Manitoba Committee Hansard — 22 October 1979 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 2, 31st Legislature, 3rd Session)

31-3-pe2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Chairman Mr. J. Wally McKenzie Constituency of Roblin Monday, October 22,1979 2:00P.M. Office of the Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba • I I I I

'ime: 2:00 p.m. Hearing Of The Standing Committee On Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 ;HAIRMAN, Mr. J. Wally McKenzie. III R. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Spivak, please. Are you ready to proceed, Mrs. Spivak? And does the �onourable Memb er for St. Vital wish to speak? VIR. WALDING: I'm finished, Mr. Chairman. VIR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Then the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. BOYCE: Wel l, first of all, through you, Mr.

Chairman, I wish to agree with one of the positions of the School Board in that it seems rather ludicrous that Crown agencies are required to borrow money and pay interest .on moneys which they are due. The only reason that I've been able to find out is all Ministers of Finance have saidnno, because I think it's just administrative changes that moneys which are either col lected or legislated for expenditures shou ld flow so that this is prevented. But, a specific question, Mrs. Spivak.

When the Unicity bill was brought forth it was pointed out at that time that the anomalies which you mention as far as the differing tax rates that would occur, and it has been exacerba ted by the inflation which dou btless has put it more out of whack. But in mentioning, you know, such things as the needs of one division over another relative to such things as Special Educa tion, is it not the case that in Winnipeg No. 1, there are many additional costs. I think in last year's budg et they included a million dollars as a special grant to somewhat alleviate this situation.

But where people come to the city because they have not just special educational needs but medical needs, that many people are in this School Board No. 1 because of needs other than the educational syst em, but which places them physically there, which puts further demands on the syste m. I'm thinking about one specific problem that I have seen precious little attention paid is the migration of the native people.

And in reading recently that there is a movement to put the clock back somewhat in where the Federal Government had made arrangements with school divisions to close down the old Indian resident schools as we knew them in prior generations, that these are now coming back and there is pressure to bring them back in existence. So in this overall financing of education, is there any attempt made to rationalize the overall cost of education as far as legitimate demands on the federal purse, the provincial purse, and the municipal purse, or the School Division purse? If I may, Mr.

Chairman , if people suggest that there is a ratio of 80 percent provincial and 20 percent local levy ... We've heard much of that in the past but I have seen very little mentioned as far as the division of the financing in the 1980s to reflect the change in the whole country. For example, the migration of our population's east and west with some of the economic things that are taking place. You mentioned the advisory committee on educational finance. May I, through you, Mr. Chairman, ask the minister, did we get a copy of that? MR. COSENS: Yes, there's no problem with that, Mr. Chairman. MR.

BOYCE: No, I think we did get a copy of it, didn't we? MR. COSENS: I don't think you've had the latest recommendation. MR. BOYCE: From your reco llection, Mrs. Spivak, was there any attention paid to this matter of which I speak? 31

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Spivak. MRS. SPIVAK: Yes. Ali i can recollect, and my understanding of what that committee reco mmendE comes through the press release, is that they did reco mmend an equalizing formula througho the whole province. I am not so sure that they took into account the various contributions whi< the federal, provincial and municipal levels might contribute to education. But, Mr.

Boyce, if I ma you did mention that the one million dollar grant which, of course, it's an inner-city grant whic is given to the Winnipeg School Division, I think in recog nition of some of the inequiti es of tt Greater Winnipeg Education Levy but it does pale when you think of $37 million over a period c some years and one million each year. You know, the one million dollar inner-city grant is stretche beyond all reason in terms of attempting to make up the kinds of things you talk about.

And, also, if I may, the City of Winnipeg Treasurer who is a great suppor ter of ours it seem: unknowingly talks about the problems of assessment which, I think, is what we were directly talkin about here and he says, "The more assessable property a school division has the richer it i determined to be" and completely ignored , and I think that's what you are referring to, are th encumbrances against that assessable property or the tax load that is already being carried b the property owners in divisions within larger municipalities of much more extensive municipc: requirements and more costly special needs of schools.

And it may interest you to know that il terms of native migration we are experiencing ever increasing figu res of migrancy within our schools Not only do many people come from the native population into the schools of our area but the� compl icate matters by the fact that they move a great deal and some of our schools have almos a 75 or 85 percent migrancy rate or a tu rnover rate in which these students, who come in at thE beginning of June are gone by September and that makes, of course, the need for resources tc sort them out constantly.

You know, the classroom teacher can hardly cope with a class whict changes completely before the course of the year is out. I don't know whether that answers your que stion but it does touch on some of the things you commented on. MR. BOYCE: Wel l, it does answer it somewhat, Mr. Chairman, that it focuses on the problem, for example, the matter to which she refers, or even within Winnipeg No. 1 where you have a shift in the population from different school districts. I'm sorry, what is the ... MRS. SPIVAK: Just from different schools. MR. BOYCE: Different schools. MRS. SPIVAK: From school to school. MR.

BOVCE: I know there was some suggestion made that the youngster register in a particular school and if the parents moved that they could be actually transported, and I think the board gave serious consideration to that but they just cou ldn't finance it. So is there any list of special problems such as those of which we speak? MRS. SPIVAK: Yes.

In our brief which we present each year to the minister, and which we would be glad to have copies made for you, we do list all the special inner c ty programs which the school division carries on and which is a cost over and above naturally the normal cost of school operations and the teacher grants and so forth. So if you are interested in that I'm sure we could make that available to you. MR. BOYCE: Your brief doesn't comment on one of the other specific problems of Winnipeg No. 1 and that is decl ining enrolment. MRS. SPIVAK: Yes. MR. BOVCE: We ll, in the sense that this is another special cost.

I mean not only Winnipeg No. 1 but any school division that budgets at the start of the year and then circu mstances change within the year. Do you think that this type of additional cost shou ld be borne by the province generally? What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, are there some specific identifiable needs which should be statutorily borne by the province.

For example, one of the prior briefs suggests that there was, at least in my mind it was implicit in the brief that they said if the government puts in the statute references to transportation then it becomes incumb ent upon the government to grant the costs of that transportation. So is there a list of such needs in each school division, you know, from their rather 32

t'rlvneges ana cn��,;uum• Monday, October 22, 1979 lrochial viewpoint as far as special problems are concerned which should be statutorily funded 'I the province? IRS. SPIVAK: I can't answer that question Mr. Boyce because I am simply not equi pped to tell JU 'fl/hat should or shou ld not be ensconced in statute. There are I'm sure finer legal minds than 1ine, and mine is not a legal mind, to make those sorts of distinctions. I do think that if you put Dmething in legislation that it is meaningless unless after that some determination is made of the 3sources to implement the legislation.

You touched on declining enrolment and, of course, you know that there are declining enrolment rants given to school divisions by the provincial government and I think that is a very serious 1roblem. lt is one, however, that the school division is endeavouring to come to grips with in a 1articular manner. We did not think it was a subject that should form part of our brief here in erms of making representation to the particular bills that we are considering here. III R. BOYCE: Wel l, Mr.

Chairman , I wouldn't expect the Chairman of the Board to give specific ecommendation but I wonder if there has been dialogues at the board level and with the staff lS far as the general principle of those things which should be a provincial cost and I would even JO further into a federal cost vis-a-vis a municipal cost. MRS. SPIVAK: Yes, I think I know the kinds of things you are talking about. I would mention only one if I may and that is in the area of transportation.

There have been representations made prior to the minister with regard to the costs which we bear for transportation for which we are not given corre sponding grants. The grants that we are given do not begin to cover our costs for special education programs, for example, and other things,

whereas some of the other divisions - I'm not clear on all the provisions here - it's my understanding that some of the other divisions get much more consideration in terms of transportation grants than we do, and that's one area which I think needs to be looked at. As far as the general kinds of programs that we have to run, because of the nature of our division I would say that of course our position is, because you know, we are there and we must educate these children and in order to educate them we have to provide all kinds of resources.

Childr en can come to us in the core area or with other problems; we must make it possible for our teachers to teach them by the provision of all kinds of aids, all kinds of resources, and I think our position would be that we would hope that not all of these costs would need to be borne solely on the property tax. I think our position on that is pretty well known and clear, but whether it should be a matter of statute, I simply cou ldn't answer that question within the framewokk of this particular committee. MR. BOYCE: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, I wish I could say that all the problems started on October 11t h, 19 77, but that isn't the case. Where we are now is trying to devise an instrument for the eighties. You have suggested that the $35 million be shifted to a different tax base. MRS. SPIVAK: Oh you're talking about the moneys which we - that's over a period of years, we contribu te about $5 or $6 million each year.

Yes, I'm sugges ting that I sup pose that any kind of equal ization formula which would be more equitable would have to come from the consolidated revenues of the province, because otherwise, if that formula were removed overnight, other school divisions in the Metro area would suf fer a great increase in their property taxes. Yes, I think that's what I'm sugges ting without giving you an alternative. MR.

BOYCE: We ll, in looking for $5 or $6 million of additional revenue in the general fund, I don't know what that would translate to as far as gasoline tax is concerned, but it's about the amount that the former government raised on estate taxes. The board has no recommendation on where this additional $6 million in general revenue should be col lected . MRS. SPIVAK: Not at this time, Mr. Boyce. I would not think that the board from its perspective could offer a recommendation which would be suitable for the province as a whole perhaps in terms of equal ization, or suitable for the rest of the city.

I think certainly we would wish to consult with the department and we have some ideas, but I really think that the amendment of an equalizational formula must come from the provincial government where it rightly belongs, that sort of amending process, because of course it involves the whole city and there may be an impact on - there may be unintended consequenc es from the kind of formula that we would propose which would suit our own needs which might not be suitable for the rest of the city. And so while we would make suygest ions and certainly offer any kind of advice from our perspective, we really look to 33

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 the provincial government to introduce what is a very much needed solution to the problem. MR. BOYCE: Am I understanding you correctly when you're suggesting that more of this shoul be transferred to general revenue rather than a new formula which would shift, for example, i your reference to disparity between Winnipeg No. 1 and the Seine River. You're not suggestin! that this be more equalized in the city itself. MRS. SPIVAK: Perhaps it could be. Obviously the commercial tax base has to be equal ize< somewhat.

Our particular exception of course is, as I stated earlier, that in order to equalize thE tax base, the very people who can least afford to subsid ize - it's not the divisions per se. Tha would be not very important. it's the fact that individual homeowners, within an area of the citJ that is certainly not the richest, not by any means, as you're well aware Mr. Boyce, in Winnipe� Centre and other places, the individual homeowner is being asked to subsid ize this so-callec equalization. And that is unfair.

I am suggesting that what we need is an equitable system, a fairer system in which equalization, which has to take place if we're going to be one city, is done on a basis which is much fairer to an individual homeowner. I'm thinking of our senior citizens and people like that, who are very hard pressed . People on fixed incomes and so forth. MR. BOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I note that the Winnipeg School Division is, or one of the three matters, or two of the three matters of concern, rather, one finances, and two special programs, and looking at both and at the bill, I would think that the - or let me ask the Chairman of the Winnipeg School Board, Mr. Chairman, are you aware that Bill 23, The Education Administrat ion Act, does make provision for allowing, or could make provision if the Minister should enact such regulations, make provision for allowing you to charge a user fee? And that is contained in that minor change from the previous sect ion in the Act,

Section 6(1)(

g) by the insertion of the word ' "public". I am looking at, in the bill, 4( 1)(e). MRS. SPIVAK: Yes, Mr. Hanuschak, I am now aware of that. it is not a sect ion of our bill that our board paid particular attention to in dis cussion of these bills at all. MR.

HANUSCHAK: Well now that the Winnipeg ochool Division is aware of the fact that the Minister cou ld make regulations allowing you, or perhaps even compelling you to charge a user fee of certain groups, kinds, classes, or types of person, would the Winnipeg School Division consider the imposition of a user fee to narrow the gap between what it receives by way of provincial support and special levy on the one hand, and its operating expenses, by imposing a user fee upon either the rich or the poor or the handicapped, or the native people or whoever. MRS. SPIVAK: Mr.

Hanuschak, I cannot speak for the Winnipeg School Division on a matter which they have not discussed in board session. I can say however, just from my own experience and perso nally, that I have no idea what this involves. I would doubt very much if it would involve a user fee within a public school syste m, and I think the idea would certainly be repugnant of a type which you suggest.

However, if it's the kind of fee which - we have non-residential fees, if it's out-of-province fees, if there are things of that nature, I really don't know if that's the power which is provided to the Minister here, but if that is what is being sugge sted I don't think I personally would be against it in principle. I think if the intent of this sect ion is perhaps as you suggest, it would be a matter for the Board of the Winnipeg School Division as well as other boards to very seriously look at.

I'm not sure what's intended by this and I heard the Minister say this morning that it was no different than what was in the old bill. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chairman of the Board to bring this to the attention of her board, and that there is a very signific ant change.

Or let me ask the Chairman of the Board, would you not consider the change in this sect ion as it now reads, and the change is only the insertion of one word in there, the word "public" being a very significant change which does open the door to the Minister, the school divisions, to impose a user fee upon all or any group, kind, class or type of persons admitted to the schools. 34

IR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Spivak. Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 IRS. SPIVAK: Mr. Hanuschak, I think this is a matter like any other that the board would discuss indeed this is a very serious insertion. tR. HANUSCHAK: Is the Winnipeg School Division considering the imp osition of the user fee upon ny type, class, kind or group of students other than non-residents, but those who are presently ntitled to an education under the existing services? �RS. SPIVAK: I did forget to mention, Mr. Hanuschak, of course our adult education program nvolves fees.

Other than that of course the Winnipeg School Division and the Public School Division 1as not ever discussed the imposition of user fees. III R. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would think that the Board of the Winnipeg School Division s aware that when this Act becomes law that the departmental or the ministerial overseers of the �ducation program will be political appointees as opposed to the previous individuals who are �ppointed by the Civial Service machinery.

Does the Chairman of the Board not feel that this would ead to a politicizing of the education program by having those individuals being political appoi ntees, perhaps defeated Cons ervative candidates, I don't know? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Spivak. MRS. SPIVAK: Mr. Hanuschak, the appointment of educational administrative consultants is a matter that is fairly remote from the Winnipeg School Division. I don't think it's a matter that would affect the operation of the Winnipeg School Division a great deal. MR. HANUSCHAK: Could the Chairman explain?

I was of the impression that all school divisions are accountable to the Department of Education and I'm not aware of any provision in the legislation that gives the Winnipeg School Division any exemption therefrom. MRS. SPIVAK: I would only say, Mr. Hanuschak, that we are indeed accountable to the department and all of the many channels by which we are accountable, I presume would not be altered by the appointment of the educational administrative consultants in a slightly different manner. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Burr ows. MR. HANUSCHAK: So do I understand, Mr.

Chairman, the Chairman of the Winnipeg School Division to say, that to her it's immaterial whether the proc ess of acc ountability is one to or through a civil servant or one to and through a political hack. MRS. SPIVAK: Mr. Hanuschak, those are your words and not mine. I did not say that. I would suggest that again, I cannot speak for the Winnipeg School Division on a matter that is not within our brief and which we have not discussed thoroughly at board. I am giving you my opinions as one of the trus tees of the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for Mrs. Spivak from the committee? We thank you, Mrs.

Spivak for your presentation. With permission from the members of the committee, I intend now to call some of the rural people that are in our crowd this afternoon that have travelled some distance to see if we can't hear their briefs. There is one from Russel l, Winkler, Deloraine, Rest on, Thompson, Souris, that have travelled some distance, Boisseva in, try and hear them, so I'll call Mr. Ju lien Fradette, The Special Administrators Association of Manitoba. MR. JULIEN FRADETTE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKenzie, the Member for Robl in. And members of the committee.

The first task I would like to do is to introduce a couple of members of our executive that are present with me today. They are also special Education Administrators, just to inform you that they are here and they may like to answer some qu estions, if that is possible after the ses sion, that you may have. The Vice-President of our assoc iation is Mr. Joe Gieni from Brandon, Dr. Gerry Doerksen is the Treasurer of our association from Steinbach, and also acco mpanying us today is Mr. Marvin oveistrup from Austin.

With that introduction, gentlemen, I would simply move into the brief, and I believe all of you have a copy of the brief. Is that correct? 35

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. FRADETTE: Very good. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. Priv ileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 MR. FRADETTE: First of all, I would like to point out that we welcome and appreciate th opportunity to sit before you, or in this case to stand before you today to give our views an recom mendations on Bill 22, The Pu blic Schools Act introduced in the last session of the Manitob Legislature. We represent The Special Education Administrators Association of Manitoba, referred to a SEA AM.

Our membership includes the educators in the school divisions in Manitoba whos responsibility it is to administer and supervise the education of students with special needs. An just as an aside, we will probably be speaking only to those sections of the bill that refer to, i1 our view, special need students. Among those students are those with obvious and seven excep tionalities such as blindness, deafness and physical or mental handicaps, and also those whos1 excep tionalities are more subtle, such as the slower learner, the gifted, and the learnin! disabled.

The field of Special Education has seen tremendous advances being made on behalf of specia needs students on the North American continent in the last ten years. lt is slowly being realizec that these students have a right to and should receive the most appropr iate educational programmin� possible in the public education system.

We have seen this with Public Law 94- 142 in the U.S In reviewing the legislation of some of our neighbouring provinces, we see specific provisions havinc been made for the education of children with special needs, and they are written either into th e Act or into the regulations pertaining to the schools Act in those provinces.

We recognize that Manitoba school divisions have for many years been providing for the education of students that require educational program alternatives. lt is our hope that this may continue, because as another aside, I would like to point out that I also believe that we have been in the forefront in Ma nitoba in many respects with the education of children with special needs. lt is for this reason that we find it necessary to speak to you today with respect to the legislation that is presently before the Manitoba Legislature.

We have, previous to this, made presentations to the present Minister of Education on the topic of special education . In February of 19 78, our president at the time, Mr. Bob Scarth, Di rector of Student Services in the Fort Garry School Division, presented the Minister with a position paper on behalf of our asso ciation, entitled, "Appropria te Programming for Childr en with Special Needs." With respect to that legislation, he stated, and I quo te from that presentation.

"We strongly support the position that parents and their chi ldren with special needs have the right to demand of their governing bodies and their profes sional services, appropr iate educational programming in the least restrictive environment. This means that the mainstream of education, of necessity, needs to be complex providing for variety in physical acc ommodation, in staffing patterns and in program provisions. The child's most unique characteristic is always his uniqueness and we are constantly aware that the brilliant and talented are also unique children with special needs.

There is, no dou bt, need for some legislation that mandates provision for the uniquenes<. lt is recommended that we assist government officials in asses sing present legislation and in d0vd oping new measures. " You, as representatives of the government of Manitoba, have begun establishing those new measures with Bill 22, and the Minister of Educa tion's committee on Special Education. We see, however, in Bill 22, some problems, and wish to present to you today some recommendations for your consideration.

Our first concern then, deals with clauses 41 (4) which deals with instructional respo nsibilities of school boards, and 41 (5) which deals with special programs.

Cl ause 41 (4) states, and I quote - and I'm sure I don't need to quote for your benefit, gentlemen, but perhaps for the benefit of the publi c here, I shall quote if that's all right with the Chairman . 41 (4) then, states, "E very school board shall provide, or make provisions for education in Grades One to Twelve inclusive for all resident persons who have the right to attend schoo l." Claus e 41 (5) states, "E very school board shall, as far as is practicable and possible in the circums tances, provide or make provision for resident persons who have the right to attend school and who require special programs for their educa tion." Our main concern, gentlemen of the committee, is the difference in the kinds of education that students in Grades One to Twelve are legislated to have, com pared to those students who require special programs.

We ask you the following question, as we believe every parent in Manitoba should 36

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 >k it of you. Why is it, on the one hand, that for students in Grades One to Twelve, and 1 qu ote, Every school board shall provide or make provision" for their education, and yet on the other and, for students who require special programs, "E very school board shall, as far as is possible nd practicable in the circums tances, provide or make provisions" for their education? In our view, gentlemen, the above truly suggests a double standard and an inequality that is learly unaccepta ble. We have made too much prog ress in the education of students with special I eeds to now leave it open to the many

definitions of "possible" and "practicable". Is it not true 1at all students, irrespective of their educational requirements, deserve to have the same pportunities for success in our pu blic school systems? Our view, and the view of thousands of 1arents and educators in Manitoba, as I am sure, gentlemen, it is your view too probably, that 111 students do, and deserve, the same opportunity.

We fu lly recognize that the placing of these special programs in the realm of the "possible" md the "practicable" stems primarily from concern over exorbitant costs that may befall school livisions for the provision of those same special programs. We recognize that as a problem and ;uggest to you, as is presently done, that regulations pertaining to the Public Schools Act must mlarge on several aspects of special education.

We believe, as special education co-ord inators, hat all students should have available to them the most appropria te educational programming firstly, md that students should be educated in the least restrictive environment possible. We reco mmend :hat the regulations pertaining to the Public Schools Act need to describe and define: firstly, least ·estrictive environment; sec ondly, appropria teness of programs; and, thirdly, guidelines of what are :tppropriate costs for programs.

In that regard our association offers to the Department of Education assistance in establishing those regulations wherever we may be of assistance.

With the above points in mind then gentlemen, we hereby recommend the following: That Cl auses 41 (4) and 41 (5) should be combined to one clause to read the following: I "E very school board shall provide or make provisions for appropriate programming for all resident persons who have the right to attend school, including those who require special programs for their educa tion." We will now turn to our second concern, unless there are members that would like to stop at any point in the brief to ask questions. Would you prefer to go through the whole brief? MR. CHAIRMAN: You proceed Mr.

Fradette they'll come at the end. MR. FRADETTE: Very good.

Our second concern is with Cla use 41(6) which deals with programs not offered locally, and states: "Su bject to any regulations made under the Education Administration Act every school board shall make provisions for a pupil to attend a school in another school division or school district for a program not provided by the pupil 's home school division or school district and the pupil's home school division or school district is responsible for paying the residual costs of the educa tion." lt is our contention that this Cl ause 41(6) is inconsistent with Cla use 41 (5) which deals with Special Programs, as it presently reads.

In Clause 41 (6), Programs not offered locally, it is stated that su bject to regulations school boards shall make provision for a pupil to attend a school in another school division for a program not offered locally.

Yet, in Claus e 41(5) dealing with Special Programs it is stated that school boards shall provide or make provision for special programs only "as far as is possible and practicable in the cir cumstances." Would special programs not fall under Cla use 41 (6), Programs not offered locally, or is it possible that the regulations spoken of in Clause 41 (6) would exclude special programs referred to in Cla use 41(5) which in itself deals with special programs? lt is our recommendation that Cla use 41 (6) which deals with Programs not offered locally, be deleted from the Act and further, that it should be handled under the regulations pertaining to the Public Schools Act. lt is our presu mption then, that those regulations would speak of all programs not offered locally.

Our third concern is with Cla use 48( 1) - General powers of school boards which states, and I quote, "Su bject to the regulations a school board may, (

a) provide a cou rse of instruction and training between 3 and 6 years of age in nursery schools or kindergarten schools or bo th. We applaud, gentlemen of the co mmittee, school divisions that have com prehensive kindergarten programs established. We are also aware that many nursery schools have been established, and most of which are privately run. Unfortunately, those students who are most in need of nursery school programs do not have it available to them.

We are pleased with the progress that the except ional children such as the mentally retarded and the deaf have made with early childhood programs which are referred to as early infant st imulation programs and hearing amplification programs. Research results clearly show us tha t it is programs of this kind that better prepare the students for the formal education that they will look forward to in the future years. 37

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 We, therefore, encourage the continuation and expansion, where necessary, of these program With respect to kindergarten programs, considering that they are so widely accepted as a part , the school program, we urge you, as the government, to consider placing them in the realm 1 mandatory programs rather than leaving them in the realm of the possi ble.

In that way it is 01 contention that the few students who do not have kindergarten programs available to them, or ar not being sent to programs where they are available, would then have the benefit of the progran The placing of such programs into the area of mandatory programs would, of course, require changE in the clauses pertaining to age qualifications for pupils entering school. In the case of nursery schools, we find them to be in the proper context of the Public School Act.

Our only concern is that you would make certain that the regulations pertaining to them includ grants to school divisions that are presently available for the establishment of kindergarte programs. With our fourth concern now, we do not present suggestions for change, but wish to point ou to you problems that we can see arising. We speak of Clause 258(2), Comp ulsory School Age, ant 259, the Right to attend Attend School.

In both of these Claus es the ages are clearly defined, but you have also added that if person: attain such ages within twelve (12 ) weeks of the specified time they may or must attend school We contend that the phrase "within 12 weeks" in both clauses may be the cause of more confusior to the general public than would any single fixed date. With that in mind, we encourage you tc re-examine the reasoning behind the inclusion of the twelve weeks period of time.

Our fifth concern, gentlemen, is with Clause 260(2) dealing with the handicapped, which states and I quote, "Wh ere a child to whom reference is made in su bsect ion (1) is handicapped, the paren1 or the person as the case may be, mentioned in that su bsect ion, shall, unless specifically excused by the Minister in writing, cause that child to attend school in accordance with the provisions ol this Act, the regulations and the rules of the school Board." We are in agreement with the principle of this clause, however, in the context of the whole bill once again, we find it inconsistent with Cla use 41( 5), of which we spoke on earlier, and refers to special programs.

We ask how, on the one hand, can it be stated in Clause 41( 5) that provision for programs is made where possible and practicable and yet, on the other hand, it states here in Cla use 260(2) that parents or guardians must cause the handicapped person to attend school unless excused by the Minister of Education. We agree that the child should be in school but how can that child be there if a school division finds it impossible or impracticable to provide the necessary program? - unless we are interpreting this in an incorrect manner, and if we are we would like to know such .

To put it succinctly once again then, it is our contention that children should first and foremost be provided with proper educational programming. We therefore reco mmend the following: Cla use 260(2) should be excluded from the Act as Clause 260(1) which deals with the responsibili ty to send the child to school is all inclusive in establishing the respo nsibility of parents or guardians to send their children or those under their charge to school. Further, the manner in which a person is excused from attending school can be established under the regulations.

We reco mmend that this should require an action by the Minister of Education, as is presently stated within the Act. Our sixth and final concern, gentlemen, deals with Cla use 261 (2), Physical Handicap, and it states and I quote "P hysical handicap shall not of itself be deemed to be 'sickness or unavoidable cause' within the meaning of Clause (1 )(c)" and Clause (1 )(

c) states, and I quote "N o person is liable to any of the penalties set out in this Act for failing or refusing to send his child to school or other educational institution as required under

section 260 when (

c) the chrld is unable to attend school by reason of sickness or other unavoidable cause". We are in support with the government that physical handicap should not be deemed to be "sick ness or unavoidable caus e". We also contend, however, that there are many other disabling conditions that may or may not fall under the term physical handicap, depending on its definition, that would also in our estimation, not be deemed to be "sick ness or unavoidable cause".

For that reason, it is our recommendation that Clause 261( 2) should be excluded from the Act and further reco mmend that some provision be made elsewhere in the Act or the regulations pertaining to the Act that would allow for the settlement of a dispute on the issue of sickness or unavoidable cause. Those, gentlemen of the Comm ittee, are our concerns with respect to Bill 22 as it is presently drafted.

We urge you on behalf of all persons of school age in Manitoba to consider our recommendations carefully, and remove or change those claus es that are clearly allowing for a double standard and an inequality of opportunity within our public schoolssystem. If you or the Department of Education require further clarification on any of these issues, we will be pleased to discuss them with you at the present time or in the future. 38

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 And with that, we thank you for having given us the opportunity to present to you our )ncerns. IR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you , Mr. Fradette. The Honourable Member for The Pas. IR. RONALD McBRYDE: Mr. Fradette, thank you very much for that presentation. I think it might e useful and worthwhile for the Comm ittee if you could further define for the members what you ee as special needs students, and perhaps give us some indication of what percentage of students ould fall in that category of Special Needs students. •R.

FRADETTE: When a school division speaks of the Special Needs child, we are speaking of n individual who really does not fit what we can term as being the average student and who cannot 1e taught in the whole group situation of a 25 to 30 student classroom. lt may be for a number 1f reasons. lt could be a severe handicap in terms of being multiply handicapped, and by that I'm neaning someone who is mentally retarded as well as physically disabled, might be confined to 1 wheelchair, may also be confined as to mobility where they cannot get around to the school very veil, or they need assistance even in such things that we take for granted as going to the washroom. )r it could be as minor as an individual who is having difficulty in mathematics and needs perhaps ;ix months of assistance in order to catch him up with the rest of his classr oom.

Now that's as ;imply as I can put it but it goes beyond that too and there are many people who have taken his topic and have suggested various

definitions for Special Needs children and I don't want to �o into that right now because I don't think it would serve any useful purpose. What will serve a useful pur pose though is that a Special Needs child could be anywhere from three percent to ten percent of the population, depending on the handicap. Someone such as the blind, for example, we will not have very many blind students within our school division,

whereas they will perhaps come to a larger centre such as Winnipeg, and in Winnipeg you may have many blind students. On the other hand, where we have slower learning students, that will come to perhaps ten percent of the population in some areas. In some areas it will be higher and in others it will be lower.

But we wish to also point out, gentlemen, that the important thing to consider is - I want to add one more thing too, when I consider that - and that is that where one individual may be blind and another individual is blind, but they are of different ages and have been in school a longer period of time, that individual who is blind and has just entered school, I am sure you will understand, will require far more intensive work and individual assistance than one, let's say, who is in Grade 12 and taking the regular academic program. I think that can be a regularly accepted fact.

So to point out that when we have the blind students they require that amount of time of assistance from a resource teacher or an itinerant teacher from the blind is also a mistake. Wha t we would encourage - and really it belongs in the regulations - the regulations to include, is a facility by which we can identify the program needs of a learning disabled child or, I'm sorry, a Special Needs child, then from that vantage point, come to the Department of Education and suggest, okay, these are the parameters around which we are working.

This is the type of individual that we have, these are the handicaps this student has, this is the program that we propose that he follows in his parent school. Then from that vantage point we look for whatever assistance is required. But not to put a label on somebody and say, all mentally retarded students require this kind of assistance, or all blind students require this kind of assistance. That's a mistake as well, because then you're head hunting. But what we're looking for then is what are the requirements for a program, and that's the level that we need to get at.

Does that answer the question sufficiently, sir? MR. McBRYDE: Yes, I think partly, and I think the point you made about that each program regardless of the type of special need, must be individualized, is an important one to keep making to the Commit tee and to the Minister. I guess I'm a little bit surprised at the low figur e you give for people with special needs because the representative from the Winnipeg School Division indicated up to 50 percent of the students within the Winnipeg School Division could have special needs.

I guess if you define that as somebody who needs extra math tutoring or extra couns elling or remedial reading, or whatever. .. MR. FRADETTE: That's right. lt will depend on the definition. lt could be like, when I think back to some of the other figures that one normally gets from the text books, for example, they could be as high as 26 percent as well, that they will give us. However, I think that the important thing too is that if we were to take a poll within the whole of the Province of Manitoba, which has been done by the way and you can refer to this study which has been done by the Child Dev elopment 39

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 and Support Services of the Department of Education rece ntly, all of the figur es as far as Manitol: are concerned are included in that report. I am sure Mr. Minister, you are aware of the report th< I am speaking of and that can be referred to for the actual figu res as have been reported fror the co-ordinators of Special Services such as myself or the mem bers of our asso ciation. MR.

McBRYDE: Yes, I'll just ask a little bit further then because I suppose from the Minister' comments in the past, they have some concerns of his un derstanding of the words "Special Needs and my understanding of it is that there is a large number of students with special needs but the cou ld be described as high incidence-low cost special needs, and then the people that we normal!' think of when we say special needs, which is low incidence and high cost with severe disabil ities etc.

I wonder if you could just elabor ate on that and to comment on whether or not in fact tht special programs for these students with special needs, that is the high incidence-low cost programs might in fact save money because if these problems are dealt with at an early stage then thel don't become serious problems later on as a child progresses through school. MR. FRADETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman , again.

When we think of terms of high cost-loll\ incidence handicapped students we are, of course, dealing with students such as the blind , the mentally retarded and it is obvious I think that they are very easy to identify and they are on our doorstep and I think the Department of Education has no alternative but to provide an educa tion. I also strongly believe that we should be providing an education for all students within our school boundaries irrespective of the school division.

Where we run into difficulty, of cour se, is with the students of low cos t-high incidence and these are the students who, for whatever reason, may come from impoverished backgrounds, may come from backgrounds that are not conduc ive for whatever the reason again to the entry into school at the level of kindergarten or grade one for whatever reason they are simply not ready for the formal education that is requi red for a student in grade one. There are many of those and I think you are correct in assu ming that many times they are the ones that are fal ling behind. We never pick up on them.

They are the students who when they arrive in junior high are either in programs, in some school divisions, for the occupational entrance. They are streamed towards programs that will be vocationally inclined, okay, or they may go so far as to simply drop out of school, and that is the tragedy, there is no que stion about that. There are also those students who are extremely bright, are extremely intelligent, but again for whatever reason, Mr. Chairman , they simply cannot make it. The schools do not have the time to be able to spend with them.

The Department of Education for the past several years. and I don't believe that the regulation has changed over the past six or seven or eight years to my understanding anyway, provides for school divisions grants to hire people involved in special education on the basis of the number of students in their school divisions tor those students that are of high incidence and low cost.

The provision to hire those special education teachers and what school divisions usually do is they will hire either resource teachers or special education teachers such as teachers for the educable mentally handicapped or the trainable mentally handicapped. They will also hire, under the provision of the special grants, occupational entrance class teachers or occupa tional skills class teachers, which are students - occupational skills class, when I am referring to them I am dealing with students that are capable of primarly being involved in sheltered employment once they get out of school.

I think that if we were able to, as school divisions, place simply the resource teachers, leave the special education teachers aside and have them hired on the bas's of the number of students that need to be educated, whether they are trainable mentally handicapped or educable mentally handicapped, and that would be a special grant from the Department of Educa tion. But for those students that are high incidence-low cost, for those if we cou ld hire the number of grants available and place them into resource teachers, tor example, that would solve part of the pr oblem.

I think that is one area that we have discussed previously with various people.

But I think that even further discussion on this in terms of the finer points, I would encourage and very strongly encourage, as 1 am sure you will do, is come into further discussion say with our full executive, which would be tar more fruitful than say just myself, because when I am speaking in the manner that I am right now 1 am speaking from recollection and it is not part of our brief either. lt would be important to deal with this with the whole executive and other people within the teaching community that have issues and very good concerns and good ideas about how this could be solved. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Member for The Pas. MR. McBRVDE: Mr. Chairman, I thnnk Mr. Fradette for this answer, although I guess I am of the opinion that the Commit tee should have some of this information and if I can draw it out of you 40

nd other people I will. Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 What is the existing state of the situation right now? Are the special needs students in either f the categories that we have used so far, are they getting their needs met or is there st ill a large umb er of students that need more services that are not getting them at this time? tR. FRADETTE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is very obvious that all students are not getting needs 1et. I think that in some situations, yes they are and they are getting their needs met very adequately, 1ut in some situations obviously they are not.

I think that if all students were getting their needs net I might suggest that perhaps there is no need for people such as ourselves, although I hope hat we can provide some service too. I am not trying to be facet ious when I am saying that, Mr. �hairman, but I think that there is always a point where we can be improving our services. There s minimal service that is being provided in some situations I sup pose. There is being provided n other situations excellent programs, programs that could not be any better I dare guess anywhere llse in Canada. I say that without any hesitation whatsoever.

I think the problem is is to try and get the services within the areas so that people can be nade aware of what services are available and here I am talking about parents, and I am talking 3.bout parents co ming to the department or coming to school boards and saying, "Okay, we have this child and we want them to have a program". There also has to be provisions made for a program outline to be made.

I think that in all fairness, the Department along with the school boards and those of us within the field have to be able to sit down with parents and suggest these are the programs, goals and objectives for your child for this half-term or full-term and we want to be able to sit down with you on a periodic basis to review those, although I am sure that all of you realize that sometimes that is extremely difficult because it is difficult enough getting parents into the school let alone sitting down discussing with them the program provisions. But the opportunity must be there for the parents to do this.

So in answering your qu estion I will say that in some situations the programs are adequate, yes, in some situations no, of course they aren't. MR. McBRYDE: I am making the assu mption that it is largely up to the individual school boards now because it is not entrenched in legislation in such a way or does not appear from this legislation that it will be entrenched in such a way that it will be mandatory or that there will be much pressure on school boards to provide that kind of service, so it depends on the school board in that area and I guess the resources available to that school board. MR.

FRADETTE: That is correct. MR. McBRYDE: I wonder if you would like to comment on the question I asked a previous presenter earlier. In my experience the school boards and teachers are willing and anxious to provide this kind of program, to provide for special needs students, if they have the resources to do so. How would you see those resources being made available? MR. FRADETTE: Mr.

Chairman and the Honourable Member from The Pas, as we mentioned in our brief and we suspect, and we don't know whether we are right or wrong and I would ask the Chairman and perhaps the Minister to correct that, but perhaps the main reason for placing the Claus e 41( 4), 41 (5), which is the major thrust of our brief obviously, and placing it in that manner, was a matter of economics. Now, we are not economists. Our strong points are not to be able to handle budge ts and to make up budgets and to handle government budgets let alone school board bu dgets.

That is a major probl em, there's no qu estion of that, it's a major problem all across Canada. Nevertheless, our main point - and we bring it again - is that we cannot shortchange the students and we have to provide a system whereby a student who lives in Thompson coared to one who lives in Melita or Brandon or Winnipeg will receive the same opportunities and more importantly, perhaps, to the school board, the school boards will be ensured to receive the same type of funding across the board for a student that requi res a certain kind of program.

That's why we emphasize a program once that program has been established.

I would like to point out that perhaps the type of people who would be involved in est ablishing the kind of program that is required, are the staff of the Department of Education that are presently in the field from Child Dev elopment and Supp ort Services. lt is an excellent program and one that we encourage it be continued and improved upon and expanded - and I'm speak ing of the services of the psychologist and the speech pathologist that are presently working in the field - who can assist and have assisted in diagnosing, in prescribin g and in monitoring specific programs. Now that has to continue. 41

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 I think the next step that has to be taken is once an individual has been identified reqUinn� a certain program, then the funding I think has to be automttic. We don't know what it's goin� to be from one year to the next. For example this year it's half a million to three-quarters of c million dollars that you have put in towards special grants. Is that figure correct, Mr. Minister? Anc we need to know that that is going to be there one year after the other and even more importantly possibly, attached to specific programs. Okay?

And this is one way of getting at it and we would be able to be assured. After that individual school boards can enlarge on the program, they can hire more people if they so desire if they have the funding to do it, that would be their prerogative. But what has to be established first and foremost is the principle that all the students have that right and will get an education to a certain minimum standard. We would like it to be to a maximum standard. MR. McBRYDE: Yes.

As administrators or co-o rdinators of special education programs, do you see administrative problems in terms of being able to sort of define the needs and then make the funds available? Do you see a problem or possibil ity of some school boards claiming more than they need or do you see that as a fairly simple administrative problem to work out, or as a real complic ated one that the government should shy away from this because of ? MR. FRADETTE: In all fairness, sir, I really can't answer that because then I would be reading the minds of other school boards.

All I know is that I think that what we would want to do just as most co-ord inators have done in the last round ·of the special grant funding, subm itted to the Department of Education the requirements for their school divisions in terms of the student that required special program, the program that was to be placed into effect and the personnel that were requi red to assist in putting that program into force. Now many of those were not able to be covered through special grant funding. That doesn't mean they are not being covered with special programs.

Now the other thing is too, that at this point in time there has been some provision for the regional co-ordinators, the regional co-ord inators of CDSS to be involved in examining the validity, if you wish, of these cases and that should continue. I would even further sug gest that the psych ologists and the speech pathologists or reading clini cians or whoever the other people are involved in providing services in school divisions cou ld also be involved certainly in assisting in providing the programs. MR. McBRYDE: Thank you, Mr. Fradette. MR. FRADETTE: You're very welcome, sir. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. BOYCE: First of all through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Fradette. Your organization, of whom does it compr ise? I read the special education administrators but who . . . ? MR. FRADETTE: In every school division - I'll rephrase that - in most school divisions in Manitoba there are personnel who are referred to either as special education co-ordi nators - and that is the term most often used - other times it might be an assi!:tant superintendent or other times it might be Di rectors of Student Personnel. They come by various titles and various job descriptions.

I do believe that perhaps the common denominator is that they are all involved in dealing with services to special needs students regardless of their title, and our association compri ses of approxi mately 35 to 40 members. I think it would be unfair for me to suggest to you that all of the co-ord inators in Manitoba are members of our association. However, I think we represent them because we have been in contact with them with respect to the brief, but we represent by far the very large majority of them. MR.

BOYCE: We ll, the situation in which we find ourselves is that the whole question is in limbo at the moment because

Section 9 - I think it was

Section 9 of Bill 58 - was never proclaimed, so in other words it just sits there in limbo. But the prior administration had not proclaimed that bill and 1 understand that the administrative staff was trying to have dialogues among the various interest groups such as the classroom teachers and the rest. Could you advise us what progress was made in that particular area? MR. FRADETTE: Do you mean with respect to

Section 9 of Bill 58, the dialogue on this? 42

11R. BOYCE: Yes. Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 iii R. FRADETTE: I wasn't heavily involved, sir, at that point in time so I really in all fairness cannot mswer that que stion as to how many interest groups were involved in the discussions. 1 came on o the scene as a special education co-ord inator after the bill had been introduced and 1 would nvite any of the members with me to comment on it, but all I know is that there were many of hem and I think that everyone had an opportunity to approach someone on Bill 58, from what can understand. III R. BOYCE: Wel l, once again Mr.

Chairman, I understand that there were some very respo nsible :�pprehensions which were raised at the time - this was one of the reasons why it was left and not proclaimed until such time as they thought that they cou ld deploy their resou rces financial MR. FRADETTE: Yes, I recall that. MR. BOYCE: . . . and have the system willing to accept the shallness. And it's a very interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, that you know there's a case before the Supreme Court whether somebody shall order their employees back to work forthwith has been complied with, because it's a question of law.

I really don't personally understand why the present government chose to modify that "shall" by putting those other adjectival modifications, or I think they're gerundive modifications perhaps. But you're not in a position to advise just exactly how the system is going to cope with this "shall provide", this service? The main thrust of your brief is that it "shall" be provided. MR. FRADETTE: Yes. Cou ld I answer the que stion with another one just in terms of clarification to know for sure what you're asking?

Are you looking for perhaps the provisions as to how this should be placed into effect, this "shall" aspect of it? MR. BOYCE: Wel l, Mr. Chairman , I don't want to be out of order by entering into a dialogue with the gentleman . . MR. FRADETTE: I just want to be clear that I'm certain what the que stion is. MR. BOYCE: Your reco mmendation is, that it "shall" be put in place. MR. FRADETTE: Correct. MR. BOYCE: But yet you're not in a position to advise the committee on how the system is as far as accepting it. MR. FRADETTE: I'm sorry. Okay.

No we aren't because we feel that there are people within various other departments, as far as the Department of Education is concerned there are also other people within the field; there are people that you will be hearing from today and the rest of this week I'm sure that will have ideas and thoughts as to how this should be placed into effect. Our main concern is that somehow or other - and we I'm certain don't have the answer to it - I think I have partially given the answer to the Honourable Member for The Pas in answer to some of his questions as to how this cou ld be placed into effect.

Now, as far as the fine details are concerned, Sir, I really don't think that we are in a position to do that at the present time but we look forward to perhaps the opportunity of doing that at a future time, once the principle has been esta blished. MR. BOYCE: Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are; we sit as a group of legislators, as people from the community we're being asked by various groups to do certain things relative to the educational system through

an Act of the Legislature, and is it, through you, Mr. Chairman , to Mr. Fradette, is it not incumbent upon the people who make representations to the committee to have some idea of how we can do it and how much it's going to cost? MR. FRADETTE: lt may be that that is true, Sir, but the other alternative is, and in the

preamble to our brief we pointed out to you that these students do have those rights that we have identified, and I am sure that there is no one that is going to argue with that, I hope. Then, if there is, we 43

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 are in serious difficulty, and I am simply suggesting that we are not the people from the field wh< have had, say, the opportunity or the time to put into figuring out the mechanics of government to try and sort out how it is going to take place and exactly what wheels are going to turr when.

Now, we ha ve been in discussion with our people, our consultants if you wish, within the Department of Education, have had many discussions with them and talked about the kinds o possible ways, but I don't really relieve that I am at liberty to discuss those before the committee because we've really decided that that was the extent to what we could present to the committee. There are examples in neighbouring provinces, if you wish, as far as legislation is concerned, as far as regulations are concerned, that deal with the financing of education.

And I wish to poin1 out once again, Sir, that I really do believe sincerely that some of my answers to the Honourable Member for The Pas included how this could be placed into effect. Now the dollar digur e that would be involved, I can't answer that. I don't think that any one of us in thi room at the present time could answer that, but we can say, and it depends on the Treasury of the province, as to how much money they can put forth and how much commitment they are prepared to put forth for a student that requi res a specific kind of program.

And then, I believe, it is incumbent upon the Department of Education officials to take a look and say, "Okay, how much is it going to cost us then?" We, as special education co-ord inators, are worng within our respective school divisions and, as far as our respective school divisions are concerned, we know that there are perhaps a dozen in a small school division, perhaps 10 0 or 200 in larger school divisions that are not getting the programs they need.

Now we haven't made that kind of su rvey and come up with a figure that would suggest that, well it's going to take 10 million the first year and 20 the second year; we dnn't know that. Our main concern is tha t there is equality of opportunity across the board, and the finances I'm afraid, Sir, we would like to leave with those people that are masters at taking a look at the finances, and that is you people, from both sides of the House, I hope. MR. BOVCE: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to debate this issue but, nevertheless I wonder.

We have 58 briefs and so far we have heard people make suggestions and I start to wonder jus t exactly what we are sup posed to do with these reco mmendations, other than just change the words of the law. When you say that those around here are experts there are no experts at this table, these are legislators. The experts are ... well, with the Minister, excuse me, I'm sorry. We're Manitobans and we're trying to solve this problem. MR. FRADETTE: Agreed. MR.

BOVCE: And when I said it somewhat facetiously to the Chairman of the Board of the Winnipeg School Division, where it came to strangely enough jus t about as much money as taxes had been cut relative to the Estate Taxes. So when we are talking about taking money and priorizing it I would be one of the ones that would support more rather than less in this particular field because I would agree with my colleague the Member for The Pas that we pay precious little attention to the high incidence-low cost special needs. But, that being the case, I think, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to one of the members of the public then you have to support your government, whatever stripe they are, because when it comes down to the final analyis those dollars have got to come out of our pockets. MR. FRADETTE: Agreed. MR .. BOVCE: And it's up to the members of the public when they are making their presentations, I would think, to have their needs reflected in those kind of terms; that if it is necessary to transfer $5 million from Winnipeg No. 1 to somebody else. Who? The corporate tax, income tax, it's fine to say general revenue.

So, you know, I'm not arguing for the need for more attention to this, that's why I asked you just exactly what the ... You say that your association hasn't discussed this; perhaps this is something the association could discuss and give us the benefit of your thinking on it. MR.

FRADETTE: Thank you, Sir, and I really, in all sincerity take that under advisement and I am very sorry that perhaps we cannot enter into a full-fledged discussion as to what, and how, and where, probably more importantly where, the money is going to come from, but I can only fall back on the point that that is not our area of expertise unless there is some member of the group here with me that would care to answer that. 44

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 VIR. BOYCE: That's fine. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. !II R. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Bu rrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask Mr. Fradette whether he is aware that the Education Administration Act will give the Minister the power to make regulations governing the operation of public schools and designated the groups, kinds, classes or types of persons to be admitted as pupils therein; and the fees and charges, if any, to be paid by the pupi ls. Are you aware of that

section of the bill? MR. FRADETTE: I haven't read that sect ion, Sir, no. MR. HANUSCHAK: A further que stion to Mr. Fradette. Have you, or your organization, any apprehension about the effect that the presence that this sect ion may have upon the very type of pupils that you are dealing with in the sense that the pupils that you are dealing with may be the very ones whose parents may have to pay a user fee which this sect ion would allow the Minister to levy. MR.

FRADETTE: Ali i can answer is very personally, Sir, I cannot answer on behalf of my asso ciation because we have not discussed it at any level in terms of that specific sect ion of the Education Administration Act. Personally I don't think I would be in favour of that, in fact, I know I wouldn't be in favour of that because it is simply a matter that if a child comes to school we should be educating him to what he requires as far as education is concerned. MR. HANUSCHAK: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS: Mr. Chairman , I just wanted to comment briefly to Mr.

Fradette. To say, first of all, tha t I appreciate very much his contribution here today and of course the ongoing contribution of his asso ciation. On Page 3 of your brief, Mr. Fradette, at the bottom of the page, you refer to appropriate programming for those who require special programs for their education. Could you comment briefly on who you see deciding what will be appropria te programming, whether it be parents, school boards, specialists, someone else, this is one of the dilemmas that I know that you appreciate that we all face at this time.

There is some disagreement, I know that you're aware of that as well. Wou ld you like to make a comment on that? MR. FRADETTE: Again, and I don't want to be facet ious when I answer in this manner, Mr. Minister.

The appropriateness of programming would have to depend on each individual case, I believe as determined by a team of people, not by any one individual, but that team would probably comprise, and it cou ld vary in different circums tances, but would comprise, I believe, of those people within our situation, the co-ord inators of special services, but also the departmental people that are working within our school divisions.

They may not be departmental people in some divisions such as Winnipeg No. 1 for example, but they would be from the Child Guida nce Clin ic, but people such as school psychologists, speech pathologis ts, reading clin icians, and the like. I think that the appropria teness of programming would have to depend upon the regulations, and this is why, just above that clause that you have just read, we encou rage you to pla ce within the regulations and define what appropria teness of programming means.

And we fully realize and recog nize that it does not mean a full time, fu lly qualified teacher on a one-to-one ratio, all day, every day. There would be very few circums tances that that would be the case, I would contend. lt would also vary acc ording to the student with a particular disabili ty such as the blind student that I referred to earlier. The requir ements for that student would vary from the time that they were in primary school to the time that they were in high school, so it cannot be attached simply to a physical handicap either. I think thoug h, that the

definitions of appropria teness of programming have to be placed within the regulations and some stricture placed on it. lt would not simply be at the whim of either a parent or someone like myself in my position, or the school board for that matter. lt has to come from a team, I believe. MR. COSEN: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I don't intend to pursue the question any further with Mr. Fradette. I appreciate his comments in this regard. I think he agrees that this is one of the complex J-)roblems that we face in this particular area. 45

MR. FRADETTE: Indeed it is. Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 MR. COSENS: To define appropriate programming. I believe Mr. Fradette mentioned earlier th< this varies with each individual child, what is appropr iate to one child is not appropriate to anothe I am encouraged to hear his remarks on this matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre .. MR. BOYCE: Just to follow a little further on the Minister's que stion and my earlier concern, ca1 you envisage any case where it shan't? You want in statute, it "sha ll". You also want in statut' some case which "sha n't". MR.

FRADETTE: I don't know, sir, to really be honest with you. I suppose an obvious "shan't' if we wish to speak it in that manner, would be a student who requires the type of program tha is within the realm of a sheltered school, if you wish. That if he is within the pu blic school system he could possibly be disru ptive to the school, to his class, or whatever the case may be, let alonE to himself. And I'm talking, possibly about the type of student that requires some type o institutionalization, for a short period of time we hope, but could possibly return to the public schoo system as qu ickly as he cou ld. MR.

BOYCE: Wel l, perhaps you can appreciate the dilemma, Mr. Fradette. I don't think there is any disagreement on either side of the House as far as the provision of the service in this most important area. I don't think there is. MR. FRADETTE: I agree. MR. BOYCE: But by the misunderstanding of the whole darn process, legislative and legal, my impression after ten years of experience in the Legislature would be that the modification as proposed in the amendment doesn't change it operationally one iota, because you have just admitted there are cases of "shan't". Sometimes we have to rely on the syste m.

In the McRuer Inquiry into Civil Rights in the province of Ontario, one of his final lines was, "We have to on some occasi ons, rely as if we were in a position where prudent men were deciding their own affairs". So whether this shall by itself or shall modified as in the amendment, it doesn't change the situation. it, at some future point in time, could become a decision of the courts. I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, that this is conveyed to those who think that just a change in the words is going to change that much. In the final analysis, it comes down to the deployment of money and the expertise. MR.

FRADETTE: Could I comment, Mr. Chairman? I think the important thing Ho nourable Memb er for Winnipeg Centre, is that while you say that there are some exclusions, and that is a possi bility, there's no question about that, but I think the important thing is, who is to decide who is going to be excluded? And su bsequent to that, what is going to happen to that student that is so excluded?

There is no que stion in our mind that if you would phrase the que stion in such a manner as to ask me, is there any student that is excluded from getting education within the publi c school system, which is what you asked me, and I responded, yes, but if you were to a�k me, is there any student that is to be excluded from getting education, period, then obviously the answer is no.

So my basic tenet is this, and I think it would be that of our association too, as far as the public school system is concerned there may be some exclusions, but those exclusions have to be handled in such a manner that is common throughout all school divisions, and not just be left to the provision as it is pointed out here, fo the possible and the practicable under the ci rcumstances. That is jus t far too loose. There's absolutely no way that we believe we could live with that. And that the parents within the individual school divisions could live with that.

Now, if it was possible that in a regulation there were some exclusions, and yes there are, there are some that possibly would be far too disruptiv e to the school system to be educated there then we st ill, and I believe that you as a province, or government of the province, have to make some provision to educate those students too. Now, it may not be within the public school sys tem, but the provision must be there. That's the main point. And I think that we have to look in some legislation across the province.

I don't know whether you people have examined some of the educational legislation across the Domin ion of Canada. There are provisions made such as you speak of, sir, where there are exclusions, but they are provided for elsewhere, in another manner. I'm sure officials of the department have examined this as well. 46

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 IIR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, through you, I want to preface my que stioning. Almost every time would expand it rather than narrow it. Are you and people within your organization familiar with he difficulties of the operation of the treatment panel under The Child Welfare Act? IIR. FRADETTE: No, we're not, sir. Not fully. III R.

BOYCE: Who should advise the legislators, not the departmental people, but who should advise he legislators on how to function under the shell if we haven't got an expression of opinion on ww to do just exactly that to which you refer, as far as selection or ... VIR. FRADETTE: As far as how a person shall be excluded? !II R. BOYCE: How a person shall be judged, by a panel of whom? A psychologist, a psychia trist, :t social worker, a teacher, a probation officer, a judge, who will make this decision? MR. FRADETTE: Could I suggest that it could be any or all of . those, depending on the circums tances once again.

I don't think that's really a cut and dried case. I think that that's the type of thing as well that could be handled with open discussions, once we arrive at the principle that that's the direction that you as a government wish to go, that that can be decided with individual discussions and not in this particular manner, but individual discussions at a future time. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I wish I were part of the government deciding in which direction to go. But that isn't the case at the present time. But nevertheless, I have to speak as a politician.

Maybe us politicians are at fault in getting the expectations of people up. You know, we'll pass a law which will solve this problem. We passed the law. Bill 58 was passed . MR. FRADETTE: Yes. MR.

BOYCE: But I think that the former administration, and the first few days of this administration were prudent in that they didn't proclaim it, because it's no good to have a law there that says you're going to do something unless you can deliver it. o that one of the areas that is of great concern, and I'm not speaking in defence of the government, I'm speaking in defence of politicians, no matter what side of the House they're on. We've had several years of experience in the one area, trying to solve the problem to which you refer, in another area. it's a very good parallel in the selection process.

Because people think that passing a law, or setting up this panel compri sed of any or all of these experts is going to solve this problem. So 1 wonder, through you once again, Mr. Chairman , if your organization would consider that and advise the committee on how to carry "shall" to the degree of fruition to which you would envisage. MR. FRADETTE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to possibly point out to the Memb er for Winnipeg Centre and also members of the committee, that we are practitioners within the fie ld.

Now, we rely on the extra time that people put in to work to put together such a brief or to get meetings together. We believe that in the long run that is going to assist our students in our school divisions, we trust it will at least. However, I think you must realize that we have a lot more work that needs to be done within our home school divisions, and I'm afraid that - I know that we have the expertise available within our ranks, that we could probably come up with something like that, and possibly we could have come up with that for you today.

But time is at an element, and we have some students to serve within our school divisions. And that is why, once again, sir, and Mr. Chairman, I point out to you that once you are aware as a committee where we feel, philosophically speak ing, and where the, philosophical base shou ld come from, and to give you some indication as to where to look, am I not correct in assuming then that it should be you legislators and also the people that are hired as Department of Education personnel to then put through the mechanics by which this can operate?

Now we are coming to you and we are suggesting, gentlemenoff the committee, that we find that when we talk about education being left up to the realm of the possible and the practicable, that's too big a hole. And in a manner of joking, we said, my goodness, you could not only drive a truck through there, you can drive a fleet of trucks through there. That was our first react ion to it.

So what we want to ascertain and to have definitely imprinted within the Act is that every student within the bou ndaries of our school division have the same opportunities, whether they come from Thc�p son or Winnipeg, as I mentioned before. Now, how that's going to work - and if the 47

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 Department of Educa tion, if you can convince the government as it presently exists to hire us I put that together, fine. But we just don't have the wherewithal to do that right now, sir. I'm real sorry, but we don't. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Fradette for getting a little excited. it's the be! thing that's happened to me here all day. I\II R. FRADETTE: Very good. We can even get more excited if you wish. MR.

BOYCE: When I look at all this, unless you, as an individual, your organization, and the re� of the people of the province of Manitoba get excited about this, nothing is going to happen. Becaus , if you expect us politicians to sit back here with no information at all from the public and decide we will, but we'll come up with a camel.

So that when you talk about driving a truck through il I agree with you, but nevertheless, you know, with all the things that are going on, inflation, gasolin1 going to $1 .30 and everything else that's going on, we, and I'm speaking for, I'm sure, for fellow: and women on both sides of the House, that this is the place where people of the public hav1 to come in and tell us their concerns and then it is our decision to priorize it. MR. FRADETTE: Agreed. And you see I think we have. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. · Vital. MR. WALDING: I'll pass, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for Mr. Fradette? We thank you, Mr. Fradette. MR. FRADETTE: May I just make a final comment, Mr. Chairman, if I cou ld? Mr. Chairman MR. FRADETTE: And I would fustrike to point out that I appreciate the questioning that has come from the Comm ittee and we don't want to minimize anything that has been stated today but perhaps maximize it and that is to point out that surely to goodness the fact that there are possibly 50 or 60 briefs, 50 groups of people possibly, and some individuals among those that have come forward to this Comm itee to make a presentation on behalf of Bill 22.

Now I have no idea how many of those are going to speak with respect to Cl ause 41( 4) and 41( 5) of which is our main concern, but I would venture to guess a goodly number of them are going to speak to that clause. And it's for those people that we are speaking tor too. We want to have the opportunity and we want to be able to say to people: "We must educate those students because they are living within our boundaries". Now as I have indicated in the brief, we offer any assistance we possibly can to department ffficials, to people within the field, to assist in that regard.

We've stated that from the beg inning and we will continue saying that. And I also want to point out one final thing that I should have pointed out before and that is that we have to begin taking a look at where and when the money is spent. We know that if we spent money for the proper education of students at the proper time, and I'm thinking specifically of in the primary school age, to get students to the point where they can learn and can learn effect ively, we are going to have far less difficulty with them at a futl lre time. I think that's a very well accepted fact.

With that point, gentlemen, I thank you ever so much for listening to us and again I thank you, sir, the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre for your comments as well and for all of you. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Fradette. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now to try and hear those that come the longest distance, I'll call on Mr. Brian, Deloraine, the Antler River Teachers' Associat ion. S. Brian. Mr. Brian is not present? I'll call Mr. S.T. Brian from Reston, Fort la Bosse Teachers' Associ ation. I'll call Mr. R.T. Parker from Thompson, the School District of Mystery Lake. I'll call Mr. Will iam J.

Wismer from Souris, Souris Valley School Division No. 42. I'll call Mrs. Jean Taylor from Killa rney. None of those people are present. We have Portage la Prairie, Mr. Jim Meikle of the Central Regional Liaison Commit tee for the Mentally Handicapped. Mr. Jake Froese from Winkler. I therefore then will call Mrs. C. Bouvier, the Association of Parents of Ecole Provencher. Oh, that's a written brief only, I'm sorry, No. 2. Is there somebody from Neepawa here? MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, is Mrs. Bouvier's brief being circulated? 48

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 IR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's written only. I would circulate that and we'll move on. Then I'll call Mr. lichael Rosner from the Manitoba League of Physically Handicapped, or Mr. Brian Stewart. IRS. PAULA SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to explain why I'm not Mr. Micha el Rosner or Mr. rian· Stewart. I'm Mrs. Paula Simpson and I'm the first vice-ch airman of the Manitoba League of 1e Physically Handicapped. Mr. Brian Stewart is our Chairman and has just arrived from out of )Wn and I'm afraid is in no shape to present today. Mr.

Rosner is a staff person who is with us nly for the su mmer and therefore we are undertaking to present the brief today. If it's all right with you, Sir, we would like to change our format slightly in how we do present, nd tha t is, I would like to read the introduction from our brief. Our brief is fairly extensive, so te do not want to read it all but we would like to highlight the major points in it. And when I ay we, I am asking with your permission that Mr. Henry Enns, who is our provincial co-ordinator, tssist me in this process, and Ms.

Shannon McDonald, who is one of our-staff persons who worked m this issue would be here for our resources if we needed it. Is that all right with you, Sir? III R. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's fine. \II RS. SIMPSON: Thank you. III R. CHAIRMAN: The spelling of your name again, was it Simpson? MRS. SIMPSON: Simpson, like the store. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Proceed. MRS. SI MPSON: Thank you. Mr. Chairman , Co mmittee members, I am glad people have started to get excited because we are quite excited about this issue. Hopefully our brief and our answers to your questions will identify that.

To begin with, the Manitoba Leaque of the Physically Handicapped is a consumer group concerned with integration of the physically handicapped into community life. The League's objective is to achieve the same availability of opportunities afforded the non-handicapped population. This of course, involves services of the educational system in that we are concerned that all physically handicapped students receive an equal opportunity to education as the non-disabled students.

Our 19 78 Fall Conference held specifically on the subject of education, with guest speaker the Honourable Keith Cosens, and resolutions passed by our general membership clearly demonstrate our organization's resolve to advocate for the educational rights of the physically handicapped. We are pleased that the Department of Education is reviewing the Public Schools Act and we welcome the opportunity to present the concerns of the League. We recognize that in Bill 22 there is framework for progress. However, the proposed legislation does not ensure or direct this progress. Of major concern is

Section 41( 5), which as currently stated does not ensure that school divisions will provide necessary progress for special needs students. The phrase "as far as possible and practicable in the circums tances" nullifies the initial obligation expressed in the clause. lt is our firm conviction that failure to amend provision the clause would indicate that this government is not committed to ensuring of necessary special programming where required for physically handicapped students.

First thoug h, a word about the cost of undertaking an equ ivocal commitment to meeting the special needs of children with physical or learning differences in regular classes. The ML PH recognizes the considerable concern of government about the cost of fully pursuing this policy, and wishes to assure the government that our expectau ions are moderate and reasonable in this regard. Much has been acco mplished already in the development of support services, both material and consultative, so that most handicapped children are now participating in regular school programs.

The development of this commitment is much more a question of making these supp orts more available, particularly in rural areas, and to a greater number of children with special needs, rather than one of dealing with an influx of a new special needs population. The matter of modifications to school buildi ngs and transport vehicles, to make them acce ssible to wheelchair confined persons is in our view one that must proceed gradually in response to specific reasonable demand and would over time cease to be a problem.

The recru itment, training and supervision of volunteers to provide certain educational support services, is another option which would not be unwelcome. While the perception of cost seems 49

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 to us exaggerated, the price of meeting special needs must finally be measured against provinci expenditures on social allowance, rehabilitation services and juvenile delinquency, which are to significant extent, the legacy of ignoring special needs. We are confident that the government does endorse the equalizing of opportunities at an ear age, and will be receptive to our herein identified concerns and proposals for a truly supporti� Pu blic Schools Act.

After careful study of Bill 22 and 23, we have the following concerns: 1. the lack of a statement of intent 2. lack of ensuring availability of special programs 3. inadequ ate provisions for portal to portal transportation 4. non-commitment to barrier free design of school faci lities 5. lack of definition of sickne ss versus physical handicap 6. lack of definition of the education administrative consultant 7. inadequacy of placement and appeals mechanisms 8. implications for instituting of user fees 9. current inadequate funding provisions for special education. lt is our intent in this brief to expand upon the above mentioned concerns and offer these pointl for your consideration so that physically handicapped children of Manitoba may receive equa educational opportunities. · Now gentlemen, I'd like to turn the mike over to my colleague, Mr.

Henry Enns, to highlighl the first five points that we have identified in our brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mr. Enns. MR. HENRY ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak with regard to the first five points that have been already mentioned, No. 1 specifically, the statement of intent. We feel that within the proposed legislation, there is a lack of direction and this direction could be provided if a clear statement of intent was given within the Bill. A statement that said in fact that integration was the overall purpose and would be pursued in this legislation.

No. 2, the sect ion that deals with the availability of special programs, and that is

Section 41( 5), and that the phrase "as far as it is possible and practicable in the circums tances" be removed from this section. The elimination of this phrase would ensure that school divisions have a positive obligation to fulfil! and req uire school-divisions to provide and make provisions for the necessary programming for special needs, and our concern in this area is if that phrase is left in, again there will be an out for school divisions to take and they may utilize this out and may not provide the services that are needed for the handicapped population.

No. 3 that we're concerned about and that is the provision for portal to portal transportation. lt is extremely important for a handicapped student in order to be able to utilize the school and the educational system to be able to get there. Transportation has to be provided.

The way the Bill states right now says that "transportation shall be provided to the distance of a half a mile or one mile at which transport would be provided", which in fact means that if you live within that distance and you are a handicapped person in a wheel chair, that statement then becomes meaningless because in the winter going ten steps outside your house in the snow in a wheel chair is just as difficult as to travel probably half a mile. So our reco mmendations with regard to that

section are: 1. Claus es pertaining to transportation be amended to provide for portal to portal transportation for thos-, students requiring it with standards that meet the needs of the physically disabled children. 2. lt is ess ential that school buses be made acces sible to the physically handicapped children. 3. That bus drivers be trained to aid the physically disabled students onto the vehicle of transportation. 4. lt is the respo nsibility of the school division to transport students to and from the place of ':ducation. 5. lt is our concern that a child should not be on the bus more than an hour each way.

And for people who are physically disabled especially if they have somewhat of a health problem , that becomes a major issue. The fourth issue that I would like to address is the commitment to a barrier-free design. This

section 41, su bsect ion (1) (a), this

section should be amended to include the reference to the Manitoba Building Code

Section 327. The phrase "adequa te school accommodation" sect ion 41(1) is open to

interpretation in terms of adequ acy and types of acco mmodations. Reference to the Manitoba Building Code,

Section 327, defines the meaning of this ph rase and 50

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 rects the board to the requirement of the building code as it relates to the physically handicapped, 1d you have examples there. Examples: Schools: being Cla ss A build ings, under the building code, must meet the requirement for access a principle entrance, useab ility of all publi c areas and acce ssi ble-useable washrooms (male and m a! e). Residential Schools: being Cl ass C buildings, under the building code, must meet the above andards plus additional requi rements of: "wheelchair facilities shall be provided within 5 percent ' the guest rooms and suites. " lt is important to note that the Manitoba Building Code states in

Section 327: This su bsect ion is intended to make buil dings access ible and useable by the physically :mdicapped"without assistance." This phrase establishes the definition of "adequate" and therefore lference to the Manitoba Building Code will assist school boards in the selection of design lternatives for acces sibili ty. In reference to

Section 7 4 of Bill 22: This

section should include an additional clause requir ing that plans for erect ion, enlargement, Jmodelling or purchasing of school buildi ngs, meet the requirements outlined again in the Manitoba uilding Code. In

Section 7 4 of Bill 22 which requir es Ministerial approval for design and purchase plans offers second opportunity to ensure that school buildings, new or modified existing schools, are in fact cces sible and useable by physically handicapped students. This monitoring at the ministerial level would serve to safeg uard the achievement of a barrier ·ee scoool system and would minimize the possi bility of ov erlooking the features of acces sibili ty nd useability at the school board level. In terms of Mod ification to existing schools, this

section is the only avenue for achieving barrier ree desig n, and I think that's an important point because even if you're build ing new schools a )t of the old ones are not, at the present time, acces sible and there should be a system whereby t step should be taken in order to make the present facilities also acces sible. The last point I would like to make is the definition of sickness and physical handicapped. In )ection 26 1, su bsection (1) , it is stated that "no person is liable to any of the penalties set out n the Act for failing to send his or her child to school where the child is unable to attend school JY reason of sickness or other unavoidable cause." Even though

Section 261 states that, "physical 1andic apped shall not be deemed sickness or unavoidable cause" within the meaning of the clause ;u bsect ion (1) (c), we feel that too much room is left for personal judg ment. Who is to say whether .he reason for a disabili ty is sickness or a handicapped? An example of this is arthritis which could )e consider ed either or both.

The Act fails to define this. lt must be made crystal clear the criteria )f a physical handicapped as opposed to those things that constitute sickness. lt must also be :;tated explicitly who has the power to decide this question in the event of a difference of opinion. fhank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Enns. MRS. PAULA SIMPSON: If I may continue, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: You can move the pedestal over if you wish. MRS. SIMPSON: Actually I have to hold it closer for me to see anyway, so it doesn't really matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, fine. Proceed. MRS. SIMPSON: Thank you.

Need for definition of the education administrative consultant: In the case of the education administrative conslltant, we are concerned as to (1) whom this person shall be acc ountable to, (2) how he shall or she shall be appointed and by whom, and (3) what powers of jurisdiction he or she will have. We have just learned today that this would be a Cabinet appointment which we were not aware of at the time. In reference to

Section 26 1(1) (

b) where the education administrative consultant can certify that in his opinion, or hers, a child is receiving a satisfactory standard of education outside the public school system, we are concerned as to the criteria on which the education administrative consultant will make this judgment. In keeping with our recommendations in

part VII of our brief which is to follow, on Placement and Appeals, we would recommend that the decision regarding a satisfactory standard of education must invoive the team of parents, child (where appropria te) and relevant educational profess ionals 51

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 along with the education administrative consultant. Numb er VII: Placement and Appeals Mechanisms. Placement of physically handicapped childre1 should parallel the normal placement procedures just as for non-handicapped children. However we recognize the need for a team approach for achieving appropriate programs related to need: of individual children. This team should consist of teachers, principals, parents, students (when appropria te) and others as required, medical liaison, special education consultants, school divisior representatives, etc.

The decision of this team should be open to review on a regular basis at least annually. If < consensus is not able to be reached at this level an efficient mechanism for appeal i! required. Appeal of Placement. Recommendations: The process for appeal to a placement decision shoulc include the neutral position of an om budsman, a provincial ombudsman. The rationale for this is the current Bill 22 outlines two apparent channels that are available. 250 and

Section 27 4. 250 is the least desirable in that that is going through the courts and certain I� we wouldn't want to have to take it that far due to time and just due to the degree of need ta get the child placed.

Section 27 4, direct appeal to the Minister places the Minister in a difficult situation. Recog nizing that the Minister desires the best education for all students, the Minister is also responsible for the education system that has been challenged by the appeal. The right to a hearing by a neutral ombudsman requires that both parties must present their positions as equals. Implications for instituting of user fees: In reference to

Section 45( 1 )(

a) of Bill 22, there was concern for the statement "school boards may provide special course s". A definition or clarification of "special courses" is needed. Special courses that are required by physically handicapped students to conduct themselves in the function of participating as a student, should be deemed part of the public schools program so that they are not charged tuition fees as

Section 48( 1 )(

f) allows, for courses that are necessary to the physically handicapped student's educational participation. An example of this would be a typing class for a physically handicapped student who could not print or write. In reference to

Section 48( 1 )(

j) which states a school board may loan books and instructional materials with or without charge. Books and other instructional materials necessary to the instruciion of the physically handicapped such as large type books for the visually handicapped student, typewriters, etc., should be loaned or used without charge as these are integral parts of the student's education, as the free use of the classroom itself. Physically handicapped students should not be financially discrimi nated against because of their different-than-average needs.

In reference to Bill 23, Sec tion 4( 1)(m), this clause could be referring to charging taxpayers. If so, the Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped reco mmends it should be amended to refer to non-essential services so that services vital to the education of a student are not charged for by the Minister. A definition of non-essential therefore and essential services should follow.

Esse ntial services would be those that are fundamental to the attendance of school and completion of cou rses, such as: transportation to and from school where needed, such as one-half mile or more from school or closer when the student's physical handicaps makes this essential to attending school. Acces sibili ty to school buildings - I think this is an issue Mr. Enns highlighted - availability of books and instructional aids, those that are integral to the comp letiC>'1 of a course.

This clarification is intended to ensur e that the essential services of all resident st udentf. are met and provided for without charge. Those students who are physically handicapped should have available free of charge the esse ntial services just as those students who are not physically handicapped. Now the major question of today, and that is the funding provisions for special educations. Certainly that is a reality that we all have to examine very seriously. The commitment from school divisions to provide an appropr iate education for all children of school age in Manitoba is our major concern.

However, in support of this commitment and to place the commitment into action, it is necessary to examine the resources of school divisions and Department of Education to provide for the educational needs of students and in particular, students with special needs. Therefore the financial provisions available to school divisions to fulfill their responsibili ty to special needs students are in need of serious review as to their adequacy and appropriateness.

Of major concern is the availability of financial resources to provide special equipm ent, teachers, physical structural changes within a school, educational materials and profes sional development, etc. While financial support does exist at present in the form of a grant given directly to school divisions based on population in a iivision and a special grant established on an annual basis and disbur sed by the provincial department, there are some concerns relative to this type of 52

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 The grants disbur sed to school divisions provide only for the hiring of special education teachers. he grant provides resources on a very minimal basis and special education teachers may be cattered throughout a large geographical area.

A division can decide to supplement this grant based n its commitment to meeting the needs of children with special needs.$ The provision ofppersonnel grants over and above the current non-categ orical special educational mding are necessary if some school divisions are to be able to meet the special needs of their andicapped students, particularly those with "low cost, high incidence handicaps". The grant presupposes that it is special education teachers which are requi red for most children ather than perhaps only a ramp or special equi pment within a regular classroom.

This grant seems o promote the principle of segregat ion. This is need for a clearer provision for the recovery of costs associated with incidental nodifications of school build ings and adaptations of vehicles for student transport, which in the :ase of wheelchair confined student for example, are often the sum total of their special needs n education. The "high cost, low incidence" grant is very minimal and currently provides for only a fraction >f the needs of students across the province.

The special grants allocated for "high cost, low ncidence" handicaps is currently insufficient as indicated by the fact that some Manitoba school jivisions will be unable to recove costs and thus to provide appropria tely for their special needs ;tudents due to the early exhaustion of this grant resource. The application for a high cost, low incident grant is based on the description of a disability ·ather than a focus on services required.

The definition of eligib le special needs students used for 3.llocating this high cost, low incidence handicap grant does not accurately identify actual need for :;pecial education provisions. For example, visibility and medical labels appear to be given priority under the present guidelines rather than one equally legitimate needs. lt would seem that the funding system needs to be examined and evaluated as accountability for the use of these special grants is lacking. There is little attempt to monitor their application and effectiveness relative to the provision of service to students with special needs.

Certainly the responsibil ity for provision of education to all students lies with local school division To ensure accou ntability and a quality of service, provincial grants seem to be appropriate. A greater degree of residual costs incurred by divisions should be picked up by the province. Grants should be made available with an emphasis on the services required rather than su bject to a description of a disabili ty. The principle of the availability of financial resou rces to ensure the provision of educational services is one which we wish to emphasize.

The mechanics involved in the disbur sement of these resources are certainly open to review and we trust will be a natural process following the proclaiming of the amended legislation. This would naturally be a process of funding being allocated in stages rather than in one immediate dispensation of resources. As stated in our opening remarks we realize that changes must proceed gradually in response to specific reasonable demand, and would over time do much to move us toward true equalizing of educational opportunities for physically handicapped citizens of Manitoba. Henry? MR.

ENNS: In conclusion I would just like to say in the appendix you have a number of res olutions that were passed by our organization and at this point I would just like to read one of them. lt is Resolution IV and this was with regard to Bill 58 which was passed at that time, but I think it is also very applicable to this situation at the present time. lt reads:

BE IT RESOLVED that the ML PH call upon the Department of Education to assume the leadership in establishing uniform and effective policy gui delines for the use of those required to implement Bill 58. More general, if you want to talk about it, you know, it is calling upon or saying that there should be somebody that has to take the initiative to provide the leadership to create this kind of change and it is calling upon the Government of Manitoba in order to do that.

So, in conclusion I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you for being allowed to make this presentation an we are hopeful that the overall intention of the government is indeed integration, for as was voiced earlier today already, if it isn't we are indeed in trouble. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Enns and Mrs. Simp son. Have we questions? The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. BOYCE: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the League for their well thought out brief. I 53

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 want to thank them, especially for their suggestion on how to resolve one of these difficulties, albe it not expressing an opinion on the efficacy of an Ombuds man. Would not another way to solv this problem of Sect ion 41 (5) be to have it subject to arbitration? MR� CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns or Mrs. Simpson. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask for clarification, what aspects of 41( 5) are you talkin · about? Are you talking about the whole thing? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyce. MR.

BOYCE: We ll, as I understand you presentation it rises out of an apprehension that by th� proposed amendment there will be more cases of opting out of the . . . MR. ENNS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, it is in the phrase "as far as possible and practicable in thE circums tances". Is that the ph rase that you are concerned about? Tllat is our particular concern that that phrase be deleted there and that in fact it be made mandatory. I don't think that it shoulc go to arbitration.

I think it should be established in the syste m, the way the system operates. 1· would be a regular part of the system in order to, you know, for handicapped students to be accommodated. MRS. SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I also think along with Mr. Enns' comments here tha1 there are many examples in the amended proposed Act that point out it will be difficult to actually assess for instance, need, this kind of thing which has been raised here today and certainly something like arbitration would just prolong that agony.

I think that if the intent is stated directly within the Bill that will influence how actually most of this is acted out. MR. BOYCE: We ll, Mr. Chairma n1 it is an important question. I know we are spending some time on it. My opinion hasn't changed over the years in suppor t of a better provision of services. But nevertheless, throug h you, Mr.

Chairman, to either person who may wish to respo nd, is it not the case that if it is just "shall" in standing by itself that there will be cases - it is just impossible, you know, with reasonable and prudent people making the best decisions they can as far as not just the dollars, dollars are important of course, but nevertheless it puts a compulsion there and this is why I raised the question earlier and the legislative counsel is finding a precedent on legal decisions relative to the operational word "sha ll".

I think that the government and former governments were looking for some reasonable way to resolve this difficulty and you have made one suggestion that the matter be referred to an Ombudsman. But perhaps consideration should be considered of having an arbitration rather than one individual once again. No matter who you set up as, you know, and right off the list of the presenter of the prior brief a number of people who might compris e a panel of people who would see whether the people had fulfilled the intent of the law. Should we not consider perhaps a type of, you know, the operation of arbitration? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Simpson. MRS. SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman , I think we have also identified that a team approach is essential when it comes to asses sing what kind of needs a student may have. I think when we were referring to the Ombudsman we were discussing a decision that may be made by the Administrative Consultant and I personally, as a member of the League, see no problems in having a team approach in any of these decisions and we advocate the kind of persons who should be involved with that. So I don't believe we have an argument with your point, Sir. MR.

BOYCE: There is a case of recent date where the right - is it right or responsibili ty - of an arbitration board, was upheld by the court in something which the administrative people thought was outside of the parameters' responsibility of the arbitration board, so perhaps through you, Mr. Chairman, to the League they could give us an expression of opinion as far as the League is concerned of the efficacy of establishing an arbitration type of a process in resolving this difficulty. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman , again esta blishing an arbitration process like that, like we are definitely 54

Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 1 favour of a team approach in order that if, you know, there are some handicapped students 'ho cannot be acco mmodated by the school system and they do need some special ized services, don't think it is fair, you know, for one single person to be making that kind of a decision if that 1as what was being referred to. When we talk about the Om budsman we are really talking about system of - it is really a system of appeal more so than handling the people actually within 1e system itself.

If you talk about the people within the system itself, the students, I think, you now, what you are talking about the League would look on very favourable. Cert ainly with regard ) all our negotiations, that is the kind of stand that we usually take. IIR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyce. IIR. BOYCE: Well, perhaps our understanding of the arbitration process is somewhat different. >erhaps I could clarify it to see that we are discussing the same thing.

In an arbitration situation me party is selected from those people who think that they are aggrieved and another person is 1elected from the other side of the argument and a "neutral person" is esta blished. lt is not just me individual and it is usually outside of the system that they appoint these people to review the ;ituation. So we are not talking about people with in the system arbitrating the matter. We are talking :�bout people from outside of the system or at least I am talking about them, I'm sorry. !II R. ENNS: Are you talking then about the exceptional cases? MR.

BOYCE: No, my que stion is pertaining to those who in someone's opinion feel that they are aggrieved, that some child is being deprived of education in a particular instance and after the government has said that they "shall ... I'm sorry, wait until I get the actual ... Wha t

section is it in the proposed Bill, I'm sorry I have flipped a page. 41( 5) "E very school board shall as far as possible and practicable in the circums tances ... " So even in those words if the school board is not providing it then somebody who has a claim to make that the school board is not fu lfilling its possible and practicable function could have that case referred to an abbitration process. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Simpson. Proceed Mr. Enns. MR. ENNS: Yes, I would agree with you that in a situation like that arbitration, you know ... I guess I'm st ill not quite clear.

You are talking about arbitration, you are talking about an Ombudsman or you are talking about the process of having several people involved. Is that the distinction that you are making? MR. BOYCE: Well, there have been th ree suggestions made so far, the latter being mine. The first one was that we have a panel in one of the other presentations. Now you have sugge sted an Ombudsman and I am wondering about the last alternative that I have sugge sted about an arbitration process, as differentiated from the other two. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Simpso n. MRS.

SIMPSON: I think there is just a matter of semantics here that has been confusing the issue. When we have mentioned a team and I believe when the other group presented theirs, when they were discussing a team approach we were discussing asses sing the needs of a child and what special services would be required. When we were stating that an Ombudsman should be involved in the process of identifying any grievances and deciding if this grievance is justified or not, we have pointed out that that would mean in effect arbitration.

There would be the representative from the Minister, a representative from those who felt they were grieved aggrieved and the Om budsman would act as that neutral person. From what I can understand right now, Mr. Boyce, we are saying the same thing. Our neutral person, we are sugges ting, should be a provincial Ombudsman. Does that clarify it at all? MR. BOYCE: Yes, it is a semantical difference but it is an important difference. Under arbitration process they have the authority to act and their decision is binding. An Ombudsman process even under the general law is only a recommendation. MR.

ENNS: So you are talking about the authority that would be vested in this person. . . MR. BOYCE: Not in the person. 55

MR. ENNS: . . . or this body. Privileges and Elections Monday, October 22, 1979 MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman , if I may, in an arbitration process where you have say three peop in an arbitration situation with two from each side and a Chairman, then they can call on anyor to make representation on either side of the case, such as the person is educable and they shou be educated. They should have access to education whatever needs that may be in a particul< instance. And the other side can call people to make the case that that isn't.

Then the matter resolved not by bu reucrats or by technicians or profes sional people. Being a counsellor myself know that if I get five counsellors together I may get five different opinions relative to any particul� subject. I am saying that somewhat facet iously but nevertheless it comes down to the point wher somebody has to be have the authority to decide. This is why I was asking you, would the League undertake to advise the Commit tee on the efficac of having an arbitration process prevail in this particular area? Mr.

Chairman, I wouldn't expect the representatives of the League to express an opinion o behalf of the League at the present time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Simpson. MRS. SIMPSON: Thank you for that Mr. Boyce because certainly I cou ldn't do that at this poin in time. But I can say that the League has always advocated that there be a body where the consumer a consumer who is involved be heard. If that be an arbitration process where an ombudsman o a neutral person was there who would maybe make a final decision, fine, certainly we would a� an organization be concerned that all persons who had a view were heard.

As to the fina decision-making, you are right, that is something we would have to take back to our organization Our intent was to provide a neutral body where both sides of the story, so to speak, could be heard. MR. BOYCE: Thanks, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? The Ho nourable Minister. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chair man, through you to Mrs. Simpson and Mr. Enns I would like to add my appreciation to these people for their excellent brief. There are two or three points that I would like to mention, perhaps for clarification more than anything. First of all, Mr.

Enns in regard to new build ings and alterations, you've raised a concern in this regard. I wonder if you could clarify that concern. All new buildings and alterations, to my knowledge, today must meet the Department of Labour's Building Code standards which, to my understanding, does include the provision of adequa te access facilities for those who may be in wheelchairs. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman , this is correct.

Our concern with regard to Bill 22 was that it should be so indicated within the bill that, in fact, the building code was applicable and that the guidelines of the building code would be adhered to in educational facilities, which gives people who are building new buildings a guideline to follow. And, I think, it also gives a me�1ns of implementing because the Mi nister, acc ording to the bill there, at one position is in authority to make decisions which could then influence that decisions could be made to make buildings access ib le. MR. CHAIRMAN!: Mrs. Simpson. MRS. SIMPSON: Mr.

Minister, I would also like to state that in the meeting we had wi

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-3-pe2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 3rd hansardpdf pe2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	411e59c09bf995cb327705f68956232a670bb669

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