Manitoba Committee Hansard — 23 October 1979 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 5, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-pe5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Chairman: Mr. J. Wally McKenzie Constituency of Roblin Tuesday, October 23, 1979 2:00P.M. Office of the Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

me: 2:00 p.m. Hearing Of The Standing Committee On Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 HAIRMAN, Mr. J. Wally McKe nzie. IR. CHAIRMAN: Have we got a quorum? Shall we proceed? Mr. Marshal!. Carry on from where lU left off, Mr. Marshal!, Page 6 of your brief. IR. MARSHALL: You won't lose congruence, Mr. Chairman, if I pick it up there? IR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think so. lt's up to the committee, of course. Is it agreed that we start vhere Mr. Marshal! left off? (Agreed) IR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Minister, honourable members, conti nuing on the lp of Page 6, the facts are, The Gr eater Win nipeg Education Levy was not imposed for mun icipal urposes as the Winni peg School Division No. 1 brief suggests. With a single munic ipal corporation, 1ere is automatically one equalized muni cipal mill rate. This muni cipal mill rate has nothing what ever l do with the education tax. Further, the time line associ ated with the municipal tax was not related 1 any way to the education tax.

Again, I qu ote from the Winnip eg brief, "What kind of equalization is it that accepts that a omeowner on Boyd Avenue should pay a higher rate of tax than one on Kildonan Drive or Handsart Uvd ." The facts are, after applying the Foundation Levy and the Gr eater Winn ipeg edu cation levy, the nill rates for Boyd Avenue, city centre, and for Handsart Blvd., Tuxedo, and indeed for all ten urban 'chool divisions, are exactly the same. The persons on Boyd Avenue and Handsart Blvd. are assessed the same rate of edu cation tax o cover the Gr eater Winn ipeg edu cation levy.

Differences in tax levies arise from the individual decisions of school divi sions to spend dollars, or example, the teacher serving Handsart Blvd., Assiniboine South School Division No. 3 is ninth 1mong the ten urban divisions in salar y and in some categories tenth and last. In struction day budget :ategory, which includes teachers' salaries, is 60 to 70 percent of a school board budget, and is me si gni ficant reason why the tax levy rates may be higher on Boyd Avenue than on Handsart 31vd.

To summa rize, after the foundation levy and Gr eater Winn ipeg education levy are in place, the :ax rate for the ten urban divisions are exactly the same. Again quoting from the Winnip eg brief, "Our inner city househ olders and residents, most of whom ·eprese nt the poor of the total city population, very many of whom have minimum incomes, and �ery many of whom are senior citizens, pay realty taxes that are completely disproportion ate to the qualit y and the value of their housing so that their more well-to-do cousins may not suffer a rise in tax es." Wher e are these well-to-do suburban cousins?

These statements are not born of logic. The difference in assess ment reflects the affluence or lack of affluenc e; the difference in mill rate reflects the school divisi on's spending of dollars. The assets in downtown Winnip eg clearly do not belong to Winnip eg chool Divi sion No. 1. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 sugge sts that the benefits of all the down town deve lopment belong to them, desp ite the fact that all the citizens of Winnipeg, regardless of school division pay for services to that assessment.

Consistent with the originating legislation in 1971, it is clear that the Winni peg School Division No. 1 in their brief, implies that the Gr eater Winni peg edu cation levy was crisis-motivated, intended to be temporary, and was intended only to balance municipal and educational mill rates during the first three years. This is false. 121

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 Wha t was the int ent of the Gr eater Winnip eg education levy? The Gr eater Winn ipeg Education Levy is a child of Unicit y. The government proposal for urba re-organization in the Gr eater Winnip eg area identified the ra tionale for the succeeding legislatio which created a single municipal corporation and retained ten school divisions within the GreatE Winnip eg area. We quote directly: "The government proposed that partial equalization of the education component of the mill rat must be brought about as follows: 1.

The provincial foundation levy would remain in existence. 2. The present special levy would be subd ivid ed int o two portions; the new Gr eater Winn ipe' Education Levy standard across the whole urban area; and a residual special levy as it is neede1 in each school division. The new Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy would be fixed at a predetermined mill rate, relate1 to per-student costs found in the urban area's school divisions. This rate would be levied in a areas by the new urban council. The money would then be allocated to each school division or a per-student basis.

Thus, the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy would operate within tl1 e metropolitan area in mucl the same manner as the provincial foundation plan does in the province as a whole. The cost of education would thus be spread more fairly across the entire urban area. lt is important to note that the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy is an integral part of the Unicitl legislation. lt is NOT a component of the transitional two-year assistance the province extendec to the new municipality to cushion the effect of municipal mill rate equalization.

Loss of the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy would int ensify the differences that presently exis amongst urban divisions and ultimately would lead to the dissolution of the ten divisions. As a point of information, the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy does not cause dollars to fal on property; it only allocates dollars that need to be raised on property.

For example, if the Foundation Program were used to relieve tax on property in the City of Winn ipeg from $113 million which is the 1979 total urban property levy to $10 million, the dollars to be collected from propert� would still be $10 million whether the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy were applied or not. We have found in our discussions that this reality is not generally und erstood by proponents of property tax relief. The position that the Gr eater Winn ipeg Education Levy is not needed if there is sufficient property tax relief through general revenues is not defensible.

The princip le of the Gr eater Winnip eg Educat ion Levy and its need apply so long as educat ional dollars are to be collected from property. Table 1 shows an analysis of special levy in Transcona-S pringfield School Division with and without Gr eater Winn ipeg Education Levy. lt should be noted from Table 1 that the actual 1978 statistics show that the total Transcona education levy, with the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy, is 54.3 mills and the special levy for 1979 without the Gr eater Winnip eg Educat ion Levy is 86.3 mills for an incr ease of 32 mills.

With the application of the Gr eater Winnip eg Educa tion Levy for 1979, the incr ease is 5.6 mills; a difference of 26.4 mills. lt is obvious that the downtown commercial and busi ness district has a high municipal requirement but a low educational requirement. lt should be equally obvious if every citizen in Winnip eg has an obligation to retire the debt and to pay fully for municipal services, then every citizen of Winnip eg including Transcona has a right to share an asses sment for school purp oses ." For the information of the committee I submit Table I. "It em V.

Considerations and Facts which cannot be ignored when det ermining the need for the greater Winnip eg Education levy. A. The City of Winnip eg -The nature of the urban communit y. The City of Winnip eg is a single municipality with a common municipal mill rate drawn from all the citizens of that corpoaa tion. While the City of Winnip eg is a homogeneous unit for municip al purposes, it is not a homogeneous unit for educational purposes. The City of Winnip eg is divided int o ten school divisions for the purp oses of delivering educational services.

More than half of the assessment for the entire City of Winnip eg for 1978 (a total of $835 million of balanced asses sment or 51 percent) lies in two school divisions, Winnip eg No. 1 and Fort Garry No. 5. In add ition, Winnip eg and Fort Garry have two-thirds of the commercial-industrial asse ssment or $390,456,870 of the total of $580,44,480.00. All other divisions together have only $189,984, 610.00. B.

Inequities created for school divisions within the City of Winnip eg. lt is clear that ten school divisions cannot co-exist if by the accident of geography they inherit assessments that fall within their school divisions. If this were the case, school divisions would have to to into the busi ness of attracting ind ustry into their own divisions. Certainly this approach is contrary to the intent of Unicity which permits ind ustry to be placed where it is best suited without 122

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 malty to any citizen of Winnip eg. If Winnip eg school division reco mmendations were followed, we )Uid have conditions in which nearly two-thirds of the students would have to be supported on tax base of less than one-half of the property assessment of the City of Winnip eg, and ,proximately one-third of the students would be supported by a tax base of more than half of e property asse ssment. By contra st Winnip eg and Fort Garry have the educat ional resp onsibili ty for slightly over one-third the students.

The other two-thirds of the students of the City of Winnip eg, to whom educational lrvices must be delivered live in the broad crescent which includ es Tuxedo, Charle swood, St. lmes-Assiniboia, East Kildonan, West Kildonan, Transcona, Seine River, St. Boniface and St. 1tal. Comparisons will be made to show what inequities exist by virtue of assessm ent and student 1rolment differences amongst divisions. Assessment and Student Enrolment Differences for 1979.

Table 2A shows that Fort Garry No. 5 and River East No. 9 have essentially the same balanced ssessment, $130 ($139) million respect ively, but River East has twice as many students as Fort arry, 12,365 as opposed to 6,691. In Table 28 comparing Winnip eg No. 1 and St. James No. 2, Winnip eg has twice as many students, 4,570 as opposed to 16,680, but has approximately three times the asse ssment, $724 million to 252 million in St. James-Assiniboia. Table 2C shows that while all the divisions shown in this Table with the exception of Ass inib oine outh, have more students than Fort Garry.

Fort Garry has from 50 to 119 percent more asses sment ollars than the divisions listed. The three tables clearly show the imbalance that exists between students to be served and sses sment avai lable to deliver dollars to serve those students. Since all of the people in these ivisions are citizens of Winnip eg and as such are paying to retire the debt and the costs of muni cipal ervices for the whole of the city of Winnip eg, they are entitled to share in the assets of their city x educational purposes. A practical application of what assessment and student enrolment differences can mean is a urrent example.

The city of Winnip eg is planning a 700 acre ind ustrial park on the St. Boniface ide of Dugald Road on the edge of the Transcona-opringfield school School Division. Everyone 1 the city of Winnip eg will pay for municipal services but without urban equalization, only the school livision in which the industrial dev elopment has been placed will benefit. The millions of dollars 1f assessment for which everyone in the municipal urban area is paying will be pocketed in one livision.

To cite a second example, Transcona-S pringfield's bound ary change with Division No. 9 was :hanged by mutual agreement so that the Devonshire Park area which formerly fell in both divisions nay be planned for educational purp oses. Under the bound ary change, the commercial dev elopment last of Lagimodiere Blvd. remains in River East Division No. 9 and all the educa tional requirements )f the area fall into Transcona-Springfield School Division.

The educational arrangement is feasible mder the Gr eater Winnip eg Education levy, but without it such a bound ary change would have neant a severe penalty to the people of Transcona. A third example is the city of Winnip eg 's planned $60 million storm sewer program in the jowntown area. All citizens of Winnip eg will pay for these services, and yet without the Greater Ninnip eg education levy, nine divisions will be denied a rightful share of asses sment for school )urposes.

The proposed Triz ec deve lopment at Portage and Main provides a fourth example of how all �itizens of Winnip eg have a resp onsibil ity to pay. Without the Gr eater Winnip eg education levy, 1owever, only Winnip eg Division No. 1 would share in assessment for educational purp oses. The intent of the Unicity legislation, that dev elopment in the urban community may properly be planned with without respect to internal bound aries, is consistent with the continued application of the Gr eater Winnip eg education levy. C.

Project ions if the Gr eater Winnip eg Education levy is withdrawn. it is quite evident and historically factual that bedroom divisions cannot compete educationally in the urban community. The school divisions provide the human resou rces that staff busi ness and ind ustry elsewhere, but cannot support their educational requirements on the residential tax base within the confines of their own school divisions. Table No. 3 illustrates how the urban divisions fare with and without the Gr eater Winnip eg equalization levy.

Honourable members will note in the table that there's an extraordinary impact for poorer assessed divisions with a larger num ber of stud ents. The effect on Transcona and other divisions of the removal of of the Gr eater Winnip eg education levy would be a disaster. D. The nature of Transcona-Springfield School Division No. 12. Transcona-S pringfield School Division is one of the largest school divisions in the province, by geography larger than the city 123

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 of Winnip eg. We have in Transcona well over 1,000 acres of residential development. Three 250-acr parcels are already und er construction, and the residential deve lopment trend s are towards highe density. We face extraordinary gr owth in the Mun icipality of Springfield, which has primarily a agricultural property base. The nature of the Transcona-S pringfield Community results in high educational requirements an1 low asses sment revenue recovery from property. Transcona carries 75 percent of the property ta base in the Transcona-S pringfield School Division.

Since we are the most vulnerable .of all the urban divisions if the Gr eater Winnip eg Educat iol Levy is withdrawn, it is clear that the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy is central to our abilit to compete as an urban division and to provide the necessary educational services withou extraordinary penalty to the people who live in our Division. We can foresee a considerable pressure on the local levy even with the Gr eater Winn ipe! Education Levy continuing.

For example, the policy of the City of Winnip eg of charging assesse< values for property, the full cost of local improvements for school sites, as well as the spill-ove of capital dev elopment into local revenue all primarily affect the expanding divisions, of whicl Transcona-Springfield is one. In summa ry, so long as ten school divisions co-exist within a single municipal corpora tion, urbar equalization of the educational mill rate is fund amental to fair treatment for all.

Should the presen provincial equalization plan be modified, it is essential to retain the well-considered urban educationa equalization plan of Unicity so that . there is fairness to all the people living in the samE mun icipality. The Relationship of Provincial Equalization to the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy We believe that the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy must be maintained in any further movE to provincial equaliza tion. There is no need to adjust the Greater Winnip eg Education Levy sincE dollars equalized provincially do not fall on urban property.

There is, however, an automatic reductior in the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy for every dollar that is equalized provincially. lt happem automatically. Consid eration of Special Needs in Winnip eg School Division No. 1 If it is assumed that Winnip eg School Division No. 1 has problems because of urban equalization. then Fort Garry No. 5, which has a similarly high balanced assessment per pupil in the urban community, should also have problems. Such is not the case as Fort Garry has only the sixth hig hes1 mill rate of the ten urban divisions.

This suggests that the problems of Winn ipeg No. 1 relate more to the nature and uniq ue cha racteristics of the division. If this is so, then direct assistance to that division is necessary. Removing the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy, quite apart from its being improper and unfair in principle, may help Winnip eg's dollar problem, but it would create survival problems for the other divisions, some falling by the wayside sooner than others, and ultimately leading to the diss olution of the ten divisions.

At a meeting of Metro Chairmen, March 8th, 1979, a motion was passed which ind icated agreement in principle with the need for a Gr eater Winnip eg Equalizat ion Levy. Further to the above, on September 17, 1979, St. James Assiniboia School Division No. 2 issued a letter to the Minister and the news media at large in which they stated the following: "We have read the brief on this topic which was presented by Transcona-Springfield School Division No. 12 and wholly support the continued need for the Gr eate1· Winnip eg Equalization Levy and rec ommend the retention of

section 537(1) of the present Public Schools Act, which covers the Gr eater Winnip eg Equalization Levy.

Summary of Main Points Related to Support of the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy. 1. The Foundation program should continue to be used to collect dollars to provide equalization to the extent that the province can afford to fund their share. 2. Per pupil grants with an assess ment bias to favour the assessm ent-poor school divisions should continue to be used to deliver dollars. 3. The greater Winnip eg Education Levy should be retained since it is fund amental to the equitable co-existence of ten separate school divisions within the single corporation of the City of Winnip eg.

The Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy is automatically reduced in direct proportion to the amount of provincial equalization that takes place i.e. provi ncially equalized dollars do not fall on urban property. 4. All citizens of Winnip eg, regardless of which school division adminis ters their educational needs, pay towards the costs of re tiring the debt of and providing the services to the City of Winnip eg. 5. After the Foundation Levy and the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy are in place, the tax rate for the ten urban divisions is exact exactly the same. 124

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 6. The intent of the Unicity legislation, that dev elopment in the urban community may be properly lanned without respect to internal boundaries, is consistent with the continued application of the ,reater Winnip eg Educational Levy. 7. lt is clear that ten school divisions cannot co-exist within a single Municipal Corporation if y the accident of geography they inherit disproportiona te asses sments relative to the number of tudents they must serve. 8.

Loss of the Gr eater Winnip eg Education Levy would intensify the differences that presently xist amongst urban divisions and ultimately would lead to dissolution of the ten divisions. 9. So long as ten school divisions co-exist within a single Muni cipal Corpora tion, urban qualization of the educational mill rate is fund amental to fair treatment for all. In Conclusion. We are encouraged by the Min ister' s support of the Gr eater Winnip eg Education evy as evidenced by its inclusion in Bill 22,

Section 189 of the proposed Public Schools Act. In the final analysis, we recognize that the pursuit and realization of equal opportunity in education es in many respects with the attitude, the accord, and the initia tive of the school divisions 1emselves. From wher ever advice for change may come, the resp onsibili ty lies with and must be retained 'Y those directly acc ountable to the people, with the government and the school divisions." I present this on behalf of my Chairman, Mr. Quail; on behalf of the Board; Mr s. Deren chuk, iuperintendent of Schools; Mr . Bara niuk, Secretary-Treasurer.

Appendix 'A' attached, if I may, Mr . Chairman. The letter from St. James-Assiniboia, the second lrgest school division in the Province of Manitoba. At a regular meeting of the St. James School Board held on Tuesday, August 21, 1979, Motion :91-79 was passed instructing me to write you in support of the Gr eater Winnip eg Equalization .evy. The City of Winnip eg is a single munic ipality with a common municip al mill rate drawn from 111 the citizens of that corporati on. While the City of Winnip eg is a homogeneous unit for municip al 1urposes, it is not a homogeneous unit for educational purposes.

The City of Winnip eg is divided nto ten school divisions for the purpose of delivering educational services.

More than half of the assessment for the entire City of Winnip eg for 1977 (a total of 875 million lollars of balanced assessment or 52 percent) lies in two school divisions, Winnip eg and Fort Garry. n addit ion, Winnip eg and Fort Garry have two thirds of the commercial/ind ustrial assess ment or )378,400,000 of a total of $568,400,000.00 All other divisions together have only $190 million. lt is clear that ten school divisions cannot co-exist if by the accident of geography they inh erit 1ssess ment that falls within their school divisions.

If this were the case, school divisions would have o go into the busin ess of attracting ind ustry into their own divisions. Certainly this approach is :ontrary to the intent of Unicity which permits ind ustry to be planned where it is best suited without >enalty to any citizen of Winnip eg. Winnip eg and Fort Garry have the educational resp onsibili ty for slightly over one-third of the ;tudents. The other 61.3 percent and approa ching two-thirds of the students of the City of Winnip eg, o whom educational services must be delivered live in the broad crescent which includes Tuxedo, ::: har leswood, St.

James-Assiniboia, East Kildonan, West Kildonan, Transcona, Seine River, St. 3oniface and St. Vital. If Winnip eg No. 1 and St. Ja mes-Assiniboia School Divisions are compared, Winnip eg has twice lS many students, 32,671 as opposed to 15, 714, but has three times the asse ssment, $693 million to $237 million in St. James-Assiniboia. We have read the brief on this topic which was presented by Transcona -Springfield School Division No. 12 and wholly support the continued need for the Greater Winnip eg Equalization Levy and recommend the retention of

Section 537(1) of the pres ent Public Schools Act, which covers the Gr eater Winnip eg Equalization Levy. Yours truly, Ron Johnson, Chairman, on behalf of St. James-Assiniboia with copies to the media and copies to our Secretary-Treasurer, Mr. Baraniuk. Thank you, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Marshal!. Questions? Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: I just have one quest ion, Mr. Chairman. Is this not a good argument for a unified school division in the City of Winnip eg? MR.

MARSHALL: I don't know of anyone who supports the idea, or rejects the opportunity to deliver educational services through ten school divisions. Our position is, though, that if ther e's no equalization we'll either have it right away or we 'll have it pretty soon because without the equalization levy some of the divisions simply can't compete. We're out of busi ness. 125

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 MR. BOYCE: And if that is the case I would support your argument that that would happen there wasn't some method of equalizing. But if ther e were one one division in the City of Winnip e in the multi divisions outsid e of the City of Winnip eg, would not the next logical step for the provi nc to take over the direct adminis tration of the schools? MR.

MARSHALL: Most trustees support the decentralization of the delivery of services and mos of us agree with the opportunity to d.eliver services in the urban community within ten divisions I'm sure that's just about everybody's first choice. But it requi res a response from the Mother o Parliament, the Legislature, in order for that to happen, in my judgment. MR.

BOVCE: While doubtless financing has some impact on where the divisions of the schoa delivery system lie, are ther e some other things besid es the financing itself, which should be buil into the Public Schools Act, to see that it isn' t amalgamated into one big system down the road because of inadvertence or some other process? MR. MARSHALL: The economy is fund amental to education obviously because it's the environmen in which education is suspended. And again that su pport across urban areas is necessary in orde1 for there to be ten school divisions.

Another methodology might be to flood it with provincial dollars, in order to bring this more into balance. Unfortunately the pro vincial dollars simply are not avai lable because und er foundation the province must put up $8.00 for every $2.00 that's drawn on property, and I think that's a realit� we have to face. And it' s fundamental if we are going to have, and if it' s the will of the government to have ten school divisions within the urban community and most educators and most trustees su pport that and I support it, then it' s fund amental to that that this be retained in the present Act. MR.

BOYCE: Well, perhaps I should be clearer in my quest ion, Mr. Marshal!. I would agree that there is no valid reason to have the schools in smaller divisions rather than one big large division and this prese ntation has presented itself to the problem of financing, the proper financing of the sys tem, to support the smaller rather than the larger system, I und erstand that. But my quest ion is, are ther e some other things that we should build into the Act, for example, more flexibility in the types and programs which are offered by the school boards within their divisions and the schools within that divisi on?

MR. MARSHALL: Well, that goes somewhat beyond the scope except perhaps to say that given the dollars that the province spends and the autonomy the division has, that that's a pretty rea sonable balance considering the fact that the province is paying a fairly high percentage. I think the autonomy at the local level is reaso nable in terms of dollar terms. But the problem with one school division of cou rse it would be more bur eaucra tic, it would be more expensive and it will be less receptive to the needs of the local community, and clearly that's opposite to the way that education should be delivered.

So it's not something we aspire to but it's something that could happen by accident even if the funding is not such that the divisions could carry on. MR. BOYCE: Well, isn't there more to delivering educai ion under the aeogis of a local school board than just financing? MR. MARSHALL: There is. My purpose, sir, in addressing this is dealing with the scope of finance and dealing with the base upon which the programs and every thing can be built.

Our concern is that we don 't have an economic condition in which a number of divisions are sitting on a slope in terms of their economic capability because this is where the programs even tually come from. And without getting into what programs should be there and shouldn't be there, our point quite simply is, that we have to have the financial base to begin with. This is the foundation of our division we're talking about; the programs come after that and they're important. But I'm trying to confine our brief to the educa tional quest ion or to the economic ques tion. MR.

BOYCE: 1 und erstand that you are confining yourself to the financing but our task is a little broader than that. 1 was just trying to pick your brain from your experiences as a member of the school board to see if you had an opinion on this - not necessa rily reflecting the opinion of the board but just from your past experience how you see the delivery of educa tion. Assu ming that we can work out this problem of finance, what else should be done for the school board to do 126

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 better job as far as the delivery of educational services in their . community? IR. MARSHALL: Well, I'm reluctant to speak per sonally because that's really not my purpose. lenerally per sonally I have no great complaint with the latitud e that we're given, the direction that re're given and with the opportunity to choose programs, etc., which hopefully respond to the spirations of the community we serve. ,R. BOYCE: Thank you. �R. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Brown. IIR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question only. First of all I would like to thank l1r.

Marshal! for the brief that he has presented to us that gives us a better und erstanding of what he problems really are. But the question that I have of Mr. Marshal! is, I wonder if he is hap py vith the way tha t the boundaries of the school divisions have been set. Is this part of the problem 1r does this not create a problem? iii R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Marshal!. IIIR. MARSHALL: I think the member cites a good point.

I think as long as the boundaries have - not unlike the rural area - have come to be as a result of his torical facts and there are legitimate :ommun ities within the City of Winnip eg and I think the school divisions generally retain those 1istorical facts. There are in our division two communities of Transcona and of Springfield which are distinct rvhich has had a ha ppy marriage for a number of years in the field of education.

If there were any :hange in boundaries, I think that that would certainly be one thing taken into accou nt, but 'undamental to the question we pose here is the retention of those bound aries is dependent on )Ur ability to serve the students and to share in the urban community. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Hanuschak. MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr . Chairman, I would like to hear Mr. Marshall's views or the views of his Board with respect to the

section of The Education Admin istration Act which in dicates that the Education Admin istrative consultants, who, I su ppose, would be the departmental overseers of the clelivery of our education program in Manitoba, will now be political appointees rather than professional individuals appointed via the Civil Service process as they formerly were. Does he see any dangers in that or any appre hension? MR. MARSHALL: Well, I'm not speaking for the board; I'm speaking for myself.

I think that politicians have a role to play and that role is generally policy, and so do the profes sionals and that role is one to execute policy and to base their judgment upon whatever question may be raised, so I su ppose there are pluses and minus es I to both appr oaches depending on what have you. MR. HANUSCHAK: So I take it you make a distinction between policy formulation and the translation of policy into prog ramming. MR. MARSHALL: I'm pretty clear on that. I think it's the function of the elected representative to decide policy. MR.

HANUSCHAK: But you would not consider the education admin istrative consultant as a policy maker but rather one. . . MR. MARSHALL: I would think that his role could be broadly defined by policy and he could work profess ionally within that. I don't have the specifics at hand but I think that certainly is possible. MR. HANUSCHAK: But that would not be a job for a politician to do, to transla te the policy into program, to evaluate the program, to ... MR. MARSHALL: Well, a politician can be a teacher and a teacher can be a trus tee and it depends on what role one is playing.

Even a teacher can be a representative person as well as a divisional 127

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 person, so really, the important thing is for the person to know what their role is and to work withir the confines of that role. MR. HANUSCHAK: Would you want to suggest to the govern ment ... offer some suggestiom as to the qualifications that you woul d like to see such an individual have? In other words, woulc you be satisfied if the only qualification the Education admin istrative consultant had was being a defeated candida te of the political party of the go vernment of the day? MR. MARSHALL: Well, you mean a defeated candida te who is not a pro fessi onal?

MR. HANUSCHAK: No, I'm assu ming that he were not an educationist, well, if he were Mr. Spivak, Mr. Masniuk, Mr . whoever. MR. MARSHALIL: Well, if the role has a fair deg ree of scope, ther e could very well be some arguments for being a person outside of an edu cator but I'd have to determine, you know, what the scope of the role was. I would think that the outside busin ess person wou ld have a broader perspective and the profes sional would have a more intu itive perspective, but aaain, that's a question of judgment. MR.

HANUSCHAK: Yes, with respect to School Finance, I am sure you are aware that ther e is indic ation within The Education Admin istrative Act by more clearly and precisely defining the types of schools for which the Min ister may make regulations regard ing the imposition of user fees, and now he has specifically pointed his finger to public schools, can you see the imposition of user fees upon the pupils and parents in the school system as in some way assisting you in financing education? MR. MARSHALL: 1 think the free education system is fundamental to our system and I'd be prepared to defend that. MR.

HANUSCHAK: You would defend that. MR. MARSHALL: I'd defend that there should not be a user fee under public education. MR. HANUSCHAK: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Marshall, you 'r e the vice-president of the. MR. MARSHALL: Vice -chairman. MR. WALDING: Vice-chairman of the School Board. MR. MARSHALL: Yes. MR. WALDING: Thank you. Does your school board have a policy on the release of public information to members of the public? MR. MARSHALL: Can I refer you to my. MR.

QUAIL: 1 hate to interrupt at this time, but I'd like to clarify for the board that the item that Mr. Walding brings to your attention is under discussion at the board level and we don't wish to respond to that. lt has nothing to do with the brief at this time, and I await your decision on it, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. WALDING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sur e whether that outbur st was justified at such a hearing. 1 was asking a question of broad policy; I didn' t mention any particular specific at all. If Mr.

Marshall feels some particular sensitivity about respo nding to such a question I will not press it, sir. 128

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 IR. MARSHALL: Well now, as the Chairman relates the question is under advisement, as I 1derstand it. May I have a clarification? IR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, is Mr . Marshall telling us that the matter of whether they have a olicy on public information is before the Board? IR. MARSHALL: The matter that you raise, the Chairman says he is going to discuss with his oard. lt's a specific matter. IR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Walding, would you repeat your question once again for clarifi cation for 1embers of the Committee? IR. WALDING: Yes, Mr . Chairman, I'd be very pleased to.

I asked Mr. Marshal! whether the School loard had a policy on the release of pu blic information to members of the public? IR. MARSHALL: I'll let the Chairman respond. IIR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Quail. IIR. QUAIL: Thank you, sir. I'm sorry for the outbr eak but I see ulterior motives that are not our >urpo se to be here. The policy of the Transcona -Springfield School Division is all public business s done in public. We welcome the press, we welcome the members of the Legislative Ass embly, 111e welcome anybody. As far as the policy, I think the policy is very clear in The Municipal Act 1nd The Public Schools Act.

Thank you, sir. III R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyce. III R. BOYCE: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: On a matter of privilege; Mr. Boyce. MR.

BOYCE: This gentleman should be advised he's before a committee of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba and to attribute motives to a member of this Committee is a matter of serious impingement upon parlia mentary privilege and he should be advised that being held in contempt of a Legislative Committee is as serious as being held in contempt of a court, that his knee jerk reaction in anticipation of some future question of a member of this Committee is reprehensible. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1 will take the matter under advisement. I am at the discretion of the members of the Committee, shall we pro ceed? Proceed.

Mr . Walding. MR. WALDING: No further questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Quail. MR. QUAIL: My apologies, Mr. Chairman, I was not aware of this. My apologies to you, Mr. Walding, Mr. Boyce, and to the Committee, if I have offended you. Howe ver, our only intent, sir, is to present our brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Marshal!, Mr. Quail. MR. QUAIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: I call Mr . Gordon of the Manitoba Teachers Society. Could I have your name, Madam, please? MARILYN THOMPSON: Mr. Chairperson, I am not Mr . Gordon. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I noticed that. My list says Mr. Gordon. MS. THOMPS ON: My name is Marilyn Thompson, I'm the President of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I have quite a large delegation with me this afte rnoon. I would like to ind icate who is present. 129

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 With us is John Wiens, the Vice-President of the Manitoba Teachers' Society; Julian Leve sque, th• President of the Educateur Franco -Manitobaine; Terry Clifford, the President of the Winnip e! Teachers' Asso ciation ; Derwyn Davies, the President of the River East Teachers' Associat ion; Joh1 Enns from the MTS staff; Michelle McDonald from the MTS staff; Glen Mc Ruer from the MTS staff Tom Ulrich, MTS staff; Kris Breckman, MTS staff; Lee oage, MTS staff; John Collins, MTS staff and Wally Pind era, our Assistant General Secretary. Mr .

Chairperson, I wonder if it wo uld be possible for five members of the delegation to comE up around the end of the table with me. MR. CHAIRMAN: No problem. We can make chairs available or they can bring their own. There are chair s on the sideline if they so wish. There may be enough chair s there. All the microphone� are hooked into the one system so it shouldn't be any problem. Proceed, Ms Thompson. MS. THOMPSON: Mr. Chair person, Mr. Min ister, members of the standing committee on Privileges and Elections.

The Manitoba Teachers' Society welcomes this opportunity to recommend amendments, raise qu estions, and make comments concern ing Bills 22 and 23 as tabled in the Legisla tive Assembly by the Honourable Keith Cosens, Minister of Education. The propo sed Acts, The Public Schools Act and The Education Admin istration Act have been str eamlined and updated, and the Society commends the Department of Education and the go vernment for their efforts in this regard. We recog nize that this is a very difficult task.

We also note that the committee has a very difficult task in that it is rec eiving a large number of presentat ions, and we realize that you will have to come to grips with a number of conflicting views. We hope, of course, that you will see it in order to supp ort the views that we present. Bills 22 and 23 have received careful consider ation and study by the Society. The changes which are being su bmitted are based on the policies of the Society, which have been determined over a number of years by the provincial council.

The council is composed of the elected representatives of the 12,000 teachers in this province. As such the proposed amendments of the bills may be considered as repres enting the informed opinions of the profess ionals in public school education. The society trusts that the Review Committee will consider the proposals favo urably. I must say, Mr. Chair person, at the outset, that we were rather distr essed to find out that although we had su bmitted our written brief some th ree weeks ago, the committee members have not had an opportunity to read the su bmission in advance of our presenta tion.

I will resist the temptation to read the brief to you, as it is 42 pages in length. I would like to go through it with you, highlighting items and summa rizing our positions. The written brief contains detail and re commended amendments. I trust that you will read the written submi ssion care fully, and I urge you to do so. The fi rst item that I would like to raise this afternoon is the item that deals with sick leave,

section 93(1) of Bill 22, and this is Pages 3 through 7 of our submission. The Manitoba Teachers' Society has propo sed an amendment to

Section 93(1) of Bill 22. We have two areas of concern. lt has been the Society's position that the current Public Schools Act provides annual sick leave benefits as a legislated right, rather than an earned right. Although some school boards have attempted to interpret the legislation to mean that a teacher earns the right to sick leave at the rate of two days a month, to a maximum of 20 days a year, no school board has been prepar ed to take this int erpretation to court. lt has thus become accepted pra ctice that sick leave benefits are presently a right established in law.

The propo sed legislative change is una cceptable to teachers. lt would pose a particular hardship to beginning teachers. The propo sed changes, particularly distressing to teachers, who as profess ionals have demonstrated respon sible utilization of sick leave entitlement. Usage rates for teachers in Manitoba, in the vicinity of 2 percent, are among the lowest of any employee group in the province.

I ask you in your deliberations, to consider Table I on Page 5 and Table 11 on Page 6, and we have provided some data - I'm not going to go through it with you at the moment - based on a survey that we did covering ove r 8,000 teachers in 33 divisions and districts for the 1977-78 school year that will back up the claim that I have just made. Ther e is also an economic concern. Most teachers in the province have ach ieved sick leave coverage of at least 75 days which acc umulates ove r a four year peri od.

As a result of these provisions, most school divisions qualify for a partial Unemployment In surance Commission premium red uction. The Society is requesting that the sick leave provided in Bill 22 be the minimum provisions that are required to establish entitlement to the full UIC premium reduction.

I dr aw to your attention on Page 6 of our submission, the bottom of the page, the net total loss of dollars to school boards and teachers re sulting from Bill 22's provision for partial reduction rather than the full UIC premium reduction, and again I would ask you, at your convenience, if you would take a look at tha t 130

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 The Society th erefore requests that its propo sed amendment to

Section 93(1) of Bill 22, to ncorpo rate provi sions that allow the maximum Unemployment Ins ur ance premium reduction for all ;chool boards in the province be accepted, and you will find our propo sed amendment on Page � of our submission. The next item begins on Page 7, and deals with due process. And this part of the subm ission s contained in Pages 7 through 11. Due process refers to the right of the individual to a fair hearing )Y an impartial Board of Arbitration in cases of dismi ssal. Bill 22 provides that right only after a :eacher has been employed for more than 2 years by a given school division.

A change of employer, :md a teacher forfeits the right of due process until the two year requirement is again met. We believe that a teacher should ha ve the right to require the employer to show just cause in the event of a dism issal. The right to a fair hearing does not guarantee one a job, nor does it protect an incompetent. lt does, however, provide an avenue of appeal against arbi trary, unjust, and capricious dismissal by the employer. We suggest that fair employment practices should apply to all employees, and should not be related to length of service.

The Society believes that the right of due pro cess should be avai lable to all teachers, and we urge the government to amend Bill 22 to provide the right of appeal for all teachers, regardless of their length of service with a given employer. There is a su bstantive change and a sign ificant deletion which concerns the Society and which relates to due process. Sections 24 to 29 of the present Education Department Act which provided for the resolution of disputes between teachers and trus tees, through conciliation or arbitration at the discretion of the Min ister, ha ve been removed.

These sections provided a possible avenue of appeal for non-tenure teachers, an av enue for tho se teachers to bring employers to account for their actions. If the Society's amendment, which would provide for due process for all teachers is not acceptable to the go vernment, the Society would request tha t Sections 24 to 29 of the current Education Department Act be inco rp orated in Bill 22 or 23. I would like to emphasize that we are concerned about the fair treat ment of eloyees, and that such fair treatment should not be related to length of service.

Our concern is for just and fair treatment and I urge you to consider favourably our recommended amendments on this matter. Beginning on Page 11 and running through 13 we have some concerns related to teacher certification. Under current legislation there is provision tor a Discipline Committee which advises the Min ister on request on cases dealing with the suspension or cancellation of certificates. The Society has four representativ es out of a total of 11 on this committee. Bill 23 would replace that discipline committee with a Certification Review Committee.

Our concerns about the Cer tif ication Review Committee are as follows: 1. The reduction of the Society's representation to 2 out of 8 members. The proposed repres entation allows for four representatives to represent employer int erests, representatives of superintendents and trus tees. The Society su bmits that ther e should be an equality of representation from the employee and the employer side. 2. There is no provision for a citizen member. Cu rrently on the Discipline Committee ther e is a citizen representative and the Society believes that this is desirable and should be con tinued. 3.

The bill expands the power of the committee to include, in addition to matters of conduct, matters per taining to teacher competency. The Society does not object to the expansion of the powers of this committee as long as certain principles are incorporated. And I will draw to your attention tho se principles which are on Page 12 of our brief. The last half of Page 12. The principles that we wish to see incorporated:

a) That there be an equality of representation from the employee and the employer side.

b) That the legal rights and protect ions to the teacher involv ed be gr eatly expanded to include not only the right to counsel, but also the right to be present ·at the hearing, to examine and cross-exa mine witnesses, to challenge documentation and the right to sub poena witnesses on his br her own behalf.

c) A teacher whose certifi cate has been suspended or revoked shall have the right to appeal to the Court of Queen 's Bench on the originating motion and the record of such appeal shall consist of all evidence, docu mentary or otherwise, adduced at the hearing, provided, that should the Court be of the opinion that any evidence was improperly admitted it may so rule and exclude such evidence from the hearing. The Court shall have the power to confirm, reverse or modify the sanction imposed by the Review Committee.

The Society, however, does object to the continuation of the power to suspend a teacher's certificate being exercised by an Education Admin istrative Consultant. We do not believe that such a power should be vested in a civil servant. We also suggest that there is a conflict of inte rest as the pro posed structure of the Certification 131

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 Review Committee includes in its membership an Education Adminis trative Consultant. The Society is also concerned that the government fail to establish the Board of Teache Education and Certification as an independent and statutor y body which would have power to certif all teachers, approve programs and requi rements for the cer tification of teachers and make th1 necessary regulations. lt is our position tha t cer tification should not be a power of the Minis te but of a Board as descri bed.

As teachers we are concerned that the bills do not recognize the role of the profes sional ir these areas of decision-making. We urge you to give these matters serious considera tion. Beginning on Page 13 continuing through 16 we would like to make some comments on privati schools. The Manitoba Teachers' Society welcomes the changes that have been made with respect tc tightening control to private schools, but we suggest that the legislation has not gone fa1 enough. The Society supp orts the right of parents to send their childr en to private schools and othe1 alterna te schools.

Howeve r, the parents' freedom of choice should not inte rfere with the child's righ· to an adequate education. We believe that the Minister should have regulatory powers with regarc to the establishment and registration of non-public schools to ensur•3 an acceptable standard ol instruction that is at least equivalent to the public school sys tem. The Society believes that certair standards should be met prior to the establishment of any new pri vate school, and I dr aw your attention to the requirements set out on Page 14 of our submission, and this is at the bottom o1 Page 14.

a) That all teachers in such schools be certified in accordance with the Statutes and Regulations;

b) That the curriculum and standard of education be comparable to that offered by the public schools;

c) That the physical characteristics of schools reflect the health, comfort and safety of all childr en;

d) That all such schools be governed by the same attendance requirements as are stated in law for public schools;

e) That all schools be su bject to ins pection at regular intervals and at the request of the Minister, the school board of the area in which they are located or the authorities of the school. The Society finds the current definition of "priv ate school" inadequate. lt is not the reputable private schools that concern us but rather those schools which cannot qualify as private schools because they do not meet the stand ard as defined. We, therefore, suggest the definition which is at the top of Page 15 of our su bm ssion, and I would dr aw that to your att ention.

We are rec ommending that a private school be defined as follows: "A private school means any school other than a public school attended by childr en of school age in lieu of regular attendance at public schools." The Society also urges that the

Section of Bill 22 tha t provides for the transfer of funds to priv ate schools be deleted. At its 1979 Annual General Meeting the Society adopted a res olution expressing its opposition to the funding of private schools as provided for in

Part IV of Bill 22. The intent of the re solution is a return to the original concept of shared services as legislated by the government of Premier Roblin. Pages 16 through 18 deal with the educational rights of childr en. lt is the Society's contention that Bill 22 does not adequately protect the educational rights of cl1ilcren, especially those who may require special or different programs to meet their needs. We believe that children should have the right to an education that is approp riate to their individual needs.

We suggest tha t there should be the right of appeal gu aranteed to the child and his or her parents when any res triction is imposed with respect to educational placement or program. Bill 22 makes provision for the compulsory attendance of the hand icapped child but does not obligate school divisions to educate childr en in ways appropriate to their needs. The phra se "as far as possible and practicable in the circums tances" seems to ind icate an out, or a loophole, for school districts and divisions so that they will not have to assume res ponsibility for the provision of special programs and/or services.

Opportunity is provided in the bill for childr en to be placed in appropriate programs of other school divisions, but there is no obligation to transport pupils or to provide equ ivalent compensation to the parent for the costs invo lved in this. The Society suggest that as long as school divisions provide schooling for any child they must provide for all. 1 would like to read into the record a statement from the Manit oba Association of Resource Teachers, a special area group affiliated with the Manitoba Teachers' Society.

"The Manitoba Association of Resource Teachers supp orts the Manitoba Teachers' Society in their recommendations to the Minis ter of Education re garding Bill 22,

Section 41(5). The Special 132

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 ducation Review, 1978, indic ated that ther e is an awareness on the Department of Education, the ide disparity among school divisions in their ability to provide appropriate program ming. There no statement in Bill 22 to set new dir ections for solving the problem of large gaps in the training nd av ailability of more qualified person nel.

Resou rce teachers have been working closely with pecial Needs children for a number of years, we ther efore un derstand the vital need for, and the 1gnificance of appropria te educational program ming for Special Needs childr en. Special needs childr en require assistance from well-trained and experienced specialists in order > maximize their abilities. In addition, owing to the flexible nature of resource teacher qualifications t the present time, many resource teachers may require in-service training to help accommoda te pecial needs childr en req uiring ind ividual ized programs.

The Manitoba Teachers' Society believes that the bill would more adequately meet the needs f all Manitoba residents if

Section 41(5) were deleted in its entir ety and

Section 41(4) changed s suggested on Page 16 of our submis sion to read: "Every school board shall provide or make provision for the appropriate education of all resident ,ersons who have the right to attend sch ool." n anticipation of the question, how do school divisions provide for childr en with special needs suggest to you that that is not the issue at hand . We do not ask in connection with other childr en in the system how can we provide an education or them, we do it. We say to you tha t all childr en in this province, childr en of compulsory school tge are req uir ed to attend school.

We sugg est that school divisions must provide an education vhich is appropriate to the needs of all childr en. We advocate this right for all childr en in the )rovince. We have some concerns w ith reference to French education and these are contained on Pages 18 through 20. In June of 1978 the Society presented a brief to the Minister of Education which prop osed a ;eries of legislative amendments to

Section 258 of the current Public Schools Act. Apar t from one >ropo sal none of the propo sed amendments have been incorp orated in Bill 22, and that would be 3ection 79 of Bill 22. The Society would like to ha ve Bill 22 amended to provide for the automatic designation of some ;chools as French language schools and as French immersion schools accord ing to criteria used or the creation or maintenance of English language schools. In addition the Society would like to ;ee an appeal mechanism created acces sible to parents and boards.

The Society feels that this Nould relieve the Mini ster of pressure for personal interventions on his part and make it easier 'or parents to appeal the application made by boards of the relevant sections of the Act. The Society's policy strongly sup ports the principle of accessi bility of French schools by all ;tudents within divisions that offer French lagguage programs or Fre nch immersion programs and also accessi bility to such programs by students from divisions which do not offer such programs. We urge the government to consider our recom mendations reg arding French language education and to amend

Section 79 of Bill 22 to incorporate our recom mendations, and ther e is a series of recommendations contained in the brief for your information. I would like to dr aw to your attention the item on Page 21 in the Appendix and you will notice that ther e is a memorandum at the beginning of our written submi ssion. The Min ister has ind icated to us that he is prepared to sup port the Society's propo sed amendments to the

Section of Bill 23 dealing with school clinicians and we would like to thank the Minister for his reconsideration of this matter and suggest tha t this amendment will take care of the concern that is expressed on Page 21 and also the Appendix which is contained.

Section 3 of our su bmission which begins on Page 22. These are some detailed concerns with regard to both bills. The Society is concerned with potential problems that may arise due to lack of clarity, lack of definition and inconsistencies or contradicti ons. between sections. The question of no interpr etation and misint erpretation arises. In the interest of troub le-free legislation ther efore, the Society urges the committee to consider seriously the questions and concerns which follow: We urge the committee to seek answers to the questions.

We canno t take a position on many of these items until ther e is some clarifica tion. We suggest that only the dr afters of the legislation know what these sections mean. We urge you to consider the concerns on Pages 22 through 26 and I would like to dr aw to your attention just a number of the exales. There are a lot of items here and it' s not my intent to go through all of them. I'd like to draw to your attention on Page 23 item No. 3.

Section 92(5) makes reference to "sch ool years" in the opening paragraph. What is the definition of a "school year"? If a school year runs from September to June, does the

section infer that a teacher enga ged in Jan uary must be in the employ of a school board from January to June and 133

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 then two school years from September to June before being able to dispute a termination - i effect, to be employed for two and one-half years? Or, was "school year" intended to mean year I think that a definition here is rather crucial. Item No. 4.

Section 93(1) refers to "ac tual teaching servic e". What is the definition of "actual and of "tea ching service"?

Section 93(2) ind icates that sickness does not constitute part of actu; teach ing service. What about compassionate leave, leave for jur y duty, leave for Society atta in maternity leave, in-service days, leave to serve on program review committees or other Departmer of Education committees, years on secondment? Obviously we believe that there is some clarificatio needed there. On Page 24, Item No. 6.

Section 97(1)(

j) defines teacher in part by req uiring employment "b a school board under a written contr act in Form 2 of

Schedule D or in any other form appro ve• by the Minis ter under

Section 92". This definition is not consistent with the definition of "teacher in

Section 1(22) in that it requires employment under a prescribed written contract. Is it the Minister' intention to make provision to enforce compliance with these sections which requir es school board: to engage teachers in accordance with the Act and to provide employed teachers with writte1 agreements? When school boards fail to comply as many do in the case of substitute and temporar: teachers they can deprive these teachers of coverage under

Part VIII. Removal of that

section "unde written contract" through to the words "Section 92" would resolve this latter problem and alsc resolve the inconsistency of definition. And again we are asking for some clarification. Item 8, this was raised by somebody earlier today. In

Section 227 of Bill 22, how are "employees' and "pupils" defined? Many people take courses offered by school boards on a part time basi� either in the even ing or the normal school day. Are all of these to be consider ed as "pupils"?' And this is the item that deals with pupils and employees running for election as schoo trus tee. Item 10 on Page 25.

Section 79(3) restricts application to "school divisions"

whereas the previou� provision for use of English or French as langua ges of instruction covered districts as well. Sectior . 79(3) also seems to ind icate that the pupils must be found in a particular school before the provisions would apply. This is not the case in the current Act which makes reference to school dis tricts, school divisio ns or school area. Was it the government's intention to reduce the applicability of English or French as a language of instruction? And again we are asking for some clarification. No. 11. Why has the responsi bility of the Langua ges of Instruction Advisory Committee to advise the Minister of Education been removed from

Section 79(4)?

Section 258(9) of the current legislation provides for the Minis ter's discretion - this is the item dealing with Minister's discretion for fewer pupils - and there is provision in the current Act for English Language Advi sory Committee or the French Language Advi sory Committee to advise the Minister. That's not in the new Act and we'd like to know why. On Page 26, this is in Bill 23.

Section 6(2) provides that an education admin istrative consultant may suspend a teacher 's certificate for incompetency, misconduct and violation of The Education Adminis tration Act, The Public Schools Act and regulations thereto. How is inc ompetency defined? How is misconduct defined? Are these to be ad hoc decisions? Are they su bjective judgments? There is no definition in the Act. Item No. 3 on the same page, page 26. Througho ut the Education Adminis tration Act, the use of "teacher education institution" is consistent and the phrase is also defined.

However, in The Public Schools Act, the phrase sometimes reads "teacher training institution ", and I'v e given you examples where that occurs. We suggest that the phra se "teacher education institution" as defined and used in The Education Administr ation Act be used through out both Acts. 1 guess we would want to know is there any reason why different termino logy is being used. The Society raises these concerns and recommends changes and/or clarification in an effort to forestall potential problems. The Society has raised these matters with the Minister in the spring soon after the tabling of Bills 22 and 23.

We have not to date received any answers or clarification. We believe that it is important that these matters be clarified so that all interested parties will clearly understand the intent. lt is important that this be done prior to the enactment of legislation. Settion Four of our brief which begins on page 27: Some Additional Changes Sought by the Mani toba Teachers' Society.

Section Four of our subm ission deals with a number of matters which have been brought to the gove rnment's atten tion before. In 1978 the Society made a presentation to the Minister of Education re commending amendments to The Public Schools Act and The Education Department Act. The concerns contained in this

section of the Society's submis sion to the Committee have not been included in the prop osed legislation. These are problems that are not going to dis appear. We have brought them to the attention of go vernment in the past, both this and the previous one, and will continue to do so. We suggest that now, while the legislation is being upda ted and revised, tha t now is the time to deal with these concerns. Society urges the gover nment to incorp orate these changes and additi ons to the relevant sections of Bills 22 and 23. I would now like to comment 134

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 >riefly on the eleven items which constitute this section, beginning on page 27. No. 1. Teacher Files. Our concern here is the right to know, the right to know the content of ne's file, and to know when and to whom information is given from the file. We've had discussions 1 the past concerning The Personal In vestigations Act. In the past, we've had correspondence with �r . McGill. Last year we had discussions with representatives of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Ve've been informed that The Personal In vestigations Act was not designed to deal with our oncerns about teacher files. We wo uld urge the go vernment to include the refore, legislation in lill 22 to guarantee teachers the right of access to their files. Item 2 on page 28, Teachers Holding Office of Trustee. The Society is recom mending that

Section :27 of Bill 22 be deleted and this is the

section that reads, "No employee and no pupil shall be 1 trus tee of the School Division or Scho ol District of which he is an employee or a pupil". We ubmit that the decision as to whether or not a teacher should hold the office of trus tee should est with the electorate and not with The Public Schools Act. Item 3, the Rights of Teachers, on page 28 and conti nuing on page 29.

We have a concern hat there should not be the sorts of difficulties that we sometimes experience when we are elected o the provincial executive of the Society or appointed to some of the committees th ereof, to 'articipate fully in the activities of the Society. Many of the commitments that we have require day ime and tha t's not always at our desire.

For example, most government committees that we have epresentation on, many outside bodies that we have representation on, meet in the day time and t is important that the people who are elected by the 12,000 teachers of the province are able o partici pate and it poses a real hardship on teachers from some parts of the province.

If we don't eceive the sort of co-operation we would like to receive from school boards and teachers one >art of the province may not be able to participa te fully and I would like to acknowledge at this ime that we do receive excellent co-operation from many school divisions in the province. But we ind year after year that there are members of our provincial executive who run into real problems rying to fulfil! the sorts of responsibilities that they have been elected to. Item No. 4, the Suspension or Discharge of Teachers. We are asking for an amendment of

Section 10 1(5) to read as follows: "Except as expressly provided in this Part, nothing in this Part affects he right of a school board to suspend or dis char ge a teacher for proper and sufficient cause". rhe amendment would remove the

section "or to transfer a teacher at the dis cretion of the school >oard". This amendment is consistent with our policy on due process. We submit that teachers ;hould have the right to consultation in due process with respect to transfers. Arbitr ary transfer s 1re not in the best interest of teacher s and cer tainly not in the best inter ests of students and >rograms. No. 5, the Consent by School Boards to Certificat ion, and Nos. 6, 7, and 8. These are items :hat deal with collective bargai ning. With reference to item 5, we urge the deletion of

Section 105(3). The Society believes that the determining factor in whether or not a bargaining certificate is granted should be the wishes of the employees involved and should not req uir e the consent of the employer. Item No. 6 deals with the part entitled Strikes Forbidden. The Society urges deletion of

Section 12 0 for these reasons: Teachers in Manitoba are the only teacher s in Canada who are specifica lly denied the right to strike. Secondly, the statement is unne cessar y as the Act lays out the pro cess by which bargaining disputes will be settled and that is through binding arbitration. And thr ee, a definitio n of "strike" as the meaning given to that word in Clause 115 of The Labour Relations Act really has very little releva nce to The Public Schoo ls Act, and we are urging the deletion of that statement. Item 7 deals with the Selection of Chairman by the Chief Justice. This

section is intended to deal with tho se instanc es when the persons nominated by the parties and appointed by the Minister to an arbitration board, are unable to select a chairman. We submit that the Minister who is respo nsible for the adminis tration of this Act should exercise this responsibi lity. lt is our un dersta nding that this is a respo nsi bility exercised by the Minister of Labour in admin istering The Labour Relations Act. And Item 8, Reference of Certain Complaints.

The Society believes that complaints dealing with failure to comply with procedur es under this part of the Act should be dealt with by the board which is respo nsible for the admin istration of that part. Referral of such complaints should not be at the Minister's discre tion. Item 9, which is on page 31, deals with Fines. We would simply bring to your attention that the fines that are listed in the sections that are listed on page 31, were established in 1956 or perhaps even earlier, and they haven't been changed since then.

We note that in The Labour Relations Act, comparable sections did have "Fines" amended and we would suggest that if Fines are going to be included in the Act, that they be upda ted so they have some meaning. Item 10, the Fixing of Retirement Age by School Board. We're asking for an amendment of

Section 135

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 50 of Bill 22 to have added the statement, "nor shall it adversely affect the teacher' s right to pension ". Teachers' pensions are go verned by The Teachers' Pension Act and we believe that should be that Act that determines the teacher's right to a pension, not a statement in The Publi Scho ols Act or the lack of a statement. No. 11 in Bills 22 and 23, I would like to comment briefly on the language of the bills. We ar re commending that these Acts be written in non-sexist language.

The go vernment has undertake an updating of the Public Schools Act and other related Acts. The Society sugge sts that it is als, time to update the Acts in their use of language in keeping up with changes in society and in a attempt to update the Acts so that they are more relevant to the present and to the future. Th Manitoba Teachers' Society recommends that The Public Schools Act and The Educatiot Admin istration Act be written in non-sexist terms. Mr.

Chai rperson, at this time I would like to thank the Government of Manitoba for the opportunit: to present our concerns and suggested amendments to Bills 22 and 23. We do trust that th� committee will give thoughtful consideration to our submis sion. We are prepar ed to discuss thes� changes at greater length if required by the committee. I would say that we are willing to mee as indi viduals or as a group with the committee at any time to explore details of concerns raisec in our subm ission, or proposals contained in any of the other prest3ntations. Mr.

Chai rperson WE would be very pleased to answer any questions that you may have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms Thompson. Any questions of the committee. The HonourablE Member for The Pas. MR. McBRY DE: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson. First of all I'm having a little bit of difficulty, no1 having a chance to read the brief ahead of time and to follow along as you went through it. M} first question is related to the sick leave, the fir st

section in your brief, and a quick glance through it would ind icate that the change you recommended would benefit both the teachers and the taxpayer through the school boards. Am I interpreting that correct and could you explain that more fully, what you are proposing in that sec tion. MS THOMPS ON: Yes, Mr . Chair person, that is the und erstan ding. We are asking for provisions in the Act that would provide for the full unemployment premium red uction.

And, if you look at the chart that is on Page 7, this is based on 1979 rates for 12,000 teachers, you can see the amount of reduction that is av ailable to teachers and boards with a partial reduction which Bill 22 currently provides for and the full reduction that would be possible if our amendment was incorpo rated in the Act. And, if you look at the right hand side of that column where it says "provincial value", and if you look at the

section that is entitled "variance", you will note that based on 1979 rates the net total loss amounts to $156,2 40, of which $91,200 would accrue to the school boards and $65,040 would be av ailable to teachers. MR. McBRYDE: I see the chart, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not sure I un derstand it fully. This, I guess you could call it a savi ng, comes about through the nature of the UIC regulations, is that ... MS THOMPS ON: . . . and the sick leave provisions that are av ailable.

And the propo sal that we have made would provide the minimum requirement for sick leave in order for this full premium reduction to be av ailable to boards and teachers. MR. McBRYDE: Does that minimum requirement mean, like, the day one a teacher started then they would be eligible for their full amount? MS THOMPS ON: That is correct. MR. McBRYDE: The

section on "D ue Proces s", and again I want to see if I un derstand this without having had a chance to fully read the brief. Does the main concern here for due process relate to beginning teachers, teachers that are not yet two-year teachers, and that if you, in fact, haven' t been teaching for two years then your due process is somehow denied. Could you expand on that section? MS THOMPS ONI: That is cer tainly part of the concern.

Howe ver, as I pointed out in the comment that 1 made, teachers forfeit their right of due process when they change employers until they have put in another two years, so you could, in essence' have a teacher who has 10 years experience in one school division who becomes employed in another school division and then has to put in two years of service to the new employer before they are entitled to due pro cess rights. So it would 136

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 tffect both new teachers and teachers who are changing employers. lt'IR. McBRYDE: Mr. Ch airperson , if other members have questions they could pursue them while 'm trying to get fully informed here. lt'IR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. III R. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I was just looking over the list of items here, too. I Nonder if it might be better for the committee if we were to take one item at a time so that any nem bers having questions on one item, before we moved on, otherwise ther e would be a repetition )f members having questions on each one. '-'R.

CHAIRMAN: I'm certainly agreed, Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: I did have a couple of questions on this matter of due process that my colleague had just referred to, if we could perhaps deal with that before we went on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, proceed. MR. WALDING: Ms Thompson. like Mr. McBryde here, I didn't get the brief in advance so I haven 't had a ch ance to read over it. I found a little difficu lty in following it and listening to you at the same time.

As far as due process is concerned for teachers in their first two years, does the Society recognize that there should be some form of probation ary period for a new teacher? MS THOMPSON : I don't think we are arguing with a probation period. Our concern is fair treatment and we are saying that any teacher, regardless of length of time of service, should have a right to, not only request reasons if they are dism issed, but to have tho se reasons judged by an impartial arbitration board. That has nothing to do with the teacher being on probation. MR.

WALDING: Does the Society see two years as being a reasonable probati onary period, or is some other length of time more suitable? MS THOMPSON: I think, Mr. Walding, I am going to defer to one of my colleagues who has had a great deal of experience in this area and ask Mr . John Enns if he would give you some further details on this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. JOHN ENNS: The point at issue here is, of course, one of natural justice to all teachers, and really the matter of probation is a substance apart from what this is asking for. lt is asking for a right to due process for all teachers.

I think that circu mstances have certa inly changed from the time tha t this legislation was originally enacted, insofar as teachers, who are now certificated and come into the marketplace, have four years of preparation for that position and have had considerable work in the classroom with teachers and with childr en in schools preparatory to the initial certifica tion, the interim certificat ion.

And so that in view of the changed circumstance the traditional concept of rights being withheld during a so-called pro bationary period seems to have dr opped away to a very large extent, on the premise that teachers in their prepara tion periods have had considerable oppor tunit y for so-called probati onary experience.

This does not take away the right of school boards to say tha t a teacher in the first year, or first two years, is to be placed on probation so far as employment in· that school division is concerned, but it need not relate dir ectly to their right to due process, that could be something apart from that. MR. WALDING: I see. The next question has to do with a trial program that was in effect about a year or two ago called "Teacher Inductio n." I don't fully un derstand what it means. Did this have some bearing on the introduction of new teachers into the school system?

Can you explain tha t to me and how that would affect this issue. MR. ENNS: The thr ust of that project was to try, or to first of all, I guess, create an awareness tha t the new teacher really does need some assistance to get accustomed to the marketplace; and that the eloyer had some respon sibility to aid in that assistance. I think it is premised on the fact that no matter how go od a teacher preparation program no teacher comes out of that program 137

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 a full-fledged profes sional. We all learn through experience and learning to teach really is a lifelon� pro cess. And,

whereas that pro ject dr ew attention to a very essential part of a teacher 's professiona development - and I might say that certainly the model has not been picked up in detail but i has certainly created an awareness and has genera ted all kinds of other types of activities in schoo divisions and schools for the assistance of new teachers to help them get accustomed to their ne111 jobs - but, I think, again, this is apart from what we are talking about here, the right to natura justice of all individuals in the pro fession. MR. WALDING: I ha ve no further questions on this now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . McBr yde. MR.

McBRYDE: I think that for my benefit you 'll have to fill us in a little bit more. So the question is, the existing situation of a teacher that has been in the same division, as I und erstand it, for two years, and their due process now, or the lack of same, and the situation of a teacher that has changed jobs or has not been in a system two years. What actually is the situation now and how ar teachers affected in both tho se categories and maybe even with some examples of what can take place? MR.

ENNS: Under the present system a teacher, either new to the profession or new to a particular employer, must work for that employer for more than two years in order to have the right to submit reasons given by a school board for terminating the contract of such a teacher to a Board of Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration may hold hearings; both sides may present witne sses; there is provision for cross-exa mination; and the Arbitr ation Board then has the power to rule as to whether or not the reasons given by the school board for the termina tion of the teacher's employment are cause for dism issal.

And the Arbitr ation Board may rule that the reasons giv en are cause for dism issal, in which case the dism issal stands. Or the Arbitr ation Board may rule, subsequent to the hearings, that the reasons given by the Board are not cause for termination, in which case the teacher's contr act is reins tated or the teacher's contract continues. Now, either party may appeal the decision of the Arbitration to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. That that, in very brief terms, is what is happening now. And if I may just expand here.

One of the main reasons, I guess, why the teachers have become very concerned about this is that the new teachers gett ing into the field are really very highly dedica ted well-trained profes sional people.

Sometimes conflicts of one sort or another develop in the first year or the second year and, at the present time, if let's say a particular admin istration finds a person to be at variance with their own concepts of what a teacher should be, then rather than working with the teacher to try to get the best out of that teacher, they too often will do nothing and simply at the end of the year issue a notice of termination and then try their luck next year with a new teacher. This has caused some very real concern.

There appears to be, in a few divisions, a lack of adequate admin istrative and hiring practices that will ensure that the people you hir e, or at least will reduce the likelihood of hiring people that you don't want later on, and we believe that a right to due process will not result in appreciably greater number of arbitrations. There are some very basic checks and balances built into that. But we do believe tha t it will result in better evaluative practices, better admin istrative practices and better hiring practices at local school divisions. MR.

McBRYDE: Is. the Society satisfied with the present arrangement for those teachers who do have their two years in? Or are there problems with tho se? MR. ENNS: The present arrangement appears to be adequa te there. They have a right to a hearing and this does not take away the right of an employer to termina te the contra ct of a person. lt simply says, "Upon termination these people do have a right to a fair hearing by an independent Board of Arbitration", which is what we think is a matter of natural justice which all teachers should have. MS THOMPS ON: Mr. Chai rperson, Mr .

McBryde did ask if we could provide some examples and Mr. Pindera is prepared to do that if ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pi ndera. MR. WALLY PIND ERA: Thank you. In an effort to dispel the possible thought that we're chasing a bogeyman, Mr . Chairman and members of the committee, I have th ree examples of specific cases 138

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 Nhich I think you can appreciate the reason for our concern. No names will be given and no places Nill be given. Teacher A was in her fir st year teaching position. The school board chairman made an mwarranted complaint about uer social life to the superintendent. She was, as a resu lt, placed Jnder considerable pressur e for a few weeks adding to the expected stresses of a first teach ing 10b. Eventually she was told that she was not consider ed suitable to continue in the school in which she was teach ing.

The blanket reason was inability to co-operate with the adminis tration. A series of supporting specifics were given ranging from social activities to chewing gum and all in turn were withdr awn or indefensible. Never theless, the board decided that as she could no longer remain in her particular school and no transfer was open, she would have to be fired unless she first res igned. She re signed out of fear of having the stigma of being fired on her record and this is not 1878, this is in the late 1970s.

Teacher B was a teacher with a number of years of experience who moved to another division to take up the position of principal in a school in a small community. He inherited some problems from the pr evious ad ministration. In dealing with them he antagon ized some community and staff members. Rumours of this antagonism reached the superintendent. Despite the principal having had only seven months to settle into his new jobs, the superintendent told him that he had a "gut feeling ", things weren 't going to work out and gave him the choice of res igning or getting fired. This was in March.

There was no formal evaluation and no appeal. The principal resigned out of fear of having the stigma of being fired on his record , and this was not 1878, it was in the late 1970s. Teacher C had about eight years teach ing experience when he began employment with a new school division. He felt that the students needed more challenging instruction than they were used to and suggested a num ber of changes that were not popular with some of the older staff members. He antagoniz ed a few un cooperative students wh ose parents were influential community members.

For the final few months of his first year he took ove r, at the principal's request, a particular difficult class and ran it satisfac torily. All his formal evaluation indic ated a satisfactory level of work. At the end of his second year he was told to resign or be fired. His tea ching did not appear to be the main reason. The main reason appear ed to be connected with his opinions about education, yet without an av enue of appeal ther e was no way to que stion this. Teacher C resigned out of fear of having the stigma of being fired on his record .

And again, gentlemen, this was not 1878, it was in the late 1970s. lt may very well be had these teachers had an opportunity to question, or at least have brought into question the rat ionale or the reason for dis missal, that the y'd still be teaching in these positions. lt may very well be that if these teachers had the right to question, it may have been found that there was sufficient evidence to ind icate that the reasons given for termina tion were, in fact, appropriate and cause for termination, but we'll never know because ther e was no avenue of appeal for these thr ee teachers. MR.

McBRYDE: lt appears from that that it seems that a new teacher or a teacher who changes division would be very unwise to rock the boat for at least two years. And that also restricts the education as well as inter feres with the rights of that particul ar teacher. I'm just trying to check here. Are you recom mending that the due process then start on Day One? Is that the recom mendation? MS THOMPSON: Mr. Chair person, that is correct. MR. McBRYDE: Then I have no other questions on that sect ion, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll move on then to another sect ion. Mr. Walding. MR.

WALDING: On the matter of a cer tification, Mr.-Chairman, would you run over it for me again the present syst em and the changes that are involved in representation on the committee? MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Thompson. MR. WALDING: And your concerns with the change? MS THOMPS ON: Mr. Chairperson, as I mentioned, currently there is provision in legislation for what is called a "discipline committee" which does advise the Minister at his request on cases that are brought to his attention dealing with the suspension or cancellation of certificates. This is a representative group.

There are currently eleven people making up this body and the Society 139

has four representatives. Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 The concern that we have in this area is two fold. With the new committee which is pro posed and is referred to as the "certification review committee" - and this is in Bill 23 - our representation has been reduced at the same time that the powers of this committee have been expanded. And we're very concerned.

We haven't had any explanation as to why our representation has been reduced and we're concerned that with the expansion of this committee to advise on matters dealing with teacher competency, which was not in its realm before, that we have at least equal representation to people on that.commi ttee who represent employer interests, and that would be superintendents and trus tees. Those are the two main concerns.

I guess the other concern is .the fact that the educational admin istrative consultants have a power to suspend certifi cates which we believe they should not have and at the same time that they have that power they're entitl ed to representation on the "certification review committee", and we do see a conflict of interest there. MR. WALDING: You mention it' s 11 to 4 under the present arrangement and it' s going to what? MS THOMPSON: Two out of eight is what is pro posed at the present time. MR.

WALDING: And you have had no explanation as to why your representation has been reduced on a board with more respo nsib ilities than before? MS THOMPSON: No. Mr. Chairperson, that is correct. We don't know why. MR. WALDING: You mention the educational - what was the new expression for ... ? MS THOMPSON: Mr. Chairperson, I believe it is educational admin istrative consultant? That is the terminolo gy, Mr . Chairperson, that's in the bill. MR. WALDING: Did the former inspector have the same right to suspend a teacher's certificate the way that this new person has? MS THOMPSON: Mr. Chairperson, I would defer to Mr.

Enns on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. ENNS: The former inspectors did have a right to suspend a teacher's certificate. However, 1 think it needs to be noted that with the expansion of the powers of this committee to include competency as well as conduct, that the proportion of the consultant's input is certainly enhanced, and we are very concerned about that kind of a participation of the civil servant. MR. WALDING: Thank you for that information.

A qu estion was raised last night with a different delegation about the necessary steps and the necessary time for a teacher to obtain certification in the first place. We didn't get a firm answer as to what is necessary and how long it takes. This had to do with the certification of priv ate school teachers as well, b·r the way. Could you tell us what that procedure and the time limit is, please? MS THOMPSON: Mr. Chairperson, again I will defer to Mr. Enns who has been working in this area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. ENNS: I'm wondering if Mr. Walding could clarify his concern a little further.

Are you concerned about certification of private teachers teaching in priv ate schools or in public schools? MR. WALDING: 1 was concerned about teachers in private schools. We have heard that it will be necessary in the future for all teachers to have certifica tion. The question was raised as to how many teachers we're talking about and will they be gr anted certification, or how much time they will be gr anted to obtain this certification, and what moves or what courses they will have to undertake in order to get certification?

And the question that arises from that of course, are we treating teachers in the public school system different from tho se in the priv ate school sys tem? 140

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 IR. ENNS: At the present time, or I should say until September, 1979, it was possible for teachers > receive a tea ching certificate following three years of post-high school education including at 1ast one year of teacher education. And all of tho se who were in such a th ree-year program are oing to be permitted to complete certification requirements on tha t basis.

But beginning September I 1979, all teachers entering a teacher education program will be required to complete four years I post-high school education including at least one year of teacher education before they become ligible for certifica tion. So I think it's May of 1981 - or after May of 1981, there wi ll be no tea ching certificate issued > teachers who have less than the four-year minimum requirement preparation.

Now this wi ll apply, of course, to teachers in the public school and as far as teachers in the rivate school are concerned, there is no req uir ement for certification at all for teachers in the priv ate chool. There is, as a result of recent changes in legislation or regulation, a provision whereby certain ublic moneys are av ailable to priv ate schools provided the private schools meet certain conditions, nd one of tho se conditi ons is, that the teachers in that school possess a valid teaching ertificate.

Now, for priv ate schools who want to qualify for that assistance the teachers are going to have ) have, or meet the same certification requirements that public school teachers do. Howev er, for rivate schools who are not party to that shared services provision, there is no stipulation that 1eir teachers must possess a teaching certificate. As a matter of fact, there are many examples 1here teachers in such priv ate schools do not qualify for a Manitoba teaching certificate.

There was a special provision operative last spring that applied only to teachers in private schools, 1 existing private schools, and teachers who were already on staff in pr ivate schools as of last pring. In order for their schools to qualify for the shared services assistance, the Department of ducation made some special provision to permit the teachers in such schools who were not certified ) complete five education courses offered by the Faculty of Education.

These were not comparable ) the certification year provision that other teachers get, but it was a special provision for one roup of teachers, and I'm not sure how many were involved in that, but a relatively small number, am told. But that special provision ended as at the end of July, I believe. !R. WALDING: Are you telling me then there are some teachers who have certifiation by a special ,revision at a lower level than all of the other teachers? !R.

ENNS: The concern, I guess, that arises, is whether or not this is a service or a disservice :> such teachers, because they will be issued a tea ching certificate by the province, and I guess : will be a valid teaching certificate in the province. But the concern is that if these teachers would 1ant to go to teach in another province, or if these teachers wanted to embark on gr aduate work 1t the un iversities, even in this province, there is a very gr ave question as to whether or not the 'Ve courses which they are taking will be accepted as an equivalent of the certification year.

The 'acuity of Education says, very vehemently, that this is not the equivalent of the certification ear. IIR. WALDING: Then to follow that one step further, the special provision that you menti oned has 10w ended. I presume that there are still some teachers within priv ate schools wanting public 1ssistance who have not yet certified , so even within the priv ate schools you ha ve two different avels of teachers, the special provision certified and the un certified non-special provision teachers. Vould that be accurate? IIR.

ENNS: Any teachers hir ed by priv ate schools who wanted to qualify for the shared services vould have to hire teachers who had a valid tea ching certificate. III R. WALDING: That's from now on. III R. ENNS: As of last September. III R. WALDING: What about teachers who were already on the staff with them? III R.

ENNS: Teachers who were already on staff, there would certainly be no no n-certificated eachers on that staff any more, but there would certainly be two levels of certifica tion, one level )f people who had come through the regular teacher preparation program and received a certificate, :md the other who are going to be completing this special provision program of five courses and 141

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 be issued a certificate based on that. As far as the certificate is concerned in Manitoba, Mr. Cha irperson, I think perhaps ther e would not be a distinction. MR. WALDING: I don't think I have any further questions on this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hanuschak. MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Chairrnan, I would like to ask Ms Thompson whether she is aware of political appoint ees in any other area of operations of go vernment having the power to send people to jail if they fail to comply with wh atever that political hack requests the individual to do? MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Thompson.

MS THOMPSON: Mr. Chai rperson, I wonder if I could have some clarification on that question? You say "other". Other than whom? MR. HANUSCHAK: I'd be happy to. In our sys tem, Mr. Chairman, ther e are many individuals who have the power to limit, curtail, rights and privileges of individuals, civil servants appointed through the normal Civil Service machine. We. have health insp ectors, we have police officers, we have customs officers, just to mention a few.

And if any of those indi viduals make a certain request of you or of me and if we fail to comply, then we have committed an offence for which we may be convic ted and fined or imprisoned. But these are people appointed through some employing process, such as the Civil Service Commission, or I suppose in some other public agencies through another method. But nevertheless, they are appointed strictly on the basis of their experience and qu alifications.

Here, in this instance, the education adminis trative consultants, we don't know what their qualifications will be, will have to be, they'll be appointed by Cabinet, strictly political appointments, on whose reco mmendation we do not know, whether that of the Minister of Education or that of the Minister in char ge of the pork barrel, because I'm sur e that both ha ve lineups of applicants looking for appointments at their door, and these individuals have the power in various sections of The Public Schools Act, to take action against teachers, to take action against the ordina ry man in the street.

And if you fail to comply, you can be put in jail. Do you suppor t that particular

section of the bill in giving indi viduals of that type, appointed in that manner, that broad a power? MS THOM PSON: Mr. Chair person, with regard to the first part of the question prior to the clarification, it would be very presumptuous of me to pretend that I had a full und erstan ding of government. I have been trying for some time to figure out some of the inner workings of government so tha t we might be successful in some of our ende avours. I wouldn't want to comment about whether it's possible in other areas for this to happen.

I gu ess what I would say is that we would have a concern about any sorts of political appointments. We would certainly suppor t the best qualified people having positions and I don't think political appointments are unique to any one govern ment. I would also say that we have some concerns about the powers which appear to be vested in the educational admin istrative consultants, and I think that's sometllin�J that we will be monitoring very carefu lly as this develops and we may be back. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Cosens. MR. COSENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me express my appreciation to Ms Thompson and her colleagues for a very comprehensive presentat ion, and as usual they have done their homework very well. I wonder, Ms Thompson, if you 'r e aware that in the employing of people by the govern ment, that the Civil Service Act applies in this employing proced ur e up to a particular level of salar y? The hiring of a person beyond a particular level req uir es an Order -in-Council. lt must be done by the Lieutenant Governor -in-Council.

In the matter of education adminis trative consultants, it was the opinion of the dr afters of the bill that they might fall into this category above that particular salary level. Now, the latest information we have received would ind icate that the said persons, the education admin istrative consultants, do not reach that particular salar y level. There's been an amendment in The Civil Service Act a few years ago that raised that particular level, hence the necessity for that particular

section in the Act no longer really exists. I would suggest a redraf ting will take that into considera tion. I'd ask you if you are aware of that? 142

Priv ileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairp erson, through you to the Minister, no, I have been made aware of a number of things in the last two days while I have been sitting here, and I think I ind icated that our concern would be that we have the best qualified people in these positions, and our concern would be rather with the respon sibilities, I think, given to these people, rather than how they get their positions. MR. COSENS: Well, Ms Thompson, in all respect, you needn't apologize, because the Member for Burro ws wasn't aware of it, either. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr . Hanuschak. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chairman, one or two general questions. From time to time the Manitoba Teachers' Society has expr essed comment on education finance. In fact, it's played a very active role in attempting to advise many go vernments as to its - or attempt to prop ose its suggestions with respect to education finance.

Now, in one of the bills before us, namely the Education Adminis tration Act, in the pro cess of making a slight revision we now have a point clarified that public schools are one of the categories of schools to which user fees may apply, that the Minis ter may make regulations gove rning the imposition of fees and charges in the public school sys tem. He may also make regulations with respect to other matters, but I'll ask about that later.

But my question to you, Ms Thompson, is, what is the position or the attitude of the Teachers' Society toward legislation that appears to open the door to make it permissible for the Minister to impose user fees upon the pupils in our school syste m. MS. THOMPS ON: Mr . Chairp erson, having been here for some time, I suspected I might be asked this question. Everybody else has been asked. We would be opposed to user fees for public school education, Mr. Chai rperson. Our position is that childr en have a right to education, and the state has an obligation to provide that education. MR.

HANUSCHAK: Has the Teachers' Society any concern about some of the other portions of that same

section of the bill, namely 4(1)(

e) which will allow the Minister to make regulations, designating the groups, kinds, classes or types, and please don't ask me what the difference is between a group and a kind and a class and a type, that I don't know, but there are those four categories and he may designa te these four groups, kin ds, etc., of person to be admitted as pupils therein. And again, that refers to public schools in addition to the other categories of schools. Does this raise any concerns in the colletive mind of the Teachers' Society. MR. THOMPS ON: Mr .

Chai rperson, I think it might if we clearly under stood what was intended here. I have to admit that this was not one of the items that we gave a great deal of considera tion. These Acts are very compr ehensive, as you know, and every time you read them through one more time, you see something you didn' t see the time before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cosens. MR. COSENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms Thompson, could I refer back to

Section 48(1)(x). I know that we are moving around here over a variety of topics and it probably is due to the comprehensive nature of your brief in part. Could I ask you at this time that if 48(1)(

x) did not appear in the dr aft of The Public Schools Act, would this create any hardship in your view? MS THOMPSON: Mr. Chairperson, through you to the Minister, it would be my opinion that if that was omitted, it wouldn't, in practice, have any effect, on the understa nding that there were no alterations to

Part VIII which deals with collective bargai ning. MR. COSENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: I wanted to move on to

Part IV of the brief now having to do with Priv ate Schools, if I may, and ask a question about the five recommended requirements on Page 14, having to do with certification, standard of education, physical characteristics, etc., where you say that there should be some parity between the priv ate schools and the public schools. Given that you are recom mending that they should be so similar, or almost equal, wou ld the Society have any objection to priv ate schools receiving funding at the same per student rate as the public schools, namely 143

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 about $2,000 a year, as opposed to the present $350-something a year? MS THOMPS ON: Mr. Chairperson, I think our position at the moment on that is clear, in that we are advocat ing a return to the legislation as it was before, when we dealt with a shared services concept as opposed to funds being actually trans ferred to priv ate schools. That is our current position. MR.

WALDING: Can I then ask you, .given that declining enrolment is causing so many problems for school divisions with reduction of services and layoff of teachers, closing schools, etc., etc.; given also that the purchasing power of the Provincial Grants to Education this year actually sho ws a decrease, yet on the other hand, the government has doub led the amount of funding to priv ate schools; given also that the priv ate schools cater to some 8,000 children and the public schools to maybe 200,000, does the Manitoba Teachers' Society agree with the pri orities involved in those two areas? MS THOMPSON: Mr.

Chairperson, our priority obviously is the public school system and we are very dis tressed at times, as the government is aware, that there isn't money for some of the things that we believe are essential in the public schools. And I would just use as the example the problems that we had with Bill 58 and the present problem in trying to get some gua rantee of the right of childr en who do have special needs and require special teachers and special programs, the lack of resources that is being made available for that to happen. MR. WALDING: Yes, I'd like to come to that in a moment.

I just have one further question under the area of private schools. A delegation last night suggested to us that enrolment in private schools was a very cyclical thing and presently it is on the upswing but he thought that it would moderate and go back because this is a his torical situation. I asked him whether the present upswing is being reinfo rced by declining enrolment since these cycles have occurred in the past during times of increasing enrolment. He didn't think so. Does the Society have an opinion on this; do you think that is so? MS THOMPSON: Mr.

Chairperson, that would be a judgment and that's all it would be, I don't know. MR. WALDING: Thank you. I have no more questions on priv ate schools, I have a couple on education rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. WALDING: We have heard several brie fs on special education, if I can term it as that, with suggestions that there are two parallel programs in effect at the moment, one for high inciden ce-low cost and one for low incidence-high cost. Can the Society report to the committee as to how tho se two programs are progres sing?

Are they progressing satisfactorily; could the effects of Bill 58 now be put into effect. MS THOMPSON: Mr. Chairperson, I'm going to defer at this time t0 Mr. Kris Breckman, from our staff, who has been inv olved in the development of our policy in this area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Sir. MR. KRIS BRECKMAN: Perhaps we need to just take a moment to clarify, or be certain that everyone knows what is referred to in terms of high incidence and low cost students and the low incidence and high cost students. When we talk about low incidence-high cost cases we're talking about children that have quite serious handicaps.

Now, your question related to how effectively are these programs opera ting. I think perhaps one base for looking at this would be on the basis of data that the department itself has generated; and in terms of looking at the low incidence-high cost student, by and large, there is a fair amount being done for tho se children.

And in the other area, though, of the high incid ence-low cost sort of student, this would be the person that might have an emotional problem, it might be a learning disabil ity, it could be any one of a host of differe nt kinds of problems that basically involves some additional help to what the normal teacher can provide in the classroom, and it is in this area where we have our gr eatest concern, that there are rather massive un met needs on the part of students in these categories.

And it's along these lines where we hope tha t a tightening up of the particular legislation would make it a heavier responsi bility 144

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 to see that the needs of tho se childr en are met. MR. WALDING: Are you in a position to give a reason why these needs are not being met; is it lack of funds, lack of personnel, lack of a commitment on the part of either the department or school boards, just what is the cause of it? MR. BRECKMAN: I think a lot of that has to be sort of speculative and I am sure it is all of the things that you've mentioned and in differing proportions.

I think that maybe to put it in a little bit of a perspective, that there has been an increase in awareness in recent years about the immensity of the problem and of the potential for doing something about the childr en with these different kinds of needs. And certainly our concern, and we've expressed this concern to gover nment over the past several years, has been one about provi ding both monetary kinds of resources to help to provide the changes in facilities, the kind of upgrading of staff, and basically the kind of support staff that is needed to deal adequately with these children. MR.

WALDING: Just one more question on that. As far as this group of high incidenc e-low cost children are concerned is it the Society 's view that the children should be screened by experts in order to find out these problems, or should the initial identification or noticing these children be done by teachers in the schools; and if the latter are teachers capable of doing this. MR. BRECKMAN: The Society has a fairly extensive brief on this whole area of special needs children and there's a

section that deals with this matter of identi fication of students with special needs. Regardless of how you might approach this theoretically the simple fact is that most of the childr en with special needs are identified by their regular classroom teachers. They quickly become apparent in the tea ching situation. Now, the department has over the past few years initia ted a scree ning program for childr en with problems of hearing and sight and this has helped to unco ver a number of problems.

So, the Society policy on this suggests that there should be a systematic . screening procedure that would get at these rather obvious and sometimes - well always serious problems - but, that in addition there is a reco gnition that many of the childr en would be identified through the classroom teacher. So it's a kind of a shared responsi bility on the part of the professional and - well always the professional - but the system as a whole and the ind ividual teacher. Well, I'l l stop at that point. MR. WALDING: Are you satisfied that teachers have the necessary expertise and training to spot these cases? MR.

BRECKMAN: I was going to go on to deal with that second part of your question. Okay, I think that we have stated on several occasions, through briefs to the Depar tment, that we are concerned about the training of teachers in this regard . There has been a gr eat deal done over the last few years that has helped to increase pro fessional awareness of the problems, and a number of teachers have been involved in workshops that have helped to develop these skills.

But, I think that a fair answer to your question would be that there is a continuing need in this area; things are impr oving but there's a conti nuing need. MR. WALDING: Thank you. I have no more questions on this topic. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Boyce. MR. BOVCE: I'm sorry I was out of the room for a while, Mr. Cbairman. First of all, I appreciated the President's comments relative to timing in receiving the brief, but the committee did not exist until yesterday ... Well we existed on paper. Until it has its first meeting and organiz es it the committee, as such ...

I'm not offering excuses. lt is regrettable that the process isn't upda ted to take care of such problems; because it is a problem, sitting here trying to absorb all these points which were well taken is most difficult. With reference to the sick leave, I have no questions but I will just comment that I have heard the arguments and will be considering it, and our recommendations as far as the report to the Leg islature is concerned. Briefly, to go back a bit if I may, on this due process. I was just wondering, in listening to Mr.

Pindera's comments, there are many cases, though, that are still solved without going through the formal pro cess, are there not? I'm not thinking just of the people without tenure, the total pro cess. While it is in the statute, and the pro cesses are established, there are many cases which never 145

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 reach that process, is dealt with by the Table officers, by the staff of the Society and ... Is that not still the case? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pindera. MR. PINDER A: Mr. Chairman, yes, in the large majority of cases there's never a dispute. Termination takes place amicably on both sides. MR. BOYCE: So, really what you are asking for is for this to be put in statute some way for the few cases where it may be necessary to have it, not as a club to be used on every incident, is that ... ? MR. PINDER A: Exactly. MR.

BOYCE: With reference to the question of cer tification. You may have heard earlier my comments relative to another brief that the teachers in the Province of Manitoba, in many people's opinio ns, have become profes sionali zed over the last 20 years. To resolve this problem what is the position of the Manitoba Teachers' Society toward the suggestion that a parallel be constructed similar to that which is used in the professions of law and medicine? MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Thompson. MS THOMPSON: Mr. Cha irperson, I would like a little more clarification in terms of what he means by paral lel. MR.

BOYCE: Well, where you have one body that is re sponsible for certification in the College of Physicians and Sur geons, and you have another organization which takes care of the organizational needs of the profes sional pro viding the service. MS THOMPSON : Mr. Cha irperson, we're not contemplating at present any split in our organization and I guess we don't shar e the concern that Mr. Boyce does.

We will be present ing, hopefully very soon, our proposed profes sional bill to the Minister for discussion, that I don't really feel at liberty to say very much about that until we have had a chance to present it to him for his consideration. I think, Mr. Enns might want to add something to my comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR.

ENNS: Further to the President's comments, I think it should be noted that the Society's policy does not advocate that teachers alone should have the sole power of certifying teacher s for work in the public schools, that this should be the role of a representative committee that we refer to as a certification committee; and a proposal to this effect has been made to the Minister on previous occas ions. 1 think that with tha t kind of an appr oach that it would sort of obviate the consideration of two kinds of organizations; one to do the welfare job and the other to do the certification job. MR.

BOYCE: In the dying days there was a copy of a Private Member's Reso lution, to which was appended some suggestions as to the ra tionalization of provision of profess ional services in the public interest in the Province of Manitoba. Has the Manitoba Teachers' Society had an opportu nity to review tho se recommendations? MS THOMPS ON: I'll defer to Mr. Pindera on this, Mr. Chair person . MR. PINDE: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Boyce, with great difficulty, we finally go t ahold of a copy of such a report in the recent last few weeks.

We have not yet had a chance to study its implications, or its ramifications. I think I would also add that as an organization, and this may answer Mr.

Boyce's earlier question in part, that we have looked at the concept of two organizations, parallel organizations, one for "professi onal matters" and one for "welfare matters" or self-interest matters, and basically have rejected that model for an organization as being outdated in 1979, 19 80, or wherever we're at. lt developed some 10 0 years ago through the legal profess ion, through the medical profess ion, when in fact these professions set their own fees without reference to either group, either the public or anyone else, and then the public in terest was served by their organization in terms of profes sional matters.

Now, even today that model may be outmoded in itself. I'm not 146

Privileges and Elections Tuesday, October 23, 1979 sure. But as a teachers' organization we looked at, and rejected the two model concepts.

With reference to the specific report, once we became aware of its existence and the suggested legislation, we finally go t ahold of a copy of it but we're not sure whether it was intended that it apply to our profession or not. lt's not very clear in that particular legislation, and I'm really not sure who to go to to determine whether it should or it sho uldn't because the committee and the pers onnel, in drafting that particular report, have long since disappeardisappeared. We're not even aware of its status with the current government or anybody else. MR. BOYCE: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps that resolution will provoke some discussion. I have to cringe when it is mentioned that they just go t the report because I will publicly confess that I had undertaken to provide you a copy and then promptly left town for six weeks. But I just wondered if you did have an opportunity to .. . Mr . Chairman, that's to reinforce what you've probably already said anyway. MR. PINDE: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Boyce, with gr eat difficulty, we finally got ahold of a copy of such a report in the recent last few weeks. We have not yet had a chance to study its implications, or its ramifications.

I think I would also add that as an organization, and this may answer Mr . Boyce's earlier question in part, that we have looked at the concept of two organizations, parallel organizations, one for "professional matters" and one for

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-pe5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf pe5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	32c218fa11e751de7060118ed116c246d1114764

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