values and cost implications in a time of financial constraint. Their position at the heart of things, often at the head of things, gives them the role of conscpicuous and often vulnerable leaders. The Manitoba Association of School Superintendents believes that every division should be required to employ a superintendent and that the superintendent should be named Chief Executive Officer.

Superintendents also appear to require some statutory protection against capricious dismissal or demotion, if this role is to continue to attract men and women who will make the bold and sometimes unpopular decisions the job requires. With respect to the bill before us, we will comment briefly on certain sections. Sick leave: MASS agrees that sick leave should be an earned right.

Probation and Tenure: Using the commonly accepted term of 'probation' as the first two years of teaching service and 'tenure' as being the post­ probationary period of service, MASS believes that the probationary period, to serve its intended function, requires 20 months of actual full-time teaching, or its equivalent in part-time service. 2 Special Needs Students: The Manitoba Association of School Superintendents is aware that there is a heightened expectation on the parts of parents and organizations that educational programs will now be provided for the unfortunate few not now receiving them.

The government, we feel, is aware that significant costs will be incurred in the provision of these services and we ask the government to state, or restate, that additional funds will be provided to the divisions proportionate to the additional responsibilities they will need to undertake. Private Schools: lt has been clearly stated that every child in Manitoba has the right to an education but, in one respect, not enough has been done to assure it. There is no means in the Act to guarantee a good level of education in a private school which does not request provincial grants.

Substitute Teachers: MASS believes that in statute and contract a distinction should be made between teachers employed on a regular basis and those employed on a casual basis. Some substitute teachers may only work for a particular division five or ten days in a year. Some may be employed in three school divisions in the same week. If substitutes were placed on a regular form of contract, their contracts could only be terminated in the same manner as for regular teachers.

For example, a substitute hired to replace a regular teacher for five days in February could not, except for emergency or mutual consent, be terminated before June 30th. The Manitoba Association of School Superintendents proposes the following specific amendments to Bill 31: We would suggest in

Section 41( 1 )(

p) add the words "and assign students thereto". If you have a moment to look at that section, it deals with responsibilities of school boards. We feel it's important that those words be added to make it clearly the jurisdiction of the school board to decide which school students shall be assigned to. In

Section 52, we would suggest in the first line excluding the word "annual" from an annual resolution as referred to in

Section 52, first line. Further to 52,

Section (h), we would add a new clause, suggest a new clause be added in

Section (h). The clause would read "other powers of school boards as proclaimed in this Act". Mr. Chairman, we have some concerns with 52. In our opinion, if literally interpreted, it could very seriously limit the powers and responsibilities that school boards could delegate to superintendents. We would suggest, and there is a misprint on your copy, it should read "52 (i), (

h) as printed to become (i).

Section 92 (1) and (2) deal with what we mentioned earlier in the brief about excluding or "excepting substitute teachers". 92 ( 1), every agreement between a school board and a teacher, we would suggest, "excepting substitute teachers". 92 (2) the same exception be written into that clause, we would suggest. 92 (5) refers to what was mentioned again earlier in line eight, after " of at least 20 ", we would suggest that the word "consecutive" be included, "20 consecutive teaching months of paid service prior to a teacher being granted tenure".

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980

Section 96 (d), in line one, after the words "field representative", "F urnish to the Minister or to a field representative, or to the school or its designate, any information that it may be in his power to give". This is with respect to duties of teachers. We believe that the Act should be specific in requiring teachers to furnish information to school boards or their designates. Mr. Chairman, we've tried to be as brief as we could. There is one other

section that we have not dealt with on our brief. We have some concerns also that school boards have retained the responsibility for school attendants in private schools. In our view, school boards should not have that responsibility. lt is not mentioned on this brief, it was an oversight. We have tried to stay with only the most critical points. The Manitoba Association of School Superintendents would like to congratulate the Minister on this massive undertaking. We are aware � and we have participated for some seven years in , the revisions to the Act. We've been pleased to serve on your committees.

We've seen revisions brought in and thrown out. For the most part we feel you're to be congratulated for the work that you've done and we'd certainly appreciate taking into consideration a few of the points that we've made. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ledoux, we thank you from the committee for your presentation. Are you prepared to answer questions, if there are questions raised from the members of the committee? MR. LEDOUX: Certainly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. Mr. Schroeder. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you. Mr.

Ledoux you indicated that you felt your association required some protection from arbitrary dismissal. Could you expand on the kind of protection that you are looking for? � MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on, Sir. For those who are in the room understand that we are recording, so I have to announce who is speaking so they can sort it out when it comes in Hansard, that it is not a different person, so proceed, Mr. Ledoux, I'll try and look after that responsibility. MR. LEDOUX: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, teachers for example, are employed under written contract, province-wide. lt is not uncommon for people in a superintendency to have come up through the ranks of teacher, school principals, all the time being employed under written contract with some protection. lt seems in the province, currently, that there are some 50 percent of our members that are employed, under written contract, where there are clauses that ensure at least some sort of sitting with the school board prior to capricious dismissal, we have used the word capricious.

As you can appreciate, sometimes in local politics it is nice to have some sort of written document, to at least have a procedure to offer our members some sort of protection, that is what we are referring to. I think you are aware that Saskatchewan and Ontario, in the last couple of 3 years, have seen fit to introduce these kinds of amendments in their new Acts and we feel that our membership over the years has changed frequently enough that it might be in the best interests of superintendents to have some sort of protection in the Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes.

Would it be correct to say that what you are looking for is some legislative protection which would say that you cannot be dismissed unless there is a reason for the dismissal. That is, you're serving your specific school board and if you are dismissed you feel that there should be a reason for that dismissal and there should have been something done by you which would be deserving of dismissal. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ledoux. MR. LEDOUX: I believe that is the intent of what we're after. I would think that sort of thing would be a minimum.

I think in legislation it would ensure that members would at least have something in writing, some reason given. We would hope that would be a minimum kind of provision. MR. SCHROEDER: Would your association envision this provision being such that, if the reason given is untrue, that you could not be fired? MR. LEDOUX: I don't know that I can speak for the association on that particular approach to the question. We haven't discussed it as an association.

I don't think our members are that naive that we realize that if boards don't want us we're not going to be there but I think we should have some minimum protection as far as written reasons, or a contract of some description where procedures would be followed. MR. SCHROEDER: Would it then be unreasonable to also say that those people who work under you, the teachers, should have a similar right, that is a right to a reason for dismissal and if that reason is, in fact, unfounded that they could not be dismissed, whether they'd worked for your board for two full school years or none? MR.

LEDOUX: I believe that the Act, as it is drafted, makes that provision now. Teachers are entitled to written reasons when they are terminated or when they leave and I think the Act gives teachers that kind of mm1mum protection that superintendents, for example, certainly don't have. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I would agree that the Act would give teachers certain protections that superintendents don't have.

However, what I'm asking you is why your association, in fact, is suggesting that 20 consecutive teaching months are required before a teacher has the right to just cause for dismissal, that is up to two full years of teaching. Your association apparently is indicating that you feel you ought to have the right to dismiss, to fire a teacher, arbitrarily without cause, without being able to demonstrate that you, in fact, have a reason to dismiss that teacher. I'm just wondering whether

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 there's any real good, valid, substantial reason for the requirement of two years of teaching experience, with your particular division, before a teacher is entitled to the simple protection of being given a reason which is a substantial reason, not a non­ substantial reason. MR. LEDOUX: I guess you're asking me for my opinion and I'll try and keep in mind what superintendents have said in our association. I think we're talking about tenure and non-tenure.

After 20 consecutive teaching months we are extending, and as we have done customarily in the province, we are extending fairly substantial protections to teachers by granting them tenure. And those protections, while my friends back here in the Teachers Society may disagree, I think the tenure is something that is fairly substantial and protective and I think the superintendents have said that we feel that we need 20 months to assess the quality of teachers and the quality of teaching that is going on.

If you think of it in terms of a probationary period, I think our group certainly feels that we need the full 20 months to assess people, to look at them on probation and to see if they are the types of individuals that our boards want to have in the schools. MR. SCHROEDER: You're using the term tenure, as opposed to a requirement for just cause prior to dismissal. Maybe we should just get our terms straight. Is it not correct that any teacher, of any school division, can be laid off at any time if there's not sufficient work, in terms of numbers of pupils to teach? MR. LEDOUX: Yes, that is correct.

As I interpret the Act, the existing Act, there is a clause that would allow for teachers to be released if, and when, you had substantial declines in enrollment and you didn't have the enrollments to warrant keeping the teachers on. it's been my

interpretation that you could do so. I'm not aware of any school boards that have done so, outside of the normally accepted times of December and June, but it may be that there are some. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, it may well be that the only times they do it is in December or June but that doesn't make it any more nice for the teacher. But now, when you talk about tenure, is the protection not simply one of being entitled to have to know a cause for dismissal, i. e., the cause must be a substantial cause?

There must be something done by the teacher which makes him or her unfit to do the teaching in that particular school division and again, most other employees, including civil servants and members of trade unions in this province, have similar provisions in their contracts with their employers; is that not correct? That is, that they cannot be dismissed without just cause or without cause and I think just cause and cause is the same thing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ledoux. 4 MR.

LEDOUX: I think the prOVISIOns, as I understand it, of just cause of tenure protection, I think those provisions go substantially beyond what other movements have for protection for their employees. For example, you take the teacher and you have to show just cause in a quasi-legal panel where very often you're talking perhaps technicalities of law as opposed to actual practices in a classroom. You are going to the courts or a quasi-court setting to try and establish whether or not a division was, in fact, justified to release the teacher. MR.

SCHROEDER: I would suggest to you, sir, that that is precisely the type of procedure that is employed for firefighters, for policemen, for many other unionized employees in this province, that there is no substantial difference based on the fact that people have to go to arbitration boards if they dispute a dismissal. But I would like to move on to

Section 41, which indicates that all . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ledoux. According to the procedure, Mr. Schroeder, he would have to respond. Mr. Ledoux. MR. LEDOUX: I just wondered if other professions that you're quoting do not have some provision for probationary periods, as well. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, they do, and generally it's six months or less and I think that's something that possibly your association should consider.

Section 41(4) of the Act indicates that: "Every school board shall provide or make provision for education in Grades I to XII inclusive for all resident persons who have the right to attend school". I'm sure your association is aware that a number of the people who are here tonight are asking that that be changed to "an education appropriate to the needs of the chil d". Does your association have any comments with respect to the present wording or the proposed wording of those groups? MR.

LEDOUX: We didn't specifically suggest changes in wording but we are very pleased, as an association, that the bill has, in our view, expanded considerably to include all the children having the right to attend and we feel that that's a step in the right direction. We interpret that to mean people between the ages of 6 and 21, or 7 and 21, and we feel that that's long overdue. MR. SCHROEDER: Does your association see this as a step forward from Bill 58 with respect to that provision? MR. LEDOUX: I'm not sure that I can speak for the association on that matter.

We feel that it has touched upon the important ingredients of Bill 58. lt perhaps hasn't gone to quite the same degree in some respects that we might have liked but we feel that overall it is a step in the right direction. MR. SCHROEDER: How many people would you estimate in this province between the ages of say, 6 and 18, are currently not receiving an education of some sort or another because the system is unable to adapt to them?

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 MR. LEDOUX: I'd have to be speculating. I don't have the facts with me. lt occurs to me that there was a study done a number of years ago in which not a great many cases were found. In our own particular area there was one child that came to mind. MR.

SCHROEDER: So you would agree, sir, that in fact this statement that we will now be providing an education is fairly empty because there are very few people which will be brought into the system as a result of this particular statement who are not already there, but that this particular statement does nothing to provide an adequate or appropriate education for children who may well be in Grade 10 and with Grade 2 learning abilities, for instance, and conceivably could be receiving an education. Whether the education is appropriate or not would be entirely a different question. � MR.

LEDOUX: I'm sorry, I lost the train of that , question. Could I get you to run it by me again, please? MR.

SCHROEDER: First of all, it would appear to me that you would agree when you say that there's only one child you can think of in your district who will benefit from this, that this provision is not going to make a great deal of difference to more than several dozens of people or maybe 100 people at maximum, probably less than that, in the province, in terms of bringing them into the system, but once they are in the system this provision does absolutely nothing; and I'm asking you whether you agree with my statement or you disagree?

My statement is, this provision will do absolutely nothing to guarantee an appropriate education for children who are already in the system, have possibly been in the system for years and are getting an educat ion which is inappropriate to what they need. They may have been in the school system for five or ten years and they can't read or they can't spell or they can't do � many of the other things which they could be taught , to do if they were receiving an appropriate education. MR. LEDOUX: We like to think that the children that are in our system are receiving an appropriate education.

While we realize there are times when more could be done, we view this bill and this provision in the bill as a step in the right direction and possibly there are always areas that are possible for improvement that, by and large, we view the amendment as being a positive one, amendment to earlier drafts. MR. SCHROEDER: In addition to that, do you agree that it is, this particular provision, is a step back from Bill 58? Possibly if I could add, Mr. Chairman, and if not specifically, in what way is it not a step backward? MR.

CHAIRMAN: I'm having a dif ficult time referring to another bill that is not before this committee. We're dealing with Bill No. 31 and if the members of the committee and those who are making presentations would keep their remarks 5 confined to this bill, I think we could proceed much better. Proceed, Mr. Ledoux. MR. LEDOUX: Just to reply to Bill 58, Bill 58 contained many provisions. I think you're alluding to this

section dealing with special education. As I understood it, this

section dealing with special ed. or special cases was never proclaimed. Therefore, I don't know that I would want to comment on the comparing of this one to a

section of a bill that was not proclaimed. MR. SCHROEDER: Moving on to the matter of sick leave, your association views sick leave as being an earned right, i.e. you approve of the current change in the legislation. Could you expand on the effect of the old legislation and the improvement contained in this legislation for your organization's welfare? MR. LEDOUX: I don't know that it does anything in particular for our organization except I think it clarifies a misunderstanding that existed in the old Act. A number of school districts had become involved in disputes at times between the

interpretation of the previous Act and the clauses pertaining to sick leave in a previous Act, and our association feels that it is now quite clear that since sick leave is an earned right, I believe that we can all appreciate and understand that section. MR. SCHROEDER: The Act deals in a number of areas with the matter of field officers who have certain rights and responsibilities, as they had as inspectors in their old incarnation under the old Act.

Do you agree that field officers ought to have the right to demand of anyone in the province, whether they are in the school system or outside, that they must answer any questions that they pose to them? MR. LEDOUX: 1 would assume they would do so on behalf of the Minister and as a representative for the Minister in the field. I believe that it's important that the Minister in the department would have access to the information that's in the field. There may be better ways but I don't see any better way to get information out in the field than through an extension of the Department of Education.

That's a personal answer. Our association hasn't discussed it. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if Mr. Ledoux could clarify his remarks. He seemed to indicate at the beginning of his presentation that he thought that in terms of organization and leadership that the bill reflected 1960 rather than 1980, and I think remarks of that nature have been made in debate. I was just wondering whether you would care to elaborate. Do you expect

definitions of superintendents and, in particular, either words or sentences or paragraphs be incorporated in the bill that would strengthen it in regard to organization, and were your remarks primarily directed at the role of the superintendent? MR. LEDOUX: Yes, that's correct. We were primarily approaching our comments from the point

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 of view of the school superintendent. Our view was that the current legislation had its origins in about 1954 when superintendents were not in existence, by and large; very few of them were. Over the years, a number of amendments have been made to the Act that have been based on the school district concept where there was no school superintendent employed.

So our comment was directed from the point of view that school superintendents have arrived on the scene for a number of years, have been in existence since 1967, by and large, and prior to that, but on a large scale since 1967, and the view was that there should have been more provision in our judgment for clarification on the role of superintendent and for some clarification on the areas of organization and corporate organization, that sort of thing. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, holding aside the philosophical and practical debate about aid to private and parochial schools, I wanted to ask Mr.

Ledoux whether he has considered the suggestion that has been made that, although some school divisions found it a nuisance to have to transmit funding to private and parochial schools and now this legislation no longer requires that, there was one advantage in that other system in that the amount of dollars could be examined or at least the people in the division would be aware of the amount of money spent on schools in their division, and to that extent, they might have some understanding or appreciation about the kind of government funding,

whereas if the funding goes direct, then the local divisions are really not aware and not involved. I was just wondering whether he had considered that the "old system" to that extent is perhaps better than the one suggested. MR. LEDOUX: Our association didn't arrive at a position as comparing the system of funding that is currently in use as compared to the previous system of funding. I think our association was on record as not supporting funding for private schools.

Beyond that, if it was the government's decision to fund in one fashion or another, we did not poll our members to see which system they preferred. MR. DOERN: I wonder if you could clarify your brief in regard to special needs. This is now a requirement rather than an option and there is now no distinction being made between the so-called normal or average students and handicapped students. My impression from reading your brief is that you want the province to fund 100 percent of the costs and I was wondering whether you could just explain what your position is. MR.

LEDOUX: We felt that our association would like, of course, to see as much direct funding for high incidence children as possible. When we looked at the legislation and when we looked at former legislation, our members were concerned with such things as the possibilities of having to establish residential schools, for example. We're not certain if that possibility exists now under this or not.

If we have to provide directly for all students, it may be necessary for school divisions to consider residential schools, and this is one of the reasons why we have made a note that while we feel that it is a step in the right direction, we have some concerns about the 6 funding that may be needed and we would hope that we would get the necessary additional funding to take on, as we see it, some additional responsibilities. MR. DOERN: Can you give us any suggestion, any guesstimates of what percentage of special costs or special needs students is now being picked up by the province?

If you have X number of students, do you have any idea what percentage is being funded by the local division? MR. LEDOUX: I'd be guesstimating at that. We do know that special students require additional costs. A guesstimate, if I could give you a personal guesstimate, that's all I could do, would be about 60, 65 percent of the funding; in some cases, 100 percent, if they have to place in other schools because of the special funding arrangements that are there.

But in some cases where we have to handle special needs students internally, I would guess 60 to j 65 percent of the funding might be an accurate � number. MR. DOERN: I want to understand, then, your brief and your view. You say that you want the government to state that additional funds will be provided to the divisions proportionate to the additional responsibilities they will need to undertake. I take that to mean moving in the direction of 100 percent. I assume you don't want on it on the present system, just more of the same extrapolated but you want the province to ultimately pick up 100 percent.

Is that so? MR. LEDOUX: That's what we are requesting, particularly if we think in terms of the possibilities of residential schools. MR. DOERN: A final question, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered if Mr. Ledoux had any concern for the fact that a great deal of emphasis in this bill and, I guess, in terms of public debate and debate within educational circles seems to be focusing on special needs students and, to that extent, maybe ignoring the vast majority of students who are average, neither exceptional nor having special needs. Do you have any concern about the average student as being lost in the shuffle? MR.

LEDOUX: Again, our association didn't discuss that particular point. We had concerns on a number of areas. We chose to highlight some of the concerns in our brief because we felt there might be some possibilities of last minute adjustments and so on. But certainly we have concerns with all of the school children and I don't know if you're suggesting that we might have made a presentation on additional funding for all children. I think that most school superintendents would agree that we would certainly appreciate additional funding for all school children. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown. MR. ARNOLD BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, Mr. Ledoux made a statement that school boards or superintendents should not be involved with the

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 decisions regarding private schools. I wonder if he could elaborate a little more on that. Why should they not become involved with some of the decisions? Are you suggesting that there should be no liaison at all between private schools and your public school system? MR. LEDOUX: I think I referred to attendance, an item that I referred to our brief that's not in front of you; I apologize for the limited number of copies that you have. But we had concerns that the public school system should not retain the responsibility for attendance at private schools, school attendance. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ledoux, the Clerk has looked after copies for all the members of the committee. Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: That was my question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple of questions for Mr. Ledoux, please. On Page 2 of your brief, Mr. Ledoux, you say that your association believes that the superintendent should be named Chief Executive Officer. There is no supporting argument or reasons given for that. Would you care to elaborate on the reason for that belief? MR. LEDOUX: Yes, we would very much appreciate elaborating on that point.

We believe that it is a commonly accepted method of corporate business. it's a commonly accepted method in private business. To our knowledge, it is used by the Department of Education under a Deputy Minister, for example, the Minister and then the Deputy Minister. We feel that it is good business and good organization to have a Chief Executive Officer that is responsible for a school board when a school board is not there, and a school board is not there very often.

They will meet weekly or every two weeks or in emergency meetings, but somebody has to be there to act on behalf of the corporation in the absence of the Board of Directors. We feel that every ship needs a captain. We are concerned that in some division there are dual systems in operation. There have been systems that have· attempted triplicate systems of administration. There is at least one jurisdiction that is toying with the idea of a quadruple system, organizational system of management.

We feel that who better to serve; if one person has to serve on behalf of the corporation, it should be the person that is the chief educator in the division. Our members feel very strongly on this point. They were unanimous that as Saskatchewan has done and as Ontario has done, the Acts in those provinces have ensured that the Superintendent of Education be named Chief Executive Officer in the absence of the board. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Ledoux. I have one further question. As you are aware, there is a provision in the bill that a field representative can suspend the certificate of the teacher.

We have it on the highest authority that would only happen in an emergency situation. Can you, as a practising 7 superintendent, give me an instance of where a superintendent or a principal would not be able to take care of an emergency situation and that it would be necessary, in order to resolve this emergency situation, for a field representative to lift the teaching certificate of the teacher? MR. LEDOUX: I believe that field representatives had those powers under the former Act, the Public Schools Act.

An example that would come to mind might be a field officer that was in a jurisdiction where there was no school superintendent. There are districts that do not employ superintendents. We don't think that that's necessarily a good thing, but there are jurisdictions in the province where there's no school superintendent and, in fact, it may be the principal of the school that would need the action taken in some of the smaller schools or remote corners, that sort of thing. So that's an example that comes to mind. MR. WALDI NG: Have you heard of such an emergency situation happening in the last 10 years? MR.

LEDOUX: Personally, because not the association; personally, I haven't heard of a field officer lifting a certificate of a teacher. I have heard of a teacher losing his certificate in the last 10 years but not at the direct hand of a field officer. MR. WALDING: Can you give me an example from your division where a school inspector or field representative, or whatever the term is, has found it necessary in emergency circumstances to suspend the certificate of a teacher? MR. LEDOUX: I haven't encountered that in our area at all, or in my experience, where a field officer has lifted the certificate of a teacher. MR.

WALDING: Would you say that the powers of a superintendent or a principal should be adequate to deal with an emergency classroom situation in your division? MR. LEDOUX: Yes, I believe, again a personal judgement call, in divisions that have superintendents, for the most

part I think that the superintendents and school principals could deal adequately with the emergencies that we've yet encountered. MR. WALDING: Do you think it would bother your association at all if this right of a field representative to suspend a teacher's certificate were limited only to those divisions and districts where there was no school superintendent? MR. LEDOUX: No, it wouldn't. I don't think it would bother our association if it were limited to those jurisdictions that didn't have superintendents. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: No further questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Schroeder.

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 MR. SCHROEDER: Back to the question of firing teachers and teachers requiring cause and that sort of thing. Can you tell us, from your own experience, how many teachers do you fire, what percentage of the teachers whom you hire in your division do you fire before their two years are up? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. You are referring to Bill 19, I think and not 31 if I understand the legislation that's before us. We're only dealing with Bi1131. MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, up until this point we've dealt for 50 minutes, a large part of that time we've been discussing tenure, and I would think that it would be appropriate to continue that as we have from the beginning and to have it cut off in the middle would seem inappropriate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder, maybe I have been a little lax as a Chairman. The only bill that we're dealing with tonight and before this committee is Bill 31. You can refer to a

section of Bill 31 if you'd like to address I'd be pleased to listen to your question. Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, referring to the submission of MASS, we deal here with probation and tenure, using the commonly accepted term of probation as the first two years of teaching service, etc. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, sir, proceed. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you.

In your experience as a school superintendent, what percentage of brand new teachers do you fire within the first two years of their employment with your division, on a basis which would not be considered cause, after they would have the right to tenure, as you call it? MR. LEDOUX: Well, I'm sure if you're referring to our jurisdiction, we would never release anybody without cause. MR. SCHROEDER: I'm very happy to hear that. If that is the case, then I would ask why your association would want the right to fire without cause? MR.

LEDOUX: I don't believe that our association has asked for the right to fire without cause. I believe our association has asked for the right to assess teachers for 20 consecutive months. We've asked for the right to assess them, to have them go through a probationary period, to assess the quality of instruction in the classroom, prior to moving on to post-tenure teacher.

We could foresee, for example, that the word 'consecutive' and this is a suggestion we have made, I'm sure that this was probably debated at length elsewhere, we have suggested the word 'consecutive' because we could see, for example, the teacher being on our staff for one year, moving on to another jurisdiction, coming back for perhaps one term, to teach in our area, moving out for whatever reasons at the end of that, coming back subsequent to that and we would be looking and getting glimpses of a teacher's performance some 8 times as briefly as six months at a time.

So we have suggested that, in order for our members to get a good and honest evaluation on people, we feel that we require the 20 consecutive months. Twenty months was suggested here, it's always been 20 months to date - I'm sorry it's always been two years to date. The 20 months clarifies it somewhat; the consecutive, we feel is important, for some of the reasons that I've alluded to. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Just for the benefit of the committee, Bill 19 in 6(2), it refers to a suspension by field representative and what we're dealing here is strictly with the superintendents and I hope the committee will keep within the brief. Proceed, Mr. Schroeder, with the superintendents. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. Again, you're indicating that for the first two years you're assessing the teacher's qualifications and abilities and that sort of thing.

I would hope that you would continually do that kind of assessing and that after the two years go by, or the six months, or whatever amount of time there is, that just because a teacher has what you call tenure, doesn't mean that teacher should be a bad teacher. And it seems to me, that before tenure, on the same token, you shouldn't be entitled to fire an individual on a basis other than for just cause. And if you don't have cause sufficient MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill on a point of order. MR. EDWARD McGILL: On a point of order. I want to be certain that I understand the purpose of the questions to the witness.

My understanding is that we're to ask questions to ensure that we understand the positions that are taken by the various briefs and the persons submitting them. I think it's not a proper function of the members of the committee to debate positions, or to attempt to change positions that have been taken by persons submitting these briefs and I know it's difficult to make that fine distinction but I would just think that the line of questions that we're into now tend to be argumentative and tend to debate with the witness the positions that are being taken in the brief. I think, Mr.

Chairman, in the interests of these proceedings, that we should ensure that the questions are designed merely to ensure that the committee understands those positions which have been submitted to them and not to attempt to change those positions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McGill. Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, this particular witness has indicated to us that he would never fire anyone without just cause.

On the other hand, this particular witness is saying that he doesn't want a teacher to have the right to just cause prior to dismissal before two consecutive years. I would suggest that is something that requires specifically the kind of clarification the Member for Brandon West has just been referring to and I am not attempting to change the position of the witness. I don't believe that I could, in a matter of a few minutes, and I'm sure that

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 he couldn't change my position in a matter of a few minutes. What I am trying to do is clarify his position and again, I would ask the witness . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder, let's first of all clear up the point of order and see if we can find out where we're going in this legislation. I was concerned a few moments ago because I raised the point that we're straying into another bill, No. 19. We also have the brief of Mr.

Ledoux before us and I hope that in the interests of all those that are here tonight and the members of the committee, that we can stick strictly with the position of the school superintendents of this province on the legislation that's before us. So proceed, Mr. Schroeder. I'll try it again. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, are you saying that we can't ask questions about the brief or can we? MR. CHAIRMAN: On Bill 31. MR. SCHROEDER: Is this particular provision in Bill 31 or isn't it? MR. CHAIRMAN: This one is, Sir. MR. SCHROEDER: Well then, do you mind if I go ahead and ask about probation and tenure? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 92(5), is that what you're dealing with, Sir? MR. SCHROEDER: I'm dealing with probation and tenure, if we want to get into a discussion of specifically which section, we can do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well for the members. I'm hung up as a Chairman, I'd like to see this .. . MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, it's

Section 92, subsection 5, Mr. Chairman. lt deals with people employed by the school board, under an approved form of agreement for an aggregate of at least 20 teaching months of paid services. Okay? That's what I'm dealing with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now again, back to the position that the witness takes. On the one hand he says he would never fire anyone other than for just cause; and on the other hand, he's insisting that he wants two years before he's forced to give a teacher a reason for dismissal.

Can he tell us why he needs that two years to give a teacher a reason for dismissal?

Because it seems to me that if you have just cause at all times, for dismissing teachers, then you should not be ashamed of telling any teacher, either at one month or ten years, what the reason is for dismissal and the reason should stand up for the one month teacher as much as for the ten year teacher because there's a person, who has spent an awful lot of time in our 9 school system, has gone through our universities and teacher training programs, has been certified by the Minister of Education to be a qualified teacher and then all that individual is asking, at the point in time of termination is, do you have cause?

Can you prove cause on a balance of probability? MR. LEDOUX: I think that the current bill makes provision for giving a reason to all teachers that are released. The Public School Act has always made that provision for a teacher to have a reason, a reason is stated. If a teacher is dismissed and a teacher has been with a division for fewer than two years and wants to know the reason why, if the reason hasn't been given in notice of termination, then the teacher requests it, within the procedures as outlined, and the school district gives the reason.

Those provisions are there, I believe they are still there and we have no quarrel with that. We are simply suggesting that we would like to see the word 'consecutive' inserted into what you have now. Because, as I said, we would get a longer chance to look at a teacher that might be coming back in from - suppose a teacher taught for the division and then started to raise a family, had put in a year and a half time, without the word 'consecutive' there, if the teacher is back in for the remaining four months or whatever, is that the point at which a teacher reaches tenure? MR.

SCHROEDER: I agree with the witness that prior to two years, it may be that you are required to give a reason. The difference is though that before two years you don't have to prove that reason, that is, you can dismiss someone, give a reason and, whether that reason is valid or not, the teacher can't come back. After two years, you can give the very same reason but you're going to have to prove it on a balance of probabilities. Is that not correct? MR. LED01JX: Yes, that's correct as the Act currently reads. What we see . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill on a point of order. MR. McGILL: Mr.

Schroeder is saying to the witness now, do you agree or disagree with me? The question of whether we agree with the witness's position, I think, is not appropriate at this time. We are simply making sure we understand his position. Mr. Chairman, unless we understand that rule in the proceedings here, it's going to be a very difficult exercise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill, I agree with your position. Mr. Schroeder, you're fairly new in the Legislature and I've been leaving you fairly wide leeway but you're not permitted debate in this committee.

So just ask questions and if you get the answers from the witness, he doesn't have to give you the answers, and we'll proceed and hopefully get the people that are before us all heard. Proceed, Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I may be new in this Legislature. I happen to know in which Act I'm dealing and I have had from you, Mr. Chairman, in the last few minutes, a number of interruptions telling

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 me not to talk about Bill 19, when I'm on Bill 31. Now you're telling me to ask questions, which was precisely what I was doing when I was interrupted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder I did not say that at all. I said you're not allowed to debate with the witness. That's all I ask. Please . . . MR. SCHROEDER: I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have my ... MR. CHAIRMAN: I am the Chairman of this committee, Sir, if you don't abide by the rules of this committee, I'll ask you to relieve yourself. You are entitled to ask the witness questions.

You are not allowed to debate with him and that's all I'm asking. Please be fair. Mr. Schroeder, proceed. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any way that we could have my last question to this witness read back? MR. CHAIRMAN: Not tonight, Sir. Proceed, Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the last question I asked was very simply a question that had nothing to do with any kind of a debate whatsoever and I am quite frankly annoyed that the Chairman would suggest that I was debating. I have no further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr.

Schroeder, you have a legal mind and a lot of members around this committee, including me, are not legally trained and I'm sure the witness is not. I'm just asking if you'd be kind enough to not debate when you're dealing with the witnesses that are before the committee and that's all I ask. Proceed, Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: I told you, I have no further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions of the witness. Thank you, Mr. Ledoux. MR. LEDOUX: Thank you very much. I wasn't aware that I didn't have to answer all the questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: I call, Mr. Lewis.

Terry Lewis. No. 30. Mr. Lewis is not on the list that I have but you can add his name if you wish. No. 30. Have you got copies of your brief for members of the committee? Proceed, Mr. Lewis. MR. TERRY LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. This was done somewhat in a hurry because of travelling. This brief speaks in favour of

Part IV of Bill 31 regarding the agreement with private schools. We live in a pluralistic society made up of many minorities, all of whom have the same liberties and rights. The problem is that until this present bill was introduced, the above was one ideal and not an experience for many of us who live in what we would 10 like to believe is a democratic country. Our request is for equal funding for all students who are citizens of our province regardless of race, creed, social or economic background.

I have purposefully left out the aspect of the handicapped and the special needs, realizing there are special funds needed for those areas. We, the taxpayers within this province, believe that this is the only way to ensure a democratic disbursement of our public funds. We do not ask for public money for capital building but only funds to be used directly in the operational expenses of educating the youth of this province in the schools of their choice.

Those who argue against such funding because it would support an elite system, are unaware - I was disturbed when I wrote this so I will pacify it a little bit as I speak - are unaware of the facts that are evident in some of our private schools, particularly perhaps represented by the Manitoba Federation of Independent Schools, which shows that the vast majority of parents who send their children to private schools are from the middle and lower class families. The arguments of those who are opposed to such funding is vague, representing a situation perhaps 50 years ago, and has no bearing on today's situation.

Those who would argue that the bill would fragment the system, also argue in vague generalities. While arguing our schools give personalized instruction recogni zing differences in abilities and culture, etc., yet when you talk of an alternative school that would be set up to deal with those personal differences, the cry of fragmentation is heard. lt is a matter of having one's cake and wanting to eat it too. The school system can be no more fragmented than it already is, in which teacher, school, or board, can almost choose to teach or not to teach whatever they want.

Those who would argue that we need to enforce the one public school system to create unity in our nation, are also unaware of the facts. The battle on the Plains of Abraham is taught differently in Quebec than it is here in Manitoba. This argument fails to see the importance of the contribution that these various groups can make in our pluralistic society. The monolithical educational system seeds to conform rather than to recognize the value of these groups of people in our province.

The people usually state that they speak for the majority which is an assumption rather than a proven fact and is certainly a declaration against minorities. Those who would argue that this

section would give money to religious schools are unaware of their own religious sytelm. The widely held view that the public school system itself is religiously and morally neutral, and free of mythology, is the greatest mythology of all. No system of education is neutral. Trying to serve all masters while naming none as lord, it has arrived at a point where it openly espouses the major religions of our time, i.e., secular humanism, or worse, blatant materialism. The secularist view of man and the world lives by a faith commitment to certain truths and values just as surely as does any religious person.

For an example, moral relativism, the view that there are no moral absolutes, one man's moral truth is as good as another's, is just as much a matter of faith or unproveable assumption as any

article in the Christian creed. Yet if you do not accept some

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 recognized religious basis of morality, relativism is what you inevitably end up with. This, in part at any rate, is what all the current heart searching in Canadian education is all about, about the failure of the present educational system to impart traditional moral values. Having severed the roots of the traditional Judeo-Christian religious outlook, western man still wistfully looks to the tree for the fruit of traditional morality and seems genuinely surprised when it is no longer there.

Education is the process of forming by which young lives are led, coaxed, prodded and stimulated to develop themselves. To become an educated person is to become adherent to a way of life, and every way of life at its department is religious in nature and vision. Educational freedom in a pluralistic society can only be established if there is a recognition that educational freedom is a form of religious freedom. Traditionally, the academy has been a protector of freedom.

In dividual scholars have sufferded for independent thought, but the academy itself has never been absorbed by society, at least not until recent times. The public approach to university education has made the academy the mirror of society, rather than the other way around. The purpose of education is no longer in di vidual comprehension, but rather social adjustment, and with it has come the loss of academic freedom. Our present "state" school system is a monopoly. A monopoly whether it be private or public, rapidly results in three things: A. The quality of the product decreases.

What good is it to boast that more children or youth are entering our universities than ever before when half of them or more would would never be able to pass the entrance exams 20 years ago. B. The costs go up. We have documented evidence of hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been wasted, misused, or even stolen within our present system, particularly under the previous government. We would like to see a commission set up to evaluate the efficiency in our present system and the allegations of the misappropriation of public funds.

This argument is particularly to those who would argue that such aid to private schools would increase the costs. C. There is an arrogant attitude to the consumer by the elite or those who manage the monopoly become insufferable. Documentation of thousands of briefs, over 16,000, have been submitted to us in this regard. We need a democratic school system based on alternatives and choices that are not present in our monoli thic state school system. Therefore, we strongly advocate the acceptance of Bill 31,

Article IV, regarding agreements with private schools. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Are you prepared to answer questions, Mr. Lewis? MR. LEWIS: I am. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: would like to ask Mr. Lewis if he could give us a brief description of Renaissance International. 11 MR. LEWIS: Renaissance International was formed about six years ago. At that time, because of a reaction of parents to what they disapproved within the school system, it has grown from a reactionary group to a group that is seeking positive alternatives within the system and beyond the system. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, at the risk of being gavelled, I would just like to say that the witness suggests that the opposition to, in his brief, that the question of aid to private and parochial schools has been countered or questioned by vague generalities, and I would like to suggest to him that he read the debates of the Legislature because I think that he will find that there have been specifics . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern, we're back in the same problem that I just got through. I don't think you had any right to suggest to the honourable member to read anything.

I think you can ask him questions but I think that it's unfair for you to suggest to him to read anything. We have his brief before us and his comments and let's keep the debate at that level, please. Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I'm simply saying that his statement is not correct. I will then ask one other question as to whether Mr. Lewis believes in the separation of church and state, and specifically whether he thinks that the government should provide direct aid to churches in addition to parochial schools. MR. LEWIS: I would app reciate answering that question.

The law has long been mistaken, where the state has changed freedom of religion to be freedom from religion in our school system. I think there needs to be a greater understanding of the difference between church and state. No, I would not belie ve that the state should give funding to churches.

I am talking about the education of the public arid the students of this province, which the people, regardless of their faith, creed, race, are being taxed, and I'm speaking to the issue that those who want a different particular philosophical base in the who le training of their children are being financially penali zed by having to pay for the education of their system twofold. Once for the system they themselves do not choose and, secondly, to educate their children according to their own choice. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. Any further questions of Mr. Lewis? Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if I could ask Mr. Lewis how many members his association has in Manitoba? MR. LEWIS: In Manitoba we have grown to 10,000; 4,000 in the last year. MR. WALDING: members? Are these 10,0 00 in dividual MR. LEWIS: Those are individual members. In fact, those 10,000 represent family units, not individuals necessarily, so the membership would be far greater.

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 MR. WALDING: I see. No, Mr. Chairman, my eye was caught by the wording on Page 1 where Mr. Lewis says, we, the taxpayers within this province. I wanted to find out how many taxpayers he was speaking for. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for Mr. Lewis? We thank you for your presentation, Mr. Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I call Mr. W. R. DeGraves for the Certified General Accountants Association. Do you have a brief, Mr. DeGraves? Proceed, sir. MR. W. R. DeGRAVES: I choose to call it a brief, Mr.

Chairman, although it is really the compilation of a file giving the history of the representations that the association I represent has made to the appropriate Minister and indeed to this committee. The Certified General Accountants Association is a statutory body created by a private Act and it's a regulatory and an educational and a disciplinary body. The history of the Association you can find on pages 17 and 18 of the brief before you and that is that it has been in the process of growing since its incorporation in 191 3. I'm reading from page 17 of the brief, which is a letter from Mr.

Hampson, the Secretary of the company, who is appearing with me here, along with Mr. Chochinov, who is a member of the Association. Mr. Chochinov is in the public accounting field and both members here will be able to answer questions if I am not able to answer them. The objection that we have, of course, is that the unnecessary and, I submit, the unintentional exclusion of the certified general accountant from the right to practice or perform an audit for a school division or school district, and I am referring specifically, Mr. Chairman, to a

section of Bill 31, which is the

section you'll find on Page 6 of the brief, "A ppointment of Audito rs",

Section 41(8), Mr. Walding, if you are searching for it. lt's on Page 6, and it says, "E ach school board shall annually appoint an auditor, who shall be a chartered accountant or an auditor approved by the Provincial Auditor". The Association finds this objectionable because it does suggest, perhaps unintentionally, that auditors should only come from one class which, we submit, is a no different position or class than the certified general accountant.

The certified general accountant is, by training, by education, and by discipline in every respect equal to the chartered accountant to perform the audit, as envisonaged by The Public School Act and by Bill 31 and we submit that this unnecessary dis�rimination is rather offensive to the Association. We have in our Law Society Act the right of auditors and certified general accountants to perform audits for law offices under The Real Estate Brokers Act. They are also entitled to conduct and perform audits under The Credit Union Act. They are also entitled to conduct and perform audits under The Municipal Act.

All auditors have to be approved by the Minister and 1 have set that forth in the legislation, Page 7, and it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I'm reading from

Section 599(1) of The Municipal Act, "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint 12 such suitable and qualified persons as auditors as he deems necessary for the purpose of carrying out the duties of auditors imposed under this Act". I think, Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee, that the criterion should be excellence, and I think that in every province except the two - I say this somewhat hesitatingly and with no sense of disparagement to Manitoba - but in both Quebec and Ontario they recognize all three associations, i.e. the Registered Industrial Accountant, the Chartered Accountant and the Certified General Accountant on the same plane and level, insofar as licensing is concerned, insofar as the capacity and quality of the work is concerned, and in the public accounting field the CGA is in every bit and as competent a position to perform audits as any chartered accountant or registered industrial accountant. .

Now there are five criterion before a CGA IS entitled to practice in the public field and this is a disciplined body in the same way that the Law Society or the Chartered Accountants or the Engineering Society, the Architects Society has, and it's the same discipline, same educational standards, same training. And these are the requirements: The CGA must - if he's going into public practice - register with the Association. He must - this goes much further than most other associations - he must have a certain minimum continuing education program and he must be engaged in that.

His right to continue public practice is reviewed from time to time by his association. He has a uniform code of ethics and rules and professional conduct just as any other association including the chartered accountants. He must undergo five one­ third year National Education Program for membership qualification equivalent or superior to Canadian university standards and specifically orientated to the profession of accounting and auditing. And most significant, Mr. Chairman, he must, before he goes into the public field, have public experience, i.e. be in the public domain performing accounting and doing audits.

My submission is, that it's regrettable that the draftsman chose to draft the present Act by selecting Chartered Accountants as being a peculiar status or category and unintentionally I submit, ignore or discriminate against certified general accountants. While I recognize the enormous evening that you have ahead of you, I'm going to ask you to bear with me and to read - I'm not going to read it to you - but I'm going to ask you to read the pages 1, 2 and 3 of the brief which are excerpts from a publication produced by the report of the Professional Organizations Committee.

In Ontario there has been a committee established under the Chairmanship of a Mr. Allan Leo and the purpose of the organization and the investigative committee was to look at all professional organizations as to their conduct, as to licensing procedure, as to their discipline in every other area of endeavour. Quebec had a similar study made. And you'll find that the relevant reports, Mr.

Chairman, page 143, 144 and 145, and they . deal with the three associations, i. e. the Society of Management Accountants of Ontario, which is the certificate or licensing body for AlAs, Registered Industrial Accountants; deals with the ICAO, i.e. Institute of Chartered Accountants Association in Ontario that

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 deals with chartered accountants and it deals specifically with Certified General Accountants Association, the organization which is the equivalent to our Manitoba organization which I represent. The report says that they should be self-governing bodies; that they are all performing a public function; they're all equally competent and capabl e of performing that public function including audits; and that they should be self-regulatory and they should be licensed, a happy situation that still obtains in Manitoba.

When you have, unintentionally I submit, 3nactments going through of this nature and quality, that discriminate against perfectly competent �ualified organizations and professions, then I think :hat it is in the public interest that that discrimination ;hould in fact be rectified at this stage. If you have any questions, Mr. Chairman, I'd be >leased to answer them and if necessary in aid, I 1ave the two gentlemen over there. III R. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for your >resentation, Mr. DeGraves. Mr. Desjardins. III R. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Mr. �hairman. Mr.

DeGraves, in your brief here I see a :opy of a letter that you wrote tq the Minister on lune 11 and I'm trying to find out ... I can't find he Minister's answer Is there a reason ... ? .. R. DeGRAVES: The Minister's answer ... I did 1ot include it. In his answer he said ... Mr. >esjardins, I apologi ze, it's my omission. I'm not rying to mislead you or the committee. IIR. DESJARDINS: No, no. .. R. DeGRAVES: He said, yes, we're very 1terested in what your submission is and I will take mother look at it as and when it reaches the ommittee stage, that's basically what he said.

If you tant me to produce the letter, I can. tR. DESJARDINS: No, it's just that you produced 1is letter, Mr. DeGraves and I was wondering if 1ere was any reason why . . . IR. DeGRAVES: No, it was my oversight. IR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions of Mr. >eGraves? Mr. Walding. IR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, my question was 1ore or less the same as my colleague, and I note 1at the Minister replied to a similar letter just over a 3ar ago to your Association, of May 25th, stating 1at he will take steps to have this matter reviewed. ly question was to be, what indication had you lceived since then that the Minister had taken :eps? And if you had not - I notice that you've ritten another letter along the same lines - I onder why you make the contention that it's lintentional this matter appears in the bill. Don't >u see this is the ... the Minister having discussed and putting it in? IR.

DeGRAVES: That is a charitable ... Mr. esjardins has probably answered your question, Mr. 'aiding. That is the most charitable construction I m put on it.

If there is some latent reservation 13 about the competence and quality of work that is being performed by the CGAs, I don't know of any nor has he referred to any - and I'm not being critical of the Minister - I just think this may have been a rather insignificant minor matter having regard to the total context of what he tried to deal with here, I admit that. it's certainly not minor or insignificant to the Association which I represent, that this discrimination apparently has found itself into the bill as it's presently constituted. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, I notice that the Minister hasn't asked any questions at all this evening. I wonder if he might care to ask Mr. DeGraves a question on this matter that might put Mr. DeGraves' concerns to rest. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding, I don't think we in the committee can ask anybody to answer a question pro or con; we don't have that authority. I think the problem is deal with the witness and the presentation that he's made to the committee. You likely can deal with the Minister in the House or another position on the bill but I think if you proceed with Mr. DeGraves I'd be most grateful. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, I was trying to assist both Mr. DeGraves and the Minister . MR. DeGRAVES: Thank you, Mr. Walding. The Minister doesn't need the assistance, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions of Mr. DeGraves from the committee? We thank you very kindly for your presentation, sir. I call Mr. Taczynski from Gypsumville. Has he arrived? If not, then I call Brenda Scarcella from the Parent Coalition. No. 2. MRS. ALICE ROTHNEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm Alice Rothney. lt is my pleasure to present the brief . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I apologize. Would you permit us to correct our records? Alice Rothney? MRS.

ROTHNEY: Yes, I made the corrections with Mr. Reeves. MRS. ROTHNEY: lt is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to present the brief from the . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Then we are clear that you are replacing Brenda Scarcella? MRS. ROTHNEY: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Proceed. MRS. ROTHNEY: This brief comes from the Parent Coalition of Handicapped Children and Youth for Equality in Education in response to Bill 31, the proposed Public Schools Act. Mr. Chairman, do the members have copies? MR. CHAIRMAN: We all have copies. If not, they're being circulated. Mr. Desjardins will have his in a couple of minutes, Mr.

Schroeder's got his. Proceed. MRS. ROTHNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 1975 the Manitoba Legislature passed

an Act to

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 amend The Public Schools Act which stated that "Every school board shall provide or make provision for the education of all resident persons who have the right to attend school and who require special programs for their education". Although the above

section became law as part of The Public Schools Act, it was never proclaimed. The government of the day, realizing time was needed for school divisions to assume full responsibility for the education of all school-aged persons within the division, regarded the above legislation as permissive or enabling, but not mandatory. Five years have since passed in which educators and school boards have had time to put in place a full range of educational programs to meet the individual needs of their student population.

Further delay in proclaiming universal rights to an education is neither acceptable to parents nor, we believe, the intent of government as expressed in Bill 31 of this year. The Parent Coalition of Handicapped Children and Youth for Equality in Education express satisfaction with Bill 31 for seeming to require school attendance for all school-aged persons.

However, unresolved problems of implementation with respect to educating Manitoba 's handicapped students with special educational needs and those who reside in institutions, cause us to raise some specific humanitarian and educational considerations. lt is our hope that as a result of our doing so this committee will recognize the validity of our concerns and will accordingly make the necessary amendments to Bill 31 to make it a truly universal Public Schools Act. Right to Attend School:

Section 259 of Bill 31 makes no exceptions to the "R ight to Attend School". Yet up until the present time some children with certain types of disabilities, particularly those with severe or multiple disabilities, have been left out of or have fared badly in the public school system. Furthermore, there has been no mandatory provision of education for school-aged residents of institutions.

Section 206 of Bill 31 states, "I n the case of public institutions supported in whole or in part by the government, the Minister may, in his discretion, establish and maintain facilities for the instruction of pupils therein and may pay the costs incidental thereto including the salary of the teacher or any part of those costs". This suggests that children in public institutions may or may not have the same rights to attend school as other children. Furthermore; the practice in institutions such as the Manitoba School for Retardates in Portage la Prairie, has been to organize a school within the institution.

We strongly urge the right of students living in institutions to be able to go out to school rather than having their education as well as residential life, segregated from the rest of the community. lt seems contradictory that government, while ideologically committed to a policy of integrating the handicapped into the community, supports a policy of segregation and discrimination when it comes to the education of exceptional children and of persons living in public institutions. We recognize that a small minority of students are so exceptional that regular school teachers alone cannot serve them adequately.

They will require 14 supportive measures which should be provided by health and recreation authorities within regular schools. But even for the severely disabled who require highly specialized programs for a period of months to many years, the overall objectives should be to progressively bring them more closely into the regular program. Although most of their educational activities would not be in regular classrooms, they would be able to benefit from the socialization, stimulation and learning that occurs in a regular school setting.

Finally, we would comment on the very small number of severely han dicapped school-aged persons whose medical condition prohibits removal from a school or residential setting. They too, have the right to and need for programs with educational objectives rather than being served merely by the provision of personal care and medical treatment. Their educational services may initially consist of intensive daily play therapy to stimulate and motivate physical and cognitive development.

Their highly individualized activities may take place in specially designed areas of an institution, on the ward, or even in bed, but, we emphasize, these programs should be administered as part of the public school system, not simply as a responsi bility of the Department of Health. These most disabled students who suffer so much from isolation and lack of stimulation must also be provided with educationally­ oriented programs.

We request that their rights be clearly set forth in the new "P ublic Schools Act." Specific Learning Disabilities: Some parents have been forced to pay for special programs needed by children with specific learning disabilities either in privately-run learning centres in Manitoba or in schools in other provinces. Early diagnosis and remedial education for children with specific learning disabilities are critical if these students are to reach their potential.

Serious emotional difficulties, school drop-out, delinquency and unemployment are the costly results when these students are not adequate diagnosed and when remedial programs are not undertaken. We recommend that all educational services needed by Manitoba learning disabled students be publicly funded and administered by educational authorities. The government has recently announced a policy of financiai support for private schools run by special interest groups, and also presently funds projects such as French immersion programs.

Surely then there can be no dispute in respect to the need for funding of appropriate educational programs for Manitoba's handicapped students within the province's public school system. Integration: We believe that the revised Public Schools Act should state an overall policy of integration of special education programs within the regular school system. Our concept of integration provides for a wide range of programs which are as close to the regular program as the capabilities of the exceptional students permit.

Such special education programs would become progressively closer to those of regular students but by being contained in a regular school would enable special needs students to benefit from the normative and socializing experience of belonging to a regular school. We would further recommend that school divisions be permitted flexibility and variation in

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 carrying out their responsibilities to special needs students. Parent Participation and Appeal Procedures: As natural advocates for their own children, the role of parents in respect to an education for their child should be included in The Public Schools Act. Parent involvement should be understood as going beyond fund-raising, extra-curricular activities, or providing volunteer teacher's aides. A policy is needed to establish parents as part of the team which sets up and carries out educational objectives.

Furthermore, the rights of parents, teachers, advocates and students themselves to appeal the value of a program is needed to protect against infringement of the right to an appropriate education. Appeal mechanis ms with respect to property assessment, division apportionment, teacher collective agreements and so forth are spelled out in detail in Bill 31. Provision of an appeal procedure or mechanism regarding student placement and programs should also, we believe, be clearly stated in the The Public Schools Act.

Assessment and Evaluation: Parents consider it essential that students with special educational needs have their capabilities and needs assessed at an early age. Following placement in a suitable program, periodic evaluation of the students' progress should also be part of special educational programs. Student Records: Student records are an important source of information when planning programs. The accuracy and confidentiality of these records is the right of all students.

Student records should, we believe, be maintained in such a manner as to ensure confidentiality of information and to guarantee the student's right to privacy. At the same time, parents, guardians, students and education personnel responsible for the students education program must have access to the records in order to be assured of the accuracy of the records and to use the information appropriately in planning programs for the student.

Extension of Age Limits: Special education programs for those in need of early stimulation and remediation before the age of six years and for those whose disabilities warrant continuing education after the usual school-leaving age should also be made available. Year Round Education for Special Needs Students: We request year-round educational programs for learning disabled and handicapped students to prevent educational regression, to provide more time for learning to perform within their capabilities, and to assist parents in caring for their children at home rather than having to place them in an institution.

Professional Development: Parent Coalition members emphasi ze the need for professional development programs to commence immediately to train the speciali zed personnel and to orient averyone within the education system to the needs of axceptional students. Extra Funding: Coalition parents realize that a truly universal and beneficial system of education :annot be implemented by the school divisions Nithout additional revenues and consultative >ervices.

The major source of money tor the idditional teachers, assistants and therapist, for new 15 teacher training programs, for transportation, and for special materials and devices, will ultimately come from the provincial revenues. We request that the government of Manitoba set aside realistic revenues for the new programs which will be coming on stream and that allocation of such funding to the school boards be inaugurated with the adoption of the new Public Schools Act of 1980.

In conclusion, as parents who know intimately the responsibilities involved in stimulating and caring for handicapped children, we are fully aware of the magnitude of the task to be undertaken by the government in impl ementing the right of every school-aged person to attend school irrespective of handicap or of place of residence. We also know how critical it is that our children and youth be provided with educational services if they are to achieve the relative independence and sense of self worth which they, like all other children, are entitled to experience.

The "P arent Coalition of Handicapped Children and Youth for Equality in Education" is convinced that the people of Manitoba have both the humanitarian outlook and the resources needed to provide exemplary educational services for all our school-aged population. We therefore request that appropriate steps commence immediately to ensure a truly universal system of education within our province. Mr. Chairman, we have another part of our submission which consists of some suggested specific amendments which I would like to circulate to the members of the committee, if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MRS.

ROTHNEY: I'd like to say that these rec ommended amendme nts cover most of our concerns but not all of them and it is our hope that the committee may draft further amendments to cover such concerns as we believe the need for a year-round education for people who require this in order to learn as much as they are capable of learning and to extend the age limits for people for whom continuing education is their best life alternative. Here then are the suggested amendments: The first one concerns the Right to Attend School in a Suitable Program. The Parent Coalition recommends that

Section 41(4) of the bill dealing with "Instructional Responsibilities of School Boards be amended to read as follows: Every school board shall provide or make provision for the education of all resident peersons who have a right to attend school in a program suitable to the educational needs of that person." No. 2, an amendment on the Right of Parent to Appeal: We suggest that members move the following resolution. That every school board shall develop a procedure to review placements of pupils in special programs in the school division or school district, and to receive appeals with respect to such placements.

A parent or person having control or charge of a pupil shall have the right to appeal the placement of a pupil in order to determine whether the program is suitable to that pupils's educational needs.

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 No. 3, Funding for Special Needs Students: The Parent Coalition recommends that

Section 172(1) and

Section 174(

b) of the bill be amended by adding thereto an additional clause to provide for the funding of special needs programs. We request the following clause be added as subsection (

k) of

Section 172( 1) and subclause (xi) of subsection 174(b): "the number of pupils requiring special programs and the additional support costs incidental thereto." No. 4, transportation of special needs students:

Section 43( 1) of the proposed bill provides for transportation of pupils who would have more than one mile to walk in order to reach school. We recommend that this

section be amended by adding thereto the following phrase: "Sub ject to the provision of this Act and the regulations, in all cases where transportation of pupils is required, it shall be provided for those pupils who would have more than one mile to walk in order to reach school, and for those pupils who, by reason of mental or physical handicap, require transportation in order to reach school."

Section 43(6) of the proposed bill requires transportation of students to and from a point no closer than one-half mile from the residence of that pupil.

We recommend the following amendment with respect to handicapped students: "No school board shall be required to extend a transportation route beyond the boundaries of the school division or school district, and nothing herein requires the school board to provide for the conveyance of a pupil to and from a point closer than one-half mile from the residence of the pupil, except in the case of a student who, by reason of mental or physical handicap, requires transportation directly to that pupil's place of residence." No. 5, Student Records: The Parent Coalition recommends the inclusion, in

Part Ill of the bill, the new

section dealing with confidentiality of student records. We recommend that the new

section be worded as follows: "Student records shall be maintained in such a manner as to ensure the confidentiality of information contained therein. Information contained in student records shall be available only to a parent or person having control or charge of a student, or where a student is over the age of majority, the student himself, and to educational personnel responsible for the student's educational program, unless a parent or person having control or charge of a student or a student over the age of majority consents to the release of the information to other persons. Mr.

Chairman, if it's your pleasure to have a question period, I would request that some additional representatives of the Parent Coalition be permitted to come to the table to participate in the discussion period. MR. CHAIRMAN: No problem, Mrs. Rothney. Thank you for your presentation. May I clarify, are you prepared to answer questions both on the brief and your proposed amendments or both, or one or the other. MRS. ROTHNEY: Definitely on the brief. We'll do our best with the proposed amendments; we will try that, too. 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. Mr. Desjardins. MRS. ROTHNEY: Thank you. May I bring up the members?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I apologize. MRS. ROTHNEY: Fine. Mr. Harry Crawley and Mrs. Brenda Scarcella, the chairman of our Coalition, Mrs. Moira Grahame, who will participate at the question period. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell your friends to be seated. If they wish to respond to the questions, there will be a microphone available for them so it will go into the record. So proceed, Mr. Desjardins. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairman, to Mrs. Rothney and her group. I think your brief is a good one. lt explains your position quite clearly and I, for one, could not argue with it.

But I am offended with a paragraph - the first paragraph on Page 3 - where you refer especially to aid to private schools and French immersion programs. The implication seemed to be that this is less important because you go on, you say, surely, then there could be no dispute in respect and so on. May I ask, why did you select these two programs, and you feel that they are not necessary or that they are inferior? MRS. ROTHNEY: Not at all, Mr. Chairman, it's simply as examples of the extension of financial support to special interest groups.

We certainly didn't single them out for either meritorious comment or otherwise. it's just as examples. MR. DESJARDINS: lt seems to me that these examples seem to indicate anyway, that if these people can get it, then we should have it, and I don't that there's any difference with these programs than any other programs that are offered by the schools. MRS. ROTHNEY: I'm glad that Mr. Desjardins agrees that there's no need to have put in that paragraph. I think he's suggesting that the case rests on the points. MR. DESJARDINS: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dealing with your suggested amendments first; you've suggested an amendment to the ... or actually a new section, dealing with student records and their confidentiality. I understand the effect of it is that if this

section was passed, student records would not be available to anyone other than the parent or student or outsiders on approval by the parent or student. Is that correct? MRS ROTHNEY: May I ask Mrs. Moira Grahame to answer Mr. Schroeder's question, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please put your name into the record and then answer the question?

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 MRS. MOIRA GRAHAME: Moira Grahame. In answer to Mr. Schroeder's question, we have included educational personnel involved with the child's program and that was intentional. MR. SCHROEDER: Without this section, what happens, that is, if you don't have this

section in the ne� Act, is there any confidentiality? MRS. GRAHAME: I think the problem is that the records are so confidential that no one ever gets to look at them, and we don't know ... that question brings up the question of their accuracy and I think that if we had this

section in the legislation, that this would ensure that the records were accurate and were meaningful and would be useful as information for people who were planning programs. MR. SCHROEDER: Further, on page 1 of your proposed amendment, "Funding for Special Needs Students", you indicate that the Act should be changed to read that there would be funding from the public schools finance board for "the number of pupils requiring special programs and the additional support costs incidental thereto". What would you define as being special programs? MRS. GRAHAME: I think the reason for including that was that we felt the rest of the

section has a number of items in it like number of students and transportation and vocational evening courses, I think there are 12 or 13 of them, and there is no provision for school boards to receive support for programs which they would set up on behalf of students with special needs. MR.

SCHROEDER: Going to point 2, the "Right of Parent to Appeal", it appears that the end result of this particular amendment would be that each school board would be required to develop a review process to which parents could come and say, my child is not receiving an appropriate education, my child is being inappropriately placed, or whatever. What do you see as the makeup of this kind of an appeal board? Would it be members of the school board? Would it be the superintendent or teachers or parents or a combination? What do you envision as being the makeup? MRS.

GRAHAME: We haven't specifically set this out. lt would be our hope that parents would be allowed to bring in any sort of resource person that they would wish to bring before a committee of some sort, set up by the school division, which would hear parent appeals. We feel that the very fact that this sort of appeal procedure was available, would protect against abuses that might take place in placement. MR. SCHROEDER: Would you not feel more comfortable with a proposal that would be more universal, that is, an appeal mechanism that would be fairly similar for each child in the province?

Wouldn't it be possible, under this proposal, that in one school division you might just have, say, one school trustee sitting on this appeal board and in another there might be possibly the school trustee and the superintendent and a parent, for instance, 17 and there might be different criteria set up as well by different school divisions. Would it not be more in the interests of the students for whom you are speaking, that there be a fairly consistent appeal mechanism? MRS. GRAHAME: Yes, wouldn't disagree with that. MR.

SCHROEDER: On page, I believe it's 3, this page is unnumbered, of the brief itself, there's a heading, "Right to Attend School", and you indicate that, "until the present, some children with certain types of disabilities, particularly those with severe or multiple disabilities, have been left out of or have fared badly in the public school system". First of all, dealing with those "who have been left out", I take it that there would be two classes of those, one class of children who are institutionalized and a second class of students who are in their homes and not receiving any education at all. Is that correct?

MRS. ROTHNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that's correct, and in the case of the latter, the children who are at home, mainly more the inapprop riateness of programs. I don't know how many are actually out of it today although I know there are some but I think in the case of the severely handicapped it's more a question of having programs that are beneficial to the person. The people who are left out compl etely again, are mainly the people in institutions who are seen as objects of medical care rather than educational intervention. MR.

SCHROEDER: You indicate in that sentence as well that some of those who have made it into the public system, have fared badly. Do you expect that

section 41(4) which you refer to in your amendments, which requires that every child who has a right to an education will receive an education, do you believe that

Section 41(4) will amend the difficulty which is currently_ in existence in the educational system for these children? MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have your name, sir? MR. HARRY CRAWLEY: Harry Crawley. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, sir. MR. CRAWLEY: I think it would certainly go a long way to set the tone for an improvement. lt certainly won't change anything overnight. Even the original wording, I think, would be significantly better than it was previously, and we would just like to see some additional safeguards. MR. SCHROEDER: To Mr. Crawley.

Could he explain exactly what he sees as being the improvement for children who are in the school system now as a result of the wording which is before the committee, not at this time, not your amendment but the actual Bill 31? MR. CRAWLEY: I'm going to have to correct something I said before. I was reading off the wrong paragraph, so I'll retract ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mr. Crawley.

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 MR. CRAWLEY: What I said, I was reading off the wrong paragraph, and that does not follow really what I said about the . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wish to make a correction, proceed, sir. MR. CRAWLEY: I think I will retract the previous statement. We'll go around this once more: MRS. ROTHNE Y: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Crawley should word it, would ask the question again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. CRAWLEY: Yes, would you do that please? MR. SCHROEDER: Could Mr. Crawley explain to the committee whether he sees any advantage to the handicapped children referred to in this particular

section who are currently in the school system, is there any advantage given to them which they presently do not enjoy under

Section 41(4) of Bill 31? MR. CRAW LEY: Are you referring to the amendment under "Right to Appeal"? MR. SCHROEDER: No, I'm not referring to your amendments at all. I'm just referring to Bill 31. Does Bill 31,

Section 41(4), which states that every child has a right to an education, do anything for those children who are handicapped, in the public school system, and currently faring badly, as your brief states? MR. CRAWLEY: lt doesn't guarantee that, no. lt would appear to guarantee them a place in the building but not necessarily appropriate program. MR. SCHROEDER: The amendment which you propose, what do you envision as being the benefit of that amendment, that is, amendment No. 1, which would include a program suitable to the educational needs of a person? MR.

CRAWLEY: I think, if I could use a specific example, there has been a program which has developed over a long period of time at Montcalm School, which I think is a great step forward even to where it is now, but I think it's a long way from being an appropriate placement for those children. MR. SCHROEDER: To Mrs. Rothney, I suppose, again dealing with that right to attend school. In your brief you indicate that the Minister may in his discretion establish facilities for instructing pupils who are in institutions.

Is it not correct that many of the children who are in the institutions you are referring to are receiving training or anything like that from the Department of Health? How do you see the relationship between the Department of Health and Education and this bill? MRS. ROTHNEY: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the St. Amant Centre, the school within the institution is admitted by the local school division St. Vital.

In the case of the Manitoba School for Retardates, I understand that the educational program there is operated by the Department of Health and our 18 position is that all children should have an educationally oriented program as distinct from one which emphasizes health. We believe that the labels of doctors and psychologists have very little educational significance and often are irrelevant. We are very concerned that all children, regardless of how severely handicapped or where they reside, should have an opportunity to have educational programs run by special education personnel. MR.

SCHROEDER: Going back to the children with disabilities who you say have fared badly in the public school system, could you give us some examples of people who are faring badly in the public school system at this time for whom something could be done if you had a change in

Section 41(4)? MRS. ROTHNEY: answer that. Mrs. Brenda Sarcella would MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Brenda Sarcella? MRS. BRENDA SARCELLA: Yes, Brenda Sarcella. In the public school system right now there are many learning disabled children who are aren't receiving appropriate programming. I'll just give you specifics. My own son, who, after a year of help from MACLD Lions Learning Centre, was remediated and sent back into a regular classroom. He has a learning disability called dyslexia, in which they reverse letters and have problems reading.

When I went to the school to find out why he seemed to have problems again, they were giving him scrambled words to find the word. If you can imagine giving that to a child with dyslexia, you'd realize that's totally inappropriate. The resource teacher as well, I don't think had a good understanding of the kind of programs that our kids need and was therefore unable to help me. He needs more specialised help than what's available to him in the public school system right now. That's just my own case. There are many other LD kids that are simply floating through the system while their parents attempt to get help.

One particular case, for six months she's been persevering, trying to get a recommendation, trying to get help, and she's no further ahead, she still has no guarantees that her child is going to receive any remediation from the learning centre or anywhere else, so he floats through a program, between Grade 2 and Grade 3, when he should be in Grade 4. This is not unusual. MR. SCHROEDER: Could you give us an estimate as to the percentage of children in our system who are in similar circumstances? MRS. SCARCELLA: Can I give you a number of students with learning disabilities, or they're receiving progams?

For receiving programs, I don't think I can give you numbers. Learning disabled kids have been estimated anywhere from 1 to 15 percent, the usual number is about 10 percent, which would mean that in Manitoba there would be, out of 220,000 students, approximately 22, 000 with specific learning disabilities, and 2 to 3 percent of that number would

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 require extensive remediation, high-cost, low­ incidence students. MR. SCHROEDER: On page, I guess it's page 2 of your presentation, at the bottom, the last sentence is, "we recommend that all educational services needed by Manitoba learning disabled students, be publicly funded and administered by educational authorities." Which of our educational services received by or available to learning disabled students are not publicly funded at this time? MRS.

SCARCELLA: The only school in Manitoba for learning disabled children is funded through Lions Telethon, in other words, it's more of a community­ funded school, according to the goodwill of the Lions and the hard work of the MACL D members themselves to get these programs set up. Without the Lions Learning Centre, there would be no school for me to send my son to. The cost at MACLD Lions Learning Centre for Children where outside Winnipeg No. 1, that would be required to pay for the programs, is 750 for five weeks of a-half day program.

The alternative is that there's a school in Toronto where the tuition is well in the thousands of dollars for one year, which some of our members have been forced to do because their kids have gone . through the system and have been inappropriately served and are unable to function to get out to work. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Winnipeg No. 1, does it not have some facilities for assisting learning disabled students? MRS. SCARCELLA: Winnipeg School Division purchases. I believe, it's 50 programs from the Lions Learning Centre, which they pay for.

So they are buying programs, but insofar as running their own school from public funds, that is not happening in Manitoba. MR. SCHROEDER: Your brief also states that you had recommended school divisions be permitted flexibility and variation in carrying out their responsibilities to special needs' students. That's on Page 3 under Integration. I'm just wondering what you're getting at there in terms of flexibility and variation. Is that flexibility between school divisions or flexibility between children who have different needs? MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Rothney. MRS.

ROTHNEV: Yes, I think that - I'm sorry, I've lost your question. Would Mr. Schroeder give it to me again, please? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, you're asking that school divisions be permitted flexibility and variation. MRS. ROTHNEV: Oh, yes, yes, fine.

Well, I think very often when teachers and school divisions are encouraged to improvise, they can readily absorb children much more easily than set programs that are sort of laid down from above, and this has I think, been an experience in other countries where they've advanced far more than we have in terms of 19 integrating handicapped students such as Italy and Norway and so on.

If the proper attitude exists on the part of educational authorities and teachers and so on to work things out in the best way - it's very often that way - so what we're really asking for here is to permit the school divisions to sort of set up the programs in what they think is the most appropriate way and simply ask for the additional help they need in terms of consultative services and funding. I hope that answers the question. MR.

SCHROEDER: Further down on Page 3, you deal with Assessment and Evaluation, and you indicate that students with special educational needs should have their capabilities and needs assessed at an early age. The obvious question is, how do you determine at an early age whether there is a special educational need without the testing? MRS. ROTHNEV: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is a departure from our general recommendation that educators do all this.

I think initia lly a severely handicapped child would be a spotted by a doctor, a physician, but as soon as that occurs - and it's often at birth where severe handicaps are recognizable - then we suggest that there be the option, there be programs that could immediately take these children for the early stimulation and remediation, which usually means children can learn to walk and progress,

whereas if left too long, they may never be ambulatory, and they may never reach anything like their capabilities. So we feel it's very imperative, and work all around the world has proven the importance of early intervention as a great financial saving as well as a humanitarian approach. MR. SCHROEDER: On Page 4, Year-Round Education. you indicate that is required to prevent educational regression. Are you suggesting that for some students you would do away with their summer holidays? MRS. ROTHNEV: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman.

I think summer's program should emphasize being outdoors. and recreational and socializing things, just as summer vacations are used for other children, but in the cases of, particularly mentally handicapped children or children who have great difficulty in motor co-ordination and so on, without practice, just as normal children forget their maths over the summer holidays, it's much more critical for children who learn very slowly, that their basic learning programs continue.

We wouldn't suggest that they don't also have the enrichment of summer programs, you think that's essential. but basic training needs to be carried on in order that there be a continuity, we believe. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mrs. Rothney the number of parents who are members of your association, and do they represent pretty well all regions of the province? MRS. ROTHNEV: May I answer it, and then refer it to Mrs. Grahame; she probably can fill in more. This is a fairly new organization. I think the original membership was something like 60, and it has been

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 confined to Winnipeg, but I think that we can safely say we do represent parents of handicapped children throughout the province. Now if Moira would like to sort of add to that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Moira Grahame. MRS!

MOIRA GRAHAME: Just to fill . in on the background, this committee or group was formed in February in response to the feeling that the new education legislation was not going to take into account the briefs that had been presented on behalf of special needs childr en in the fall and approximately 60, as Ms Rothney has said in the beginning got together to point out to the government and to the Minister that there was a lot of common ground about handicapped children or special needs children in the briefs and we got together to make that specific point.

There have been about 10 people on the Steering Committee, and the 10 people on the Steering Committee are all from Winnipeg, and we have not had an opportunity to involve people from rural Manitoba. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, then perhaps Ms Rothney or Moira Grahame could give us an estimate of the number of children who would be represented by the membership of your group who are unable to be accommodated in the school system at this time? Can you give us some numbers? MS ROTHNEY: Do you feel you could answer that, Mrs. Grahame? MR. CHAIRMAN: Moira Grahame. MRS. GRAHAME: No, I don't think we have an number.

One of the major sort of qualities of the parents who make up this coalition is that many of us have children who are in very good programs but it has taken time and effort and we would like to insure that the legislation would make it easier for people coming along after us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGILL. MR. McGILL: Most of the children represented by their parents in this organization are presently involved in some school program, I would take it, but most of them are. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Rothney. MS ROTHNEY: Most of them are, Mr. Chairman. Most of them are presently involved in some program.

I think we might say that they are not all in adequate programs. Certainly many are in segregated programs which we feel very strongly is not in their best interests. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGILL. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, to Ms Rothney, would you say then that this act and the amendments that you are proposing would enable in the Winnipeg area - could you estimate the number of children who might be able to attend schools who are not now able to attend? 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Rothney proceed, or would you like to refer it? MS ROTHNEY: Miss Scarcella. MRS.

SCARCELLA: I think that possibly you are reading too much into the number of children who aren't in programs at all of which we're speaking mainly of children in institutions, but we are representing children that are receiving inappropriate education; children that aren't being identified because of a province wide early identification program being implemented, and each of us come from a parent organization. I come from MACLD which represents, like I say, 1 to 15 percent of children which would be anywhere from 2,180 to 32,700 children.

I would like to think that not all the parents of kids with learning disabilities are going to have to go through the frustration that my son and I had to go through to get the appropriate services and help. I hope that answers your question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGILL. MR. McGILL: I think it's merely an attempt to try to estimate how many children we're not able to accommodate now as compared with what we might be able to do with changes that are contained presently in the act and perhaps in consideration of some of the amendments that your group is proposing. MRS. SCARCELLA: Oh, I see.

Like I said we don't know the numbers of children in institutions per se. We know of some children that are severly handicapped that are in programs which are funded - their funding isn't guaranteed, but mostly we are speaking for, I guess, the greatest number of children. We'r e talking about children that are receiving inappropriate programming. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill. MR. McGILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: "Mr. Chairman, Ms Rothney made an intriguing statement, as I heard it, that the labels of doctors and psychologists are irrelevant. Is that what you said? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Ms Rothney. MS ROTHNEY: Mr. Chairman, I probably did. I think for example to say someone is crippled, or sensory impaired, or mentally retarded as very little significance because in the case of mental retardation there may be many causes. lt may be sociological. We don't know. All we know that at a given time a person's capabilities can be assessed as such and such, and I think the whole idea of labelling people for educational purposes with medical labels is very damaging and stigmatizing, and as I say, it really has no relevance.

You may be crippled, you may be deaf in one ear, you have to wear glasses, but if you can manage well in the educational system, well then it has no relevance. So we suggest that we avoid those terms. --

Wednesday, 2 July, 1980 MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, that sort of fits in with my view that psychiatrists have done more harm than good, particularly in regard to the English language. I would also like a clarification here though, again at the risk of stating what you are speaking against in a way, do you recognize such things as emotionally disturbed children or groupings of children with that particular handicap, or are you simply saying that no handicapped child should be excluded from the public school system? What are you saying in regard to those points?

Are you saying that there should be no identification of problems, that there should be no grouping according to problems, or are you saying that simply a case of all handicapped children should be embraced by the public school system? MRS. ROTHNEY: I think we are saying that they should all be embraced within the public school system, but obviously they have to be, although we stress individualization of programming, there has to be some grouping.

For example, blind children are not going to have the same type of program as deaf children, or children with severe physical handicaps or mental deficiency or so on, so there are broad groupings, but we also stress the need for each individual student to be regarded as a distinct person with certain capabilities, and have as individualized a program as possible. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I also wanted to ask whether the organization appreciates the fact that the solution to some of these problems requires a great deal of money, and that there may be some difficulty in persuading the general public to bear the per capita costs and so on, and I was just wondering whether the organi zation is prepared to fight the battle in public in the sense of, to educate the public and attempt to obtain public support on a very broad basis beyond the organization. Otherwise, some of these dreams and hopes may not be achieved because they will simply fall under the axe of increased taxation. MRS.

ROTHNEY: Mr. Chairman, we indeed do, and plan to keep on working on these issues, but I think, when we were talking earlier about early infant stimulation or early intervention for young children, it is a investment, long-range, to correct deficiencies early so that a child can then progress within the regular system, versus having to have specialized care and assistance all their life, because they've never had the opportunity. All of us have children who are sufficiently handicapped that the possibility of institutional care is always there, and that is a very expensive thing.

So we are urging that every support be given to parents to keep their children at home, that the public school system will assist in making this possible, and thereby saving the taxpayer a lot of money. Institutional care is so much greater. To us, it is a cost benefit approach. MR. DOERN: I believe one of the other ladies wanted to respond. MRS.

GRAHAME: I just don' t like to let that question go by without addressing the idea that the main concern, I think, that cost benefit is fine, but we 21 really are concerned with the humane thing to do and the opportunity that these children should have for an appropriate education. MRS. ROTHNEY: Mr.

Chairman, may I add, too, I know that the Minister and others probably were present at some of the sessions at the International Convention of the Handicapped last week, and I understand a statement was made that the world spends some trillions of dollars every year on the armaments race and pointing out that such a small fraction of that money would look after all the educational needs of handicapped people everywhere in the world. So we have no apologies for asking that appropriate, full education be provided for all the school age population in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cosens. HON. KEITH A.

COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address a question to Mrs. Rothney, and perhaps I could preface it by saying that perhaps I am more fortunate than some of the others around the tabl e, that I have had the benefit and the advantage of having personally met with not only Mrs. Rothney's group, but some of the others who have appeared here this evening, so if some of my colleagues are concerned that I'm not asking a great number of questions, it's because I've had the benefit of having those questions answered previously. But I woul