Manitoba Committee Hansard — 30 October 1996 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 14, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-la14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Law Amendments Chairperson Mr. David Newman Constituency of Riel Vol. XLVI No. 14- 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 30, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Leg61ature Members2 Constituencies and Political AtTiliation Name ConstitueDC)' !!art)' ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARREIT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

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

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

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

745 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Wednesday, October 30, 1996 TIME -6:30 p.m. LOCATION -Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON -Mr. David Newman (Riel) VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina) ATTENDANCE -11 -QUORUM -6 Members of the Committee present: ; Hon. Messrs. Derkach, Gillesh ammer, Reimer, Hon . Mrs. Mcintosh Ms. Barrett, Mr. Dyck, Ms. Friesen, Mr. Ne wman , Mrs. Render, Messrs. Sant os, Struthers Substitutions: Mr. Laurendeau for Hon. Mr. Derkach APPEARING: Mr. Gary Doer, MLA for Concordia Mr. Gary Kowalski, MLA for The Maples WITNESSES: Bill 72- The Public Schools Amendment Act

(2) Ms. Karen Minish, Private Citizen Mr. Garth Minish, Private Citizen Ms. Gail Cherpako , Private Citizen Mrs. Ther esa Ducharme, People in Equal Participation Inc. Mr. Jim Robertson, St. James-Assiniboia Teachers ' Association Mr. Ben Zaidman, Seven Oaks School Division Mr. John Wiens, Seven Oaks School Division Ms. Maureen Gelinas, St. Vital Teache rs' Committee Mr. Ken Pearce, The Manitoba Teachers' Society Ms. Heather Hinchliffe, Private Citizen Mr. Michael Thompson, Private Citizen Mr. Bob Minaker, Private Citizen Mr. Albert Ceril li, Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees Mr.

Phil MacLellan, Seven Oaks Teachers' Association Ms. Pat Isaak, Private Citizen Ms. Nancy Paterson, Private Citizen Mr. Emanuel Tavares, University ofWinnipeg Education Students Association Ms. Jen nifer Waroway, University of Winnipeg Education Students Association Mr. Fred Paul s, Private Citizen Mr. Alan Wiebe, Fort Garry Teachers' Association Ms. Ruth Smith, Private Citizen Ms. Harriet Zaidman, Belmont School Parent Association Ms. Wendy Land, Private Citizen Mr. Rick Wilgosh, Private Citizen Bill 32- The Council on Post-Sec ondary Education Act Ms.

Eliza beth Johannson, Private Citizen Bill 48- The University of Manitoba Amendment Act Mr. Edward Lipsett, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. John Mallea, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 32- The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act Bill 48- The University of Manitoba Amendment Act Bill 72- The Public Schools Amendment Act (2) * * *

74 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31,19 96 Mr. Chairperson : Good even ing. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. This ev ening the committee will be resuming consideration ofBill 32, The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act; Bill 72 , The Public Schools Amendment Act (2); and will commence consideration for the first time ofBill48, The University of Manitoba Amendment Act. We do have a number of pen:ons who have preregistered to speak to these three bills. The names of persons who have prere gistered are posited on a board in the hallway outside of the committee room.

If there are any other persons in attendance who wish to speak to one ofthe bills bef ore the committee this ev •�ning and whose name does not appear on the list, please register with the Chamber Branch personnel at the table at the back of the room. Just as a reminder to those persons wishing to hand out copies of their briefs to the committe<:, 15 copies are required. If assistance is needed to make the required number of copies, please contact the Chamber Branch personnel at the rear of the room or the Clerk Assistant and assistance will be provided.

Just as a reminder to committee memlx:rs , it pre viously had been determined by this committee for Bills 32 and 72 that a 1 0-minute time limit for presentations would be used, to be followed by a five-minute time limit for questions and answe rs.

Did the committee wish to use similar time limits for the hearing of presenters on Bill 48? [agreed] It had also been previ ously agreed by this committee regar ding Bill 32 that names would be dropped to the bottom of the list when called for the Jirst and second time when the presenter is not in attend ance, with the name to be dropped off of the list afler a third call. Regar ding Bill 72 , the committee agr1eed that names would be dropped to the bottom of the li1;t after one call, then dropped off the list after a second call.

Did the committee wish to have similar provisions in effect for the presenters regist ered to Bill 48? Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley) : Mr. Chairman, I think we should probably recognize that it is tmusual weather conditions tonight and that rural presenlters , if there are any on any of the bills-1 am speaking on all ofthe bills now-may have some difficulties. I do not know what the committee or you, Mr. Chairman, would like to do in consideration of that. Mr. Otairpenon: Any further discussion? What is the will of the committee with respect to Bill 48? We are probably not going to get to it tonight in any event.

Bon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Usually the procedure is that out-of-town presenters are called first anyway, so we could do that with that bill, too. Mr. Chairpenon: Do you want to deal then with how we deal with Bill 48 now, or do you want to deal with that later? Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Ms. Friesen might have a point here .

We do not want to drop anybody who might not be here this even ing because of the weather, so I think we might want to leave them over for another call for another day, but I think if we do read their names ooce, it can be classified as one read, but they will still have the other opportunity. Is that agreed? Mr. Chairpenon: Agreed? [agreed] What is the pref erence of the committee regar ding the order of the bills for the hearing of presenters tonight? Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the House leaders had come to an agree ment of Bill 72 , 32, 48. Mr.

Chairpenon: Okay, we will procee d, 72 , 32 and 48 in that onb. Did the committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this even ing? Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chairman, we have come to an agreement on a number of occas ions at a number of committees now that we would sit until midnight, and after midnight we would continue to read the list, but no one would be dropped off the list after midnight when their name is read. Ms. Friesen: In general, I think that is the agreement we have reached , but we did run into a little problem on

October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 74 7 another committee over the issue of whether it was reading the list or canvassing the audience, so maybe we should be clear. I think that what we had agreed to last time was that we call speakers until midnight. After midnight, we canvass the audience and we find a list of people who want to present after midnight. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chairperson, we had been calling it at the previous two or three meeti ngs now.

We had continued to call the list to make sure we kept them in numerical order, for one of the rea sons, but I do bel ieve on Bill 72 , we have only got approximately 32 presenters left, and that is basically where we have been at anyway as far as presentations between the hours of 6: 30 and one o'clock, two o'clock in the morning, which has been about the hours we have been sitting. I do believe that we will have enough time to accommodate all of Bill 72 this ev ening, and I do not think we will have any concerns on the other two bills when that time does arise. Mr. Chairperson: Just for clarification, Ms.

Friesen is correct. The last time dea ling with Bill 72 , it was ultim ately agreed that we would canvass the audience after twelve, and that was done with the Chamber personnel recording the names of people who wanted to present in numerical order, and that did work out satisfactorily. So if that is agreed by the committee, we will do that again. * (1 840) Mr. Laurendeau: On Bill 72 , Mr. Chairman, I do think that we could try to finish off Bill 72 this even ing if it is possible. As I said, they are down to 32 presenters, so I would not want to not accommodate them in having them heard this ev ening.

That is my only concern. I have no problem with what Ms. Friesen is saying. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Is that understood, Ms. Frie sen? Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I understood what you said, and I accept what you said. I am not sure whether Mr. Laurendeau is adding another wrinkle here or not, but I am quite happy to call people in till midnight and then to canvass the room and for the Clerk to provide people in alphabetical order who are wishing to stay. Mr.

Chairperson: Just as a reminder, another meeti ng has been called for Thursday night at 6:30 to continue consideration of these bills, with a meeting scheduled for Friday morning at 9 a.m. if necessary. Oh, there is an initial matter, Mr. Reimer? Committee Substitution Mr. Reimer: Yes, by leave , a committee change. By leave, I move that the composition of the St anding Committee on Law Amendments be amend ed: Laurendeau for Derkach, with the underst anding that this motion will be moved in the House tomorrow. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed by the committee? Is leave granted? Leave is granted.

Do I understand leave is granted? [agreed] * * * Mr. Chairperson: I would advise committee members a written submission to Bill 32 is received from Dr. John Mallea from Brandon University. Copies of the brief have been placed m the table for committee membe rs. Is there agreement to have this submission included in Hansard as submitted? So agreed. [agreed] That was with respect to Bill 32. Bill 72- The Public Schools Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed then with Bill 72 and the first presenter, out-of-town presenter, Neil MacNeil, No. 20. Is Neil MacNeil here? Neil MacNeil, not being here , will go to the bottom of the list. Is Bob Dixon here? Bob Dixon here? Bob Dixon, not being here, will go to the bottom of the list. Dan Lemieux. Dan Lemieux. Dan Lemieux, not being here, will Richard Maslanka. Richard Maslanka. Richard Maslanka, not being here, will go to the bottom of the list. Kathleen Burt. Kathleen Burt, not here, will go to the bottom of the list Karen Minish. Ms. Karen Minish (Private Citizen): Well, I am here.

74 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 199 6 Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Ms. Minish, you may begin your presentation. Ms. Minish: Good evening. First of aU, I· would like to thank you for the opportunity of SIK:aking here this evening. I have been a schoolteacher for almost 2S years, and Bill 72 causes me grave con cerns . I would just like to make a few points, and I would appreciate you considering what I say. Bill 72 was drafted expressly to drive teachers' salaries down. Several weeks ago, the Premic:r (Mr. Filmon) stated in a public meeting that teachers were paid 2S percent too much.

When challenged, he hedged a little bit and he said, perhaps it was only 1 S percent too high. My concern is that if we are overpaid, which I do not agree with, how are we ever going to, with reduced sal aries, entice the best of the youth of today into the teaching profession? Why now? Only seven months ago, Eric Stefanson said that general revenues were up 1 S percent over the last two years and that the government could now spend more on services. I do not understand how Bill 72 is an increase in services to the youth of our society. Why do we need these draconian measures?

Teachers' salar ies are consistently in the middle range. I know a number of single-parent teachers that have said to me, if my salary is reduced I will no longer be able to provide for my family. I will no longer be able to stay in teaching. That causes me grave concerns. No other segment of society has been attacked in this

part icular way. Perhaps Bill 72 is the government's attempt to explain the massive cuts that lilave been made to public schools. Over $4 3 million hav€: been taken out of public schools in the last four years. How can this be when the government has reported a surplus of $1 SO million last year alone? Ma nitoba's per capita debt-service ratio is the second lowest in Canada. We are at the very bottom for total government expenditures for services, so I guess my question is, what is the problem? Besides the financial unf airness of this bill, there is an inhe�rent betrayal of trust.

In 19 S6 teachers gave up the right to strike. Teachers care about kids. They do no1t want to strike because the kids get hurt. In exchange Jtbr giving away this powerful right, teachers were promised a compulsory binding arbitration device to settle grievances. It is essential that teachen have a mechanism for dealing with disputes. Where this mechanism is entrenched, whether it is in The Public Schools Act or whether it is in the collective agreem ent, could be decided upon by consens us. This bill effectively strips teachers of their rights to binding arbitratim as it was cmceptualized 40 years ago.

In the curr ent p roces s, when contract negotiations go to arbitration, the committee is made up of three people. One member is appointed by the school board and one is selected by the teachers and the third one is sort of mutually agreed upon-consens us. It works well in the cla ssroom. Bill 72 changes this. We now have an arb itrator/mediator. To have the same person as the arbitrator as the mediator is just not fair. It colours the entire process. I cannot see how it can work. * (1 8SO) Again, I ask why Bill 72 is being speeded through the Legislature.

Last year the minister promised teachers that all partners in education-all partners in education, that is the community, the teachers, parents and the governmen t-would have ample opportunity to take

part in dialogue prior to the introduction of any education bills. Well, that sounds fair enough. Last year, teachers through the vehicle of MTS, actually were on such a committee. Two meetings later, where nothing of real substance had been discussed, teachers asked for clarification of the governm ent's five basic principles. Assurances were given that this clarification would be forthcomin g. Instead they received a letter from the Deputy Minister saying that the meetings were over, and I am wondering if that is what working together means. It was not my concept of working together.

Last, but not least, Bill 72 takes away our right to arbitrate such items as class size. I have 29 kids in my classroom this year. That does not work out to many minutes fm each child. I am really, really tired at the end of the day trying to be all things to the students in my class. I have no vehicle to discuss this with the government and I have con cerns . We cannot arbitrate sch eduling of noon hour, reces s breaks, transfers, a number of things that the minister probably would have been concerned with when she was a teacher. A year ago,

October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 74 9 Mrs. Mcintosh told us that Bill 72 would legislate grievance rights on th ese very issues. In closing, I request that the government delay implemen tation of Bill 72 and other education bills until mea ningful dialogue among all the partners in education can take place. Mr. Chairperson: Thanks, Ms. Minish. That is eight minutes perf ectly. Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Thank you for your prese nt ation. Obviously, you have driven in from somewhere, and hope you get back home safely tonight.

I take it from your presentation that you do not think that a mediator is a good route to go. Am I reading you correctly? Ms. Minish: Well, in the past- Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Minish. I am just going to go in sequence, so pause bef ore you respond after your name. Ms. Minish: Yes, I forgot that. I am a little rattled. I did not get out of school until five o'clock. I have not had supper, and I did not get lunch. I am sorry. Could you repeat your question for me, please? Mrs.

Render: Did I gather from your presentation that you do not like the idea of mediation as one of the processes that you can have, that because if you choose the mediation process the mediator can don a different hat and become the arbitrator? You sounded negative, and I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. Ms. Minish: I guess I have concerns. Mrs. Render: Did you know that the MTS itself had suggest ed that as a possible method? They saw that mediation might be another route that could be very valuable to settle disputes on both sides. Did you realize that? Ms.

Minish: My understanding was that it was the discussion topic that was never quite completed . Ms. Jean Friesen (Wol seley): Ms. Minish, you said that you had 29 children in your classroom. I wondered if you could tell us a little more about them and what issues you face in the classroom-what age they are, for example, and what changes you have seen in the classroom over your years as a teacher . Ms. Minish: With pleasure. Our student population went up by three this year. Our teaching population dropped by three . We lost our guidance counsellor and two classroom teache rs.

I have several students who really need a guidance counsellor, who had counselling last year , and when the parents brought them in this year, they requested that the counselling continue. I was embarrassed to say I am really sorry, but that is not a service that we can offer to you anymore. My children are Grade 5 students . Their needs range, in terms of academic abilities, from a Grade 2 level up. For me to program properly requires that I meet with the resource teacher. We set up IEPs for kids who are not working at grade level. Last year I had two periods in which to meet with my resource teacher.

This year I have none. So I meet with my resource teacher-that is where I was tonight until six o'clock. It takes away from the programming that I can do. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much for your presenta tion. I just was- Mr. Chairperson: Gary, bring your mike up. Mr. Doer: Okay. Thank you very much for the present ation. I wanted to ask some questions about the inherent betrayal that you observed, based on the fact that we have had a consensus since 1956 and now we no longer have the same 40-year consensus that we had.

What do you fe el will be the long-term impact on members of the teaching profession and our kids and their future in the classroom, based on this breakdown? Ms. Minish: I guess a lot of negativity, a sense that a segment of society that we should have been able to trust, we cannot. We try to teach that to our kids all the time . If you make a deal with someone, you make a deal . It was a promise. I bet you teach your kids not to break their promises, Mr. Doer. I did, too, and I fe el like that promise has been broken. I fe el very sad. Mr.

Doer: You also mentioned the word "betrayal" and suggested to us that we not act in a hasty way, that the government and the Legis lature not act in a hasty way so

750 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31,1996 that we, I guess to paraphrase it, can gc�t it right and go back and try to work at the consensus. In your opinion, would you be recommending to the minister and all members of the Legislature that we not pass this bill now but rather go back and try to arrive at the spirit-it may be a different consensus but the spirit of consensus moving into the 21st Century as we did moving from, as you indicated, 1956 ilnto the '60s? Is that the recommendation to this Legislature? Ms. Minish: Exactly. That its exactly my recommendation.

I respectfully requeslt that that could occur. Mr. Doer: Ms. Minish, have you been given any good reason from any of us why we should not stop, look and listen and try to get that consensus? Is dtere any reason for the haste, as you describe it, based on your opinion of beilng iJn the fiont lines of education at the classroom level with 29 children iJn Grade 5? Ms. Minish: Well, I have always sort of come to the conclusion that when you rush ilnto thilngs: you sometimes regret them, and I think hasty decisions are not necessarily the wisest decisions, and that is what I sort of base my feelilngs on. Mr.

Chairperson : Thanks very much for your presentation, Ms. Minish. The next out-of-town presenter iJn order is Garth Minish, No. 28. You may begiln your presentation, Mr. Minish. *

(1900) Mr. Garth Minish (Private Citizen): Thank you very much. I am here tonight as a taxpayer,. first, and as a teacher, second. I feel that the present government is showilng its inability to govern iJn its determination to punish Manitoba Teachers' Society and Manitoba teachers for their ad campaign in the last election that dealt with the impact of deaeased fundilng on schools and students. The present legislation that is beilng put forward deals with several items. One of those is teacher classification.

By changing the teacher classification yolll are punishilng the teachers of Manitoba, specifically the difference in clas sificatioo between vocational and academic teachers. Another punishment is the class size. California law has just passed a statement that the maximum class size for them is 23. We have no such one. The evaluation of teachers is to be determined by someone else, how a teacher is to be evaluated, no consultation with the teacher. The assignment and transfer of teachers is another punishment. Teachers are beilng transferred.

Mathematics teachen are beilng transferred from one high school iJn one division to another high school in the same division and told to teacll language arts . It makes it very, very difficult for them. It is also quite evident that this presen t governm ent and the minister feel that teachers are underworked and overpaid. I challenge any one of you to do my job for a day. Better yet, I challenge any one of you just to try and follow me around for a day. I am a vocational teacher. I think I could do your job.

In the past, teachers have taken no pay increases when public and private sector employees have, and they have had significant ilncreases . As the previous presenter stated. we are vel}' much iJn the middle of the salary scale. We are not overpaid. With taxation and other deductions, I take home hardly more than half of my salary. In closilng, this go�ent is takilng a union bustilng stance against many groups in the province at this time, but the fact that teachers cannot strike prevents us from offering any more than anger and frustration at the governm ent's lack of failr, co-operative legislation.

However, we can vote you out in the next election and I would be wary because of what happened to the federal Conservatives. You may receive what you deserv e. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Minish. Mrs. Render: Yes, I just wanted to correct a statemen t. This legislatioo does not deal with teacher classifica tion. The recommendation of the committee was that it was a complex issue, and it was felt that it had to go back out for furthel" consultation. That is exactly what is goilng to happen, just so that the facts are clearly stated for the record. Also, evaluation will also be worked out iJn

October 31,1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 751 consultation with teachers and trustee s. That, too, will go to the compensation committee that has just been struck. Point of Order Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I think we went over this the other night. The speaker is given a certain amount of time for a presentation and to be questioned, not for members of this committee to make statement s and have debate. So I thought the peri od of time allowed to the speaker was to question the speaker about his pres entati on, not to make statements or debate with the presenter. So I raise it as a point of order. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Kowalski, I am still waiting with eager anticipation for that

preamble to conclude and then the question to be put. · * * * Mr. Chairperson: Maybe you can put your que stion now, please. Mrs. Render: I am just wondering, were you aware of those two facts because, from your presentation, it did not appear that you were aware of that? Mr. Chairperson : Are you aware of that, Mr. Minish? Mr. Minish: No, I am not. I stand corrected. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Ms. Friesen: Thank you very much for the presentation . I want to take you up on your offer to follow you around for a day.

If you would let me know which school you are at I would very much like to do that, but I wondered if perhaps for the benefit of the committee you could take us through those ste ps. What does happen in a day? Mr. Minish: I teach at R.B. Russell Vocational School in the core area. I teach in the vocational carpentry program. My day starts with a prep time to organize my day for the students that will arrive . I team-teach with another teacher and our first per iod is in that preparation. Our second period is with the language arts growth for our students in the vocational program.

We take them down to our technology lab and spend a period with them there. Our third period in the morning, we go back to our shop and students are given their projects and assisted with the projects that they are working on that day, on the machines that they use in the woodworking program. After lunch, at this time I take half of the students in the program over to a home that I am presently renovating, through the Winnipeg School Division, and we spend the afternoon rebuilding a home for someone who may live in the core area eventual ly.

It is a standard work program, working with the tools in an old home, come back to the school at the end of the day and work with our students doing a daily journal, again, some more writing. They lay out in their daily journal what they did for the day and what they do, and that is the end of our day. Mr. Doer: Thank you very much, Mr. Minish. You work in a challenging profession and in a challenging location. You mentioned the class sizes, and I have heard this on a number of occas ions now from teache rs. There are just more and more kids in your classroom.

Could you ela borate on-has there been an increase in the number of kids in the class, number of students in the class recently, and what is the impact on their education and their future? Mr. Minish: In our school this year, I know that some of the teachers have faced classes of 40 studen ts. In my class, because it is a vocational area, we are given some leeway with the number of students that we have.

However, when we have had people in from industrial settings-to give you an example, we had a vocational teacher come in from one of the correctional institutes and they just absolutely were astounded at the numbers we dealt with, with the saf ety problems that we may have in our shops. We were dealing with two and three times the number of students that they are in the correctional institutions. Mr. Doer: We all would agree, in theory, that we should invest in our young people in schools so that we can give them hope and opportunity to have a productive life in our community.

Do you see the recent, both funding announcements or cuts and the legislative announceme nts, as teachers, as enhancing the opportunities for our young people, or being an impediment over the longer term in terms of the future of our young children, our kids in our school system?

752 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31,1996 Mr. Minish: I feel it is definitely an impediment, and I feel that it is a feeling of the gov ernm ent tJr the support of the government of the private school system providing more funding for them and taking fundin.g away from the public school system and putting that onus on the public school system to survive as it can. I feel that it is a conspiracy by this present government to keep the populous uninformed and ignorant. Mr. Chairperson : Thanks very much for your presentation, Mr. Minish. I would now like to call on Arnold Minish. Arnold Minish.

Arnold Minish not here. Arnold Minish, not being here, will be placed at the bottom of the list. Gail Cherpako. Gail Cherpako. You may bc:gin. Ms. Gail Cherpako (Private Citizen): Bill 72 is a breach of trust between this government and the 13,000 Manitoba teachers. Forty years ago teachers gave up the right to strike in exchange for a pnx:ess of binding arbitration. Bill 72 will drive down our !benefits and our salar ies and give control and empowc:r mana gement. This offsets the balance that teachers have had under binding arbitra tion.

The ability-to-pay <Clause that is in Bill 72 will severely restrict the arbitrator''s ability to give an award that is fair and reasonable. Billl 72 defines the board's ability to pay as its revenues from the gov ernm ent funding and also from the local levy. In other words, its ability is based on the government's and board's decision before arbitration, a bargaining process that is absolutely unfair. The board has the power to decide what it wants to pay and the arbitrator will be forced to rubber-stamp the board's decision.

Under Bill 72, the arbitrator is forced to consider the effects that his or her award will be on layoffs and programs. It see ms to suggest that teachc:rs' benefits and working conditions can be sacrificed in order to preserve programs. *

(1910) Under Bill 72, class sizes, transfers and appointments of teachers and administrators, scheduling of noon hour and recess breaks cannot be taken to arbitration. Other groups do not have such restrictions andl if I am wrong, I would like to know of a labour group that does have such restrictions that they may not negotiate working condi tions. MAST presenters to this committee agreed that these items should not be arbitrated but agreed with a provision of Bill 72 that would give the rights of teachers to grieve unfair and unreasonable board practices.

In other words, MAST's position was asked for that they would have absolute rights in all these ar eas and I would hope and encourage the government not even to consider MAST's request. Why is Bill 72 being passed now? The minister assured teachers last year that all partners in education parents, comm unity, teachers, boards and government would be given every opportunity to participate in discu ssions prior to the introduction of education bills. Teachers through the MTS were in fact on such representative committees last year after two meetings, and I repeat, two.

There was no substantive issues that had been discussed at all and the teacher reps asked for clarification of the gove rnmen t's five basic principles. They were told that this clarification would be forthcoming. Imagine their shock and disappointment to receive a letter from the Deputy Minister of Education that there would be no more meetings. Teachers have heard cabinet ministers and MLAs tell them that they are not <XHlpCI'Iltive, that they never offer solutions. In truth. teachers have not entered into any serious dialogue with the gov ernm ent or MAST to hear what their problems are . What drives Bill 72?

It seems clear that the go vernm ent needs such a bill to make up for massive cuts to the public schools. Mr. Chairman, $43.5 million has already been taken out of support for the public schools in the last four years. This despite the government's tabling of a surplus of $150 million last year. In spite of the fact that Premier Filmon said in the Throne Speech Debate of December 1995, last year, in 1994, our growth ra1e was 3.8 percent This year, 1995, it is expected to be 2.5 percent which is above the national average. The Manitoba economy is doing well and it is doing better than most areas.

Several weeks ago, the Premier stated in a meeting that teachers were being paid 25 percent too high. When challenged he conceded, well, perhaps it is 15 percent. No wonder teachers feel devalued when their hard work and efforts for additional professional development and university education is being so undervalued.

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 753 Finally, Bill 72 will guarantee inequities between divisions. Richer divisions will certainly retain their ability to pay and the poor ones will not. All Manitoba children regardless of where they live and regardless of their fmancial circumstances should have an access to good solid publi cly funded education. What is proposed in Bill 72 can be described as legislated servitude for thousands of teachers who serve our children.

I would urge the Manitoba government to withdraw Bill 72 and enter into meaningful discussions with the Manitoba Teachers' Society regarding improvements to the coll ective bargaining and the process for its 13,000 Manitoba teachers. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thanks, Ms. Cherpako. Mrs. Render: Thank you for a very passionate presentation. I am just wondering, you talked about the surplus, do I take it then that if government has a surplus it should go into Education, that government does not have an obligation to look at Health, Child and Family Services, Justice, the rest of the departments? Ms.

Cherpako: If governm ent has a surplus, it certainly should be looking at all these areas and using its surplus for medicare, for education and for all the services that the government should be providing to all its citizens. Mr. Doer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have heard this said by other members of the education community that there seems to be a discrepancy between what the government says in terms of the economic performance of the province.

It is always great at budget time and Speech from the Throne time and perhaps at election time, but when it comes to education the report that was part of the Render-Dyck consultation exercise stated that Manitoba's economy was way down in seventh or eighth place, I think it was. I have heard this concern that this is not very straightforward with people On the one hand, we have the hallelujah chorus about the economy, and on the other hand, the cupboards are really bare and there is no money left for teachers and kids and investing in their future.

Is there a feeling that there is a discrepancy between what the government is saying on the one hand and on the other hand, and what impact does that have with the morale of teachers in terms of their education? Ms. Cherpako: It definitely has decreased morale. It seems that the government when it appears that it is in their best interests to have money for X, they have it and they have lots of it for X, for the $150 million; but if they do not want to pay Y, then that is what they do.

It seems that they can immediately have money when they need it and yet when they want to pay for education or for health and all the other areas, all of a sudden it is depleted and there is no money for these funds. Mr. Doer: You mentioned that you felt that this was a breach of trust, which are very, very strong words, and that you felt that there was a commitment from the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) that all partners would work on the future in terms of the consensus for collective bargaining legislation for teachers.

Do you believe that that commitment of the Minister of Education has been met in terms of working with all partners? Ms. Cherpako: I think that in my speech I indicated that there were two meetings. If there was serious intent to have the Manitoba Teachers' Society involved in coming up with a plan to revise what is presently in effect as binding arbitration, then there certainly would have been more dialogue and more consensus and then perhaps the teachers of Manitoba would not have need to be standing here after teaching all day, that we would be in support.

But the Manitoba teachers do not feel that we have been heard, listened to, and in two meetings they definitely did not feel that our needs are being met. This bill has completely outbalanced anything in terms of fairness. It is defmitely managerial heavy. Mr. Doer: One last question.

Do you feel you have been given any good reason from the government and the Minister of Education why we cannot stop, look and listen and get this bill correct by trying to work at the co nsens us, and not speed through this bill but hold it and go back and try to rework a consensus that was there 40 years ago and should be there moving into the 21st Century? *

(1920) Ms. Cherpako: At this point in time, I think that the Minister of Education would hopefully withdraw the bill and look at and rewrite and rework it in co-operation with Manitoba teachers. [applause]

754 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31,1996 Mr. Chairperson: I would remind members of the audience that applause and other sounds of approval or disapproval are really not welcome. 'They are not in accordance with the rules, so I would warn you, please, do not do that. To the extent you do, it will encroach on the time of the presenter, as well my intc:rventi ons. Ms. Friesen: Thank you very much fo r your presenta tion. I know that the minister has, or will be tabling some amendme nts. I do not think we have actually seen them yet, but she has proposed some amendments.

I wondered if you had been given a chance to look at these, to discuss them with oth€:rs, and whether you thought it in any way ameliorated the bill. Ms. Cherpako: Unf ortunately, I have jnot seen the list that she has been willing to table. Hopefully, she will table all of Bill 72 and rework it. Mr. Kowalski : One of the things that I remember at the Dyck- Render-Carlyle commit tee hear ings, there were Grade 12 students who were considering, education, that because of what was coming through have changed their minds about becoming teachers.

The other night we heard from a new teacher who was indicating that she could make more money as a part-time waitress than she expected to make as a new teacher in the future. I know we have had teachers who have been long-time teachers who have said it has aff ected their morale . If this bill was withdrawn and there was consensus that the teachers fe lt they had more input into the final product, how do you think it would aff ec;t the morale in teachers and, ergo, the relation between teachers and children, the mood in a classroom if the bill was withdrawn and there was a consensus developed? Ms.

Cherpako: It would increase morale if this bill were tabled and/or absolutely withdr avm. I find that young individuals who are looking to education are finding, yes, if it is not going to be financ ially rewarding for them . But most of the teachers that enter education also do fa irly much for the morale, the helping, they care. They really care about the children, and they care about what they are doing. But they do have to live, they have to eat, they have to pay rent and they hav(: to take care of their hom es. Unf ortunate ly, we cannot all volunteer.

I mean, it is just an unreal-that is almost what you are asking them to do, please take care of our children well, but just do it vo luntarily because we are just going to pay you a pittance fo r doing it. Many teachers do it because they love the work, but it is wOOc, and the teachers should be compensated fo r their work. They should also be able to negotiate fo r their work ing conditi ons. Management should not be able to say, you do not have a recess, if we do not want you to have one . You may not have a lunch hour, if we do not wish to give you one .

They should not say, well, today you have 25 students, tomooow there will be 43 students. Morale is, unf ortunately , definitely going down . It is a really sad state. Mr. Chairpenon: Mr. Santos, we have less than a minute, so real quick . Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): You said that the bargain has been breached between the promise of collective bargaining fo r 40 years, and then there is a breach of promise that every parent and every interested party will be given an opportunity to participate in arriving at a consensus. Given these two breaches of promise, do you think such a consensus is possible? Ms.

Cherpako: If it is possible to get a consensus bet ween the Manitoba Teachers' Society, which rep resen ts its 13,000 teachers, you certainly will not get it in two meetings and being ignored. I think that if they sat down and they worked together, there is definitely a consensus that can be reached if the minister is willing to meet . Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you very much fo r your presen tation. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert) : Mr. Chainnan, I wonder if there might be leave for us to hear from Theresa Ducharme at this time? Mr.

Chairpenon: Is there leave of the committee to hear from Theresa Ducharme? I am informed. through the Clerk, that she has arrived, picking her up after 8 p.m, and she is in need of assistance with her whee lchair. Is leave granted? [agreed] Mrs. Ducharme, you may begin your presentati on. Mn. Theresa Duchanne (People in Equal Participation Inc.): Mr. Chairman, members of the

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 755 board, I, Theresa Ducharme, on behalf of People in Equal Participation Incorporated, PEP Inc., wish to present our disgust regarding Bill 72 in its amended form. Floor Comment: Put the mike closer, Ther esa. Mrs. Ducharme: I can shout louder. Bill 72 will effectively stop pay increases or impose wage reduction s. Is that not so? No? We ll, one head goes up and down, the other one goes this way, so let us take it in between and go, uh, uh, like this, okay. There you go.

This legislation is unfair and contrary to any current accepted practice of free collective bargaining. I tried bargaining my way up here by not using the freight elevator because the regular elevator was broken and Ed Shapiro [phonetic], the supervisor of'all safety and security here, told me off, gave me a slam in the face with several words, and he is still employed with the parliamentary procedure with no democratic polish. So we will have to change that as well with Bill 72, dear, okay? Now, this legislation is not applied to any other labour group.

Why punish the Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty over any other labour group? Please answer that. Do not all rush to the same, Mr. Chair, please? Mr. Chairperson: Is that your presentation? Mrs. Ducharme: Oh, God, no. Mr. Chairperson: Finish your presentation, and then we have question and answers . Mrs. Ducharme: Question and answer s. You might forget all the questions, dear. Notice I did not say sunshine, I said dear. Now, this legislation is not applied to any-pardon me. I will repeat that again because I am very forgetful at times. This legislation is not applied to any other labour group.

Why punish the Manitoba Teachers' Society over any other labour group? Cutbacks in wages will be used to pay or even augment programs. I am sure of that. We have the same problem in all other health care areas which I am cut back on here. So I am a witness to that. Inequ ality between regions and divisions will become the norm in Manitoba's schools, examp le, Fort Garry versus Transcona, and nobody can do that to Mrs. Ducharme in Transcona or her people. Ability to pay or willingnes s to pay.

The board has the power to decide what it wants to pay and the arbitrator will be forced to merely rubber-stamp the board's decision. That is why I ran for school board, honey. There you go, dear and honey . Is that not wonde rful? Now, free and open collective bargaining will cease to exist. There you go. Teaching assignments, transfers, evaluation, class size will no longer be bargainable. Is that not so? Major change from current and member arbitration panel to a one-person mediator or arbitrator. I am doing pretty good, no? Sile nce in the room. I hope the penny falls.

Now, ability-to-pay legislation will come into eff ect determined by its current revenues including the funding received from the government of Canada and its taxation revenue . With ability-to-pay legislation, the school board sets its budget based on current revenues from local levies and on government funding and then determines its own ability to pay, with no consensus of any ability to have democracy. Is that not wonde rful? In closing, Bill 72 is not promoting democracy, but it is promoting Russian roulette through all divisions . If you believe you are doing justice, think again.

Why do you think I ran for school trustee for Transcona Springfield, because I wanted to be one of the topnotch people with gun in hand and ready to shoot. How do you like that? Manitoba Teach ers' Society is my lifeline, as I depend on the education of all those who provide me and millions of other disabled qualified to provide us care in order to exist and contribute to our valuable society. We cannot do the things that Bill 72 wishes to do, and it is just like a dream. See, all nursery rhymes do not begin with once upon a time, the other nursery rhymes begin if I am elected. Is that not wonderful?

If I am elected. So then everyb ody promises, promises, and they are fairytales. I am vety sorry to be here today through the storm and the hell and high water that I had to be here today. I almost had to cancel, when my husband said, you have fought other obstacles, dear, you go out and show them

756 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 that you are still able-bodied, better than they will ever think that you will ever be there. So I am asking for this prese ntation to be put right next to your heart and promise to do the best you can with Bill 72. Okay? That is all I ask. Mr. Chairperson: Thanks, Mrs. Duchann e. *

(1930) Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training) : Thank you, Theresa. It is always good to hear from you, because you are sparky and usually have some good commentary. I have been listening to the presentations tonight, and I feel sometimes it is not any point sometimes in trying to point other people to the vast number of errors that have occurred, but with you I think I will. There have been some tremendously big errors in

interpretation of the bill or, in fact, pronouncements about the bill that are not even in the bill that have been made so fill" tonight. You have asked a number of things. While I will have opportunity to talk to the others, I may not have an opportunity to talk to you. So I wanted to ask you, Theresa, you are concerned that the arbitrator will have to rubber-stamp. The arbitrator is not obliged to do any thing except consider an ability-to--pay argument. You are a taxpayer, I am a taxpayer, everybody in this room is a taxpayer. The arbitrator must now look at ability to pay-did not before, would not before.

The precedent was set. Floor Comments: No. Mrs. Mcintosh: WeU, we will argue about-pardon me, the arbitrator would look at it, and that is technically correct, and the arbitrator would say, I have looked at the ability to pay, but because you are a plilblic body you have unlimited ability to pay. You can always raise taxes to meet your obligation that in that sense 1then there is no limit to your ability to pay. Mr. Chairperson: Are you going to pose a question? Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes, I am going to pose a question, Mr. Chairman.

Theresa, are you aware that the four of the five factors of the ability-to-pay 11rgument were proposed by teachers? They do cover off three of the four concerns that you mentioned that were not addressed in the biU, and they are in the ability-to-pay clause. Are you aware of that? Mrs. Duchanne: No. Is it underlined? Mrs. Mcintosh: Nothing in here is underlined, but it is spelled out here as clear as clear can be. Mrs. Duchanne: Read it for me, please. Mrs. Mcintosh: All right. Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Duchanne asked the minister to read it. Mrs. Duchanne: Read it for me, please. Mrs.

Mcintosh: Getting the clause, 129(3) is the number, and the clause reads thusly. In fact, I have an amendme nt that if it is ready, I could read you the amendment on it. The ability to pay-and I am going to read you the five factors because they will be in one-will be based upon-the arbitrator must look at these things and must, in rendering his or her decision, indicate why he has accepted or rejected the ability-to-pay argument, must look at the school division's ability to pay based upon their revenues, based upon the nature and types of services the school division has and may have to reduce.

For example, if they cannot afford a music teacher any more, will they have to lose their music program, that type of thing-the aJJTent economic si tuation in Manitoba and in the school divisioo a school district. This is what the teachers had indicated. You cannot just look at the school division's revenues. If Manitoba's economy is boo ming, you have to look at that, too, so that has to be considered.

A comparison between the terms and conditions of employment of the teachers in the school division a school district, other employees in public and private sectors, with primary consideration given to com parable employees in the school division or school district, the region of the province in which the school division or school district is located, and the biggy, the need of the school division or district to recruit and retain qualified teachers. Those last four were put in at the request of teachers, and now that we no longer have them in separate clauses and there is no primacy, the revenues of the sc hool

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 757 division will be given no more weight than any of those other factors. I could go through every other point you have made the same way, but time will not allow me to. I am v� concerned about the misstatements made in the earber brief s and we will correct them as the evening goes on. If the;, are mentioned again, I will correct them again, because I do not want certain very wrong statements to be left on the record . Mrs. Ducharme: Well, Linda, I want to ask- Mr. Chairperson: No, I am afraid, Mrs. Ducharme, Mr. Doer wanted to pose a question.

Maybe he will pose a question which will allow you to answer what you are now going to answer. Mr. Doer: Yes, I would like to ask what question you would like to pose. Mr. Chairperson: I knew he would oblige. Mrs. Ducharme: Well, Linda, what about-I am sorry for calling you Linda, but I fe el at home here, being a politician myself Okay, at the same time, where is the collective bargaining going to come when you do not have the democratic procedure in place? Now expla in that one. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Doer, do you have another question? Mr.

Doer: You have been listening to a lot of teachers in Transcona, and you have mentioned the fe edback you are hearing. I guess we could go into all the little specifics of the bill back and forth but, generall �, I am concluding from your presentation that teachers m your community, in your area, fe el this bill is very unf air and very un just, and you agree with them . Is that correct? Mrs. Ducharme: Absolutely. I would stand up and applaud, but I cannot do that with my 400-pound chair behind me. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Did you, Madam Minister, wish to say somet hing? Mrs.

Mcintosh: Well, just, There sa, we will not have time toni ght, but I do not know if you have actually rea d the bill and gone through and compared it with the other. If you- [ interjection] Mrs. Ducharme: Well, I have talked to several people on all sides, even Mr. Doer. He is always doing everything he should be doing. Mrs. Mcintosh: Why do you not come back and see me again. Well, you have not come to see me on this one bef ore. We will go through this one. Mrs. Ducharme: Linda, I have an appointment with you December 16, 10 a.m. Gary, are you available? Mrs. Mcintosh: That may be a little late for this. Mr.

Doer: The problem is the bill may be passed by then. You are trying to stop the bill, right? Mrs. Ducharme: Yes, so hopeful ly- Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Ducharme, thank you very much for your presentation . Mrs. Ducharme: Just a minute. I am not finished. I have one more arbitrarial question. I have ballpoint pens, $3 each, and everybody must purchase five for each. There you go. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mrs. Ducharme. Your invitation is known . Thank you very much for your presentation. Mrs. Duchanne: I am n ot pleased with Bill 72, honey , and nobody else will reac h that age either, if I am alive .

Mr. Chairperson: I would now like to call on- Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if ther e might be leave of the committee at this time to canva ss the presenters who are here this evening and see if there are any other out-of-town presenters that we might have missed or we have gone over their names for the first time . Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee to make that survey? There were a number of no-show s earlier. Weather conditions might have delayed them. Is Neil McNeil now here? [interjection] No, no, we are just enquiring if they are here now. Neil McNeil. It is with

758 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 19 96 impunity. Bob Dixon, Dan Lemieux, Richard Maslanka, Kathleen Burt, Arnold Minish. Are any of those people here? Call, going back to the beginning of the list, Tina Gordon. Tina Gordon, not being here, will go to the bottom of the list. Jim Robertson . You may begin your presentation, Mr. Robertson . Mr . .run Robertson (St. James-Assiniboia Teachen' Associatioo): Thank you very much. I am here today as the president of the St. James -Assiniboia Teachers' Association . Our association is 650 member teachers who work for the St.

James-Assiniboia S;hool Division. We have great concerns about the impact of this legislation for not only ourselves as work ing teachers but also for the education of those children pla1ced in our care . We have also questions about the rr .asons and the perceived need for such draconian legislation. In our view, while the curr ent system of collective bargaining is not perf ect, it is at least fair to both partic�s . In contrast, BiD 72 and its provisions on ability to pay unbalance the proc ess.

In the mid- 1950s the Manitoba Teach€:rs' Society and the trustees' association agreed that bindling arbitration would replace strike/lockout as a mechanism to settle disputes between teachers and boards . Each side willingly entered into this agreement, the cornerstone of which was a fair and balanced arbitration1 proce ss. * (1 940) The essential feature of this bargaining p1rocess was the recognition that each side was respo nsible for making its own decisions and had to live with the consequences of those decisions. Each side picked its own repr esentative.

Those representatives chose a mutually acceptable chairperson. In the event of an impasse, both sides willi ngly agreed that a neutral and independent third party, the Chief Justice, would select a chair. Each side accepted the propositioo that two of the three members of the board agreeing would ensure the fairn ess of the proc ess. One of the fundamental rights of organized employees is the right to strike in order to settle a bargaining impasse. This arbitratioo process was to be in lieu of the right to strike.

It was designed to be a mec;hanism which would yield to the parties a result similar to what could have been achieved thr ough the right to strike. In fact, the vast majority of negotiations between teachers' associations and boards are settled at the bargaining table without recourse to arbitration. Through 19 83 and 1995 both parties have achieved agreements without arbitration in 93.5 percent of the cases . In the other 6.5 percent the process reached an impasse and the dispute went to arbitration. Bill 72 will undermine and imbalance this successful system of teacher bargaining.

This proposed legislation will seek to do that by contrav ening the basic principles of our economic and democratic life and by creat ing a system of coUective bargaining which will stack the deck in favour of one party, in a word, unfair. The overriding principle of economic life in our society is enlightened self-interest. The prime expression of that principle is buying and selling; buyers want the lowest price possible, sellers the highest price possible. Both sides realize, however, that unless they can voluntari ly come to a compro mise, neither side will buy or sell anything.

In the case of teacher contract negotiations, the buyers of the service are the boards and the sellers of the service are the teachers. In these contract talks , both sides are attempting to get the best deal they can. The process is long and invo lved, but ultimately both sides, in the vast majority of nego tiations, voluntarily come to an agreement with which both sides can live. If they cannot, then both sides proceed to concilia tion and, if necessary, binding arbitration. The government is pro posing to unbalance the system by setting for arbitrators the abil ity-to-pay principle in legislatioo.

Even though in reality these matters are fiscal choices made by all leve ls of government and theref ore represent "willin gness" not "ability" to pay, Bill 72 treats the board's current revenues from senior governments and its current taxation revenues as simply givens over which they have no control. This proposed definition of ability to pay will allow the buyers , the boar ds, to set whatever price they want for teachers' services, which will be accomplished by req uiring arbitrators to impose these school board budgetary choices upon the outcomes of teacher bargaining.

In no other facet of economic life in this province would this principle be accep table. It is not acceptable in

October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 759 the private sector. School boards cannot go to bus manufacturers and require them, by law, to accept less simply because the board says it cannot afford more. I cannot set my personal budget, go to a car dealership and force the dealership to sell me a Mercedes for $10 ,000, because that is all I can say I can afford-with an editorial comment here, if I could, the bill is fme. In addition, all the elemer.ts list ed in 129(4) will have to be in the context of the local school division.

Another editorial comment, because the changes were made on Monday at four o'clock in the afternoon or 4:30 a.m. or five o'clock and because I have not had the opportunity to see the exact wording of the changes, I am assuming that condition that was set in the first draft of this legislation, which is all of the four elements were to be dealt with within the local context and within the' context of the board's ability to pay that that will remain the same.

There is also within the legislation no recognition of the provincial perspective and no expression of the constitutional responsibilities of the provincial government for public education. Martin Teplitsky, a prominent mediator-arbitrator, in an address to the Canadian Bar Association on January 30, 1996, said of ability to pay: Quite simply, ability to pay is not a rational criterion in the public sector. It is incapable of application. It is devoid of content.

It encourages the mistaken belief that difficult choices regarding the level of services can be avoided if only arbitr ators would take ability to pay into account. The responsibility for making these choices, however, falls properly on the shoulders of the politicians . It is what they are elected to do. As well, Bill 72 requires the arbitrator to include in the reasoning for the award an explanation of how the issue of the ability-to-pay principle has been applied. This is in fact the only legislated requirement for the arbitrator in terms of making of his explanation of his award in the bill .

The eff ect of this is to make this one component of the decision-making process of paramount importance when the arbitrator is called upon to defend his or her decision. As Teplitsky wrote in discussing Ontario's Bill 26 abilit y-to-pay provi sions, it, quote, politicizes the arbitration process and undermines its fairness by requiring an arbitrator to apply criteria for wage determination which are inappropriate. He went on to say: Underlying the legislation is an attempt to shift responsibility for social policy to arbitrators.

The statute undermines the ethical and practical principle that employees should not subsidize the community. Teachers will be singled out as an economic and employment group who will be subject to rules which are not present in either the private sector or other areas of the public sector. That is unfair and discriminatory. Teachers and trustees in the 1950s were prepared to accept the process of binding arbitration, rather than stri ke/lockout, as the mechanism to settle a stalled negotiations process.

Teachers were prepared to do this, because the system designed and freely entered into by both parties was fair to both parties and would ensure that our schools would continue to operate during bargaining imp asses. Bill 72 undermines the fairness and balance of that system and sets a new and less civilized direction for bargaining in Manitoba. On a personal note, I do not come from a long line of teachers. To my knowledge, I am the first one in my family. I did not start out to become one. When I left university, I did not become a teacher.

At some point I decided I wanted to try teaching, and I quit a job which paid me more and took a high school position. In March of that first year, I put up a calendar on the wall of my aparbnentwith numbers counting down from 42 to zero. That was the number of days I had left to complete my contract, and then I was never going to enter another classroom in my life. I was headed as far away from school as I could get. Well, that did not happen. Since then I have come to realize how important this job really is. I have come to realize how much kids need excellent teachers doing an excellent job.

I have come to realize how much I en joy this job. It is a job to which I will be returning next year. One thing, however, that is worth remembering is that for me it remains only one of many options. If it becomes an option that is too unattractive, I will no longer continue to do it. In discussions I have had with many younger teachers in my association over the past few weeks, it is clear that it is a consideration for many of them. Ifthis legislation passes, 10 years from now when some other bright young souls are looking at teaching as a possible career, what will they find? Will it be a job in

760 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 which the employer can, by law, through budgetary choices, cut their salary? Will it be a job in which, by law, they have no conbol over when or whether they have a coffee break or a lunch hour? Will it be a job in which, by law, any negotiable working condition which can be shown to cost the employer money can be deleted from the collective agreement or have to be paid for by cuts to their salaries? Will these bright and articul ate young people, who will be in demand in the future, ever look to teach in Manitoba as a job they wish to do?

If they do, when they count down the last 42 days until the end of the hell of year one, will they tum their backs on the classroom forever? If they do that, tnere will be a reaff mnation of yet another underlying principle of our economic life. The principle is, you get what you pay for. The need to retain quality teachers, pmviding quality education, is a right owed to the children of this province, wherever they live, and is essential to the economic welfare of Manitoba. Mr. Chairperson: The hono urable mirlister, then Mr. Doer, then Mrs. Render. Mrs.

Mcintosh: Thank you very much, Jrim, and I hope a year from now we can talk and see how you do feel about education in Manitoba. I hope, and I am confident, that you will be signing on for another year. 111 (1 950) You have got two things I want to ask a question about. Well, you have got several, but I am going to narrow it down to one or two because I know others want to ask questions, and we can talk again at another time. I want to reassure you, off the bat, that your last sentence, the last sentence which you have as the wil11d-up sentence, to be brie f, is being legislated in this le gislation.

The need to retain quality teachers is being legislated, so if that is the prime right you think they ne:ed, it is being legislated in this act. I want to ask you, you have asked here, will it be a job which, by law, they can have no control over when or whe ther they can have a coffee break or a lunch hour. Are you aware that right now it is required by law, and that will not change in The Public Schools Act. There has to be a break, two breaks in the morning and a break at lunch hour, and that cannot be changed.

It is in the act, it cannot be changed, and that in this act, are you aware that you will still be able to negotiate and arbitrate whether or not you supervise those lunch breaks? The ooly thing that cannot be arbitrated is when those breaks will occ ur, not if they occur, or not even if you need to supervise lhem, but when they are scheduled to occur. By The Public Schoo ls Act, that cannot be changed, and that is in the bill that is being before you now. Are you aware of that? It seems to me you are reading something different into it. Mr. Robe rtson: First of all, recess is for the children.

Recess, by definition, is to give the children a break. There is nothing in this legislation that in any way, shape or form indicates that those recess periods are, in fact, to give teachers breaks. Lunch period is provided for children . There is nothing in the act, nothing in the proposed changes that indicate that if children are off for lunch that teachers cannot be assigned other kinds of duties. In the past, those kinds of things have been negotiated through collective agreem ents, et cetera. There is nothing to guarantee those kinds of things within this particular legislation. Mr.

Doer: Thank you vel}' much, Mr. Robertson, for the excellent presentation. You have used words throughout the brief on bal ances : the consensus is a corne rstone; it stacks the situation; it is unfair , a new and less civilized direction.

The flavour of your brief in terms of my perce ption of it is that you are giving us a real warning that the kind of breakdown of this consensus presents danger to us in the future, that we can no longer assume that if the balance is broken, the kind of consensus and civilized way of dealing with each other in our collective bargaining and in our education system may be at risk. I would like to ask you whether you see in the medium term a real risk to this consensus that has existed in Manitoba for 40 years and has provided, I think , a real balance for our kids in our schoolrooms. Mr.

Robertson: In parti cular in meetings that I have had with parent councils, I have indicated to them quite clearly and I have also indicated in other places, I do not think that if this bill passes on November 7 that on November 8 the system co llapses. That is not the case , but what is the case, particularly for parents of children in kindergarten, Grade 1 or Grade 2, is that 1 0 years down the line they could face a very different education system in Manitoba than the one we c urren tly have.

October 31 ,19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 761 It seems to me that in 1956 there was, in effect, a contract, a social contract perhap s, made between the teachers of Manitoba, the government and the trustees to indicate that education was somehow different and, because there was that common agreement that education was somehow different, there needed to be a different mechanism by which we resolved the problems in education in Manitoba. What that produces is, that produces a different kind of teacher than perhaps you have in other jurisdictions.

It produces teachers who are willing to conciliate and compromise and to deal in the issues of the classroom as paramount importance . Mr. Chairperson: I am afraid that time has now expired. Thank you, Mr. Robertson, for your presentat ion. Mr. John Wiens or Mr. Ben Zaidman. It looks like both are here. Mr. Zaidman, will you be proceeding first? Mr. Ben Zaidman (Seven Oaks School Division): Yes, please. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a presentation to you on behalf of the Seven Oaks School Division.

You know, there would have been more joy in our end ofmudville if you had abandoned this Bill 72 altogether but, in fact, we have Bill 72 yet to deal with, with all of its intentions to restrict free and reasonable collective bargaining. We want to go to the table with our employees not to a point where we have to bludgeon them with legis lation but with the fact that there are points on either side of the table that the community will accept or re ject through the representatives on the board and through the respon sibility that both parties at the table show in regard to the results to be obtained from them.

The bill in my estimation and in the estimation of the board disenfran chises 13 ,000 people in Manitoba, and I certainly think that our board does not want to do this in order to be able to talk to the 550 teachers that we have in our employ. We do not think that it is fair to come to the table with tethe rs, with restrictions prior to the time that we are able to discuss what has been accumulating and what experience we have fe lt in relation to a new contract that has been going on for some years bef ore that.

We want people to come to the table and be open and be responsible for what they argue for and realize the limi tations that they themselves are in, and the board certainly rea lizes that they represent the community and realize what limitations we have in offering anything in the change of a contract. The proposal in Bill 72 is contrary to all the labour organization rules, the International Labour Organization rules and the many rules that exist in Canada. Why take away the ability of people to be able to argue and bargain on their behalf in front of a committee that is finally answerable to public?

They argue and they bargain with their hands tied behind their back while we are supposedly now placed in the position of an advantage, and I think that we are not at an advantage when we are faced with the fact that some contract will be settled and we will be faced all the way through the contract with the rancour of people who have accepted a dec ision that they were not able to argue freely. The willingness to pay is a very troublesome item for us, because if governm ent restricts its grants to the school divis ion, that places us immediately in a position of unable to pay, in the minds of some people.

We are able to tax our constitue nts, naturally, if we want to make up the difference on a special levy, but people who now are being falsely and wrongly assessed by the City of Winnipeg's distorted view of assessment think that they do not want to pay taxes, especially under the conditions that prevail in the city of Winnipeg today that owes $200 million because it does not know how to assess. And, incidentally, the province does not control them. The province has not moved to do someth ing about the distortion that the City ofWinnipeg propogates back into our communities.

Now, in our community, as we have spoken to you bef ore, in fact on three occas ions already, maybe four, we pay 6 mills more than anybody else in the city of Winnipeg except Winnipeg proper, the school division of Winnipeg proper. In order to raise money to match St. James, for instance, who raises money on 13 mills, we must raise it on 19 mills. Our community now pays a dis torted amount of money in relation to that kind of assessment.

The province has the ability to do something of that and has not yet moved on it, so ability to pay, in our estimation, does not have anything to do with money, it has to do about the willingness of government, senior government, to do something about a badly distorted

762 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 ,19 96 assessment process within the city of Winnipeg that aff ects them at least on a quarter of the ir taxes or even more that has to do with education, and we carry that burden . Now, we argue about everything at the table in our sc hool division, and I use that as an examp le, because we are proud of the fact that we have all kinds of discussion. We do not give up our management's rights .

We do not think administratively that we should undo everything that we control in relation to what we think the educational act calls fo r and what is rc�quired for our children to be educated in our comm uni�y, but that does not stop people from talking about whalt they think has aff ected them and what it is that we might do in order to change it. *

(2000) Our ability to comprom ise has bee in a successful method of bargaining, and we find that the restrictions that are being placed on bargaining today give the authority not only to the arbitrator to even eff ectively control our curriculum, fo r instance. If he finds that our curr iculum is costing money that he thinks: we should not be spendi ng, what is to prevent him :li"om changing som ething that he has no right to change, and ifhe will not change it, maybe the minister will dec:ide that that is what they should do.

Now, that may sound arbitrary but, neverth eless, it has a line feed ing back to the minister, and the minister could call the shots depc:nding on what it is that the question is at the time. Nevert heless, it could affect us locally along that line. If you want an alternative to what we ar,e talking about here today, why do you not go to province-wide collective bargaining?

At least in that sense, if you want to get sort of an e venness , if you think that people have distorted the wage contracts, do it province- wide, take it away from the local community and do it so that the province is fa ced with the problem of dealing with each school division and the employees that are in it. In that sense you will not have done anything. You will have: disturbed the local control that is precious to most of us, but you will not have done anything that will take away anybody's rights . You will not have sort of upset any labour laws that exist.

You will not have done anything that will bring the rancour that this bill will bring you if it pass es. I thank you very much. We have a submission that we have entered. Mr. Wiens might want some wor ds. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Mr. Zaidman. Mr. Wiens does not have anything to express but is there fo r questions. Mn. Render: Thank you fo r your presenta tion. I am unsure what you mean by, on page 5, when you say that the conciliation-arbitration route has been replaced by restricted mediation-arbitr ation. What do you mean by "restricted"? Then you go on to say: since the items require mutual agreement.

I do not unders tand your statement at all. Mr. Zaidman: In our processes, we do all kinds of discussion; we do all kinds of talking; and we express all kinds of opinioos that are not sort of acceptab le on paper. We talk about it so that we will know the param eters that we can disc uss, and all those things are available, but if you tell that to one of these people who are under this new law what it is that we discussed, he will take it as a fa ctual commibnent,

whereas, in free and open discussio n, we are entitled to talk about everythin g. If you give it to one of these people, they will not let go of it, they will hang on to it to the detriment of some body. Mn. Render: Do I take it then that the diff erence is you are saying-am I corr ect now in asking?-that you know that if both parties agree, you can go the conciliation arbitratim route, but if there is no agreem ent, then you go the mediation-arb itration route, and that is what you are ob jecting to? Mr. Zaidman: We understand that. Mr. Stan Struthen (Dauphin): Mr.

Zaidman, I want to cmgratulate you m a very well-done presentati on, and I also want to commend you for your grasp of the concept refem:d to as ability to pay. In a previous lif etime, I was a sc hool teacher and school principal in a very small, rural school division, with a low tax base and a very low ability to raise a lot of �enue in short order.

My fee lings on the ability -to-pay concept is that it is directly tied to the fact that this gov ernm ent has cut $43.5 million over the last three years, and that skews all the arguments I have heard from the other side of the House when it comes to the ability to pay. The other thing that

October 31 ,19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 763 happens is that this provincial government sloughs off taxation at the local lev el- Mr. Chairperson: I think, Mr. Struthe rs, it would be appropriate to pose a question. I want to be fair to both sides, and the same rules apply. Mr. Struthers: Mr.

Zaidman, is it your opinion that the cuts announced by the province have skewed the argument about ability to pay and actually ends up making it more difficult for smaller divisions , who do not have the tax base, to offer the same quality of education as the other divisions in the province, who do have a higher ability to raise �es? Mr. Zaidman: There are two ways to answer that: One is that, yes, certainly cuts do skew the 'ability to pay. Firstly, however, even more important is that the minist er has the ability to do anyt hing that will cause us to say that we cannot pay. That is a problem. Ms.

Friesen: Thank you for your presentation. I know that one of the impacts of the cuts in Seven Oaks has been, I think , the disproportionate loss of a number of teachers Mr. Zaidman: 70. Ms. Friesen: Seventy over how many years? Mr. Zaidman: We now have 547. We used to have- Mr. John Wiens (Seven Oaks School Division): 622. That is in three yea rs. Ms. Friesen: Thank you. I wonder if you could give us a sense of what the impact of the loss of those 70 teachers over the last three years has been on the kind of education that you are able to offer. Mr. Wiens: I would say that the most- Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wiens .

Mr. Wiens: Sorry-that the greatest impact has come in terms of what happens for the children who are in the greatest difficulty in our school system. If you take, for example, the fact we have 25 schools, if they are of equal size we would have taken three teachers out of every one of those schools. What results from the fact that those three teachers have been removed is that the kids at risk, particularly, are unable to receive the early interventio n that they require.

What happens is that, something that you see happening in our schools today is the escalation of violence and the es calation of the types and the extremity of the problems that exist. Combined with that, of course, is that class sizes have gone up accordingly. Ms. Friesen: We heard from a number of presenters on other evenings about the impact of cuts as well on materia ls, upon teacher aides, upon the other supports and, in fact, necessary mater ials, basic mate rials, that should be in the classroom. Do you have any reports on that? Have you begun to look at that over the last three years? Mr.

Wiens: Well, we can only say that over the last five years, we have cut our operating grants to our schools. Initially, about five years ago, we cut them a considerable amount and they have no t changed since that time. That means that we have difficulties providing textbooks in some instances. That means that certainly when it come s to areas of technology , we cannot possibly come anywhere near what other schools and other school divisions in the city are able to provide to their students .

In some ways, the disadvantaged in our community are even further disadvantaged by the very fact that they live in Seven Oaks School Division, according to supplie s, but they are not disadvantaged in any way by the teachers who we have. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wiens . Mr. Kowalski: In the brief on page 6 it ref ers to the problems in regard to, it creates difficulty in attracting the best people in the teaching profession.

I do not know , with the present situation with the majority of teachers in Seven Oaks, where they are in their careers, how many are close to retirement and how many young teachers you will be needing to recruit, but as has been mentioned tonight, you know, Seven Oaks has a low assessmen t base and with ability to pay being taken int o consideration, will this legislation cause great difficulty in competin g with other school divisions to attract the best new teache rs? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wiens .

764 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 19 96 Mr. Wiens: I am getting it right. I would agree with some of the other speakers that I have h(:ard. Initially, I do not think you would see very much difference here at all. We have not gone out of our way to hire cheaper teachers. We have gone out of our way to make sure that the people who are teachi ng our students are the best possible teachers that we can get and certainly we have had, I think, very good success in recen1t times . I think we cannot possibly predict just how many teachers will retire in the next coup le of years.

I think that there are a lot of questions hanging over teachers' and everybody else's heads right now, and that has to do with pensions and other kinds of related questions which are still to be answered. Mr. Chairperson : Your time is now expired, Mr. Wiens. Thanks very much. Thank you, Mr. Zaidman. Mr. Zaidman: Thank you. * (2010 ) Mr. Chairperson: I would now like to call on Maureen Gelinas, please. Maureen Gelinas. Ms. Maureen Gelinas (St. VitJll Teachen' Associa tion): I notice you did not :say my name, probably because you cannot pronounce 1it. Mr. Chairpenon: You may now begin your presentation. Ms.

Gelinas: Pardon me. An Honourable Member: Everybody was clapping when he called it. Mr. Chairpenon: I am sorry, I missed your comment. Ms. Gelinas: I said, I notice you did not call my name. Mr. Chairperson: Oh, I did call your mune. Ms. Gelinas: Oh, I am sorry, I did not hear it. Mr. Chairperson: It was not loudly enough, obviously. Ms. Gelinas: I was thinking maybe it was because you could not pronounce it. Mr. Chairperson: You may begin. Ms. Gelinas: First of all, I would like to apologize fo r the fact that you are not going to have all the remarks in the paper that you got.

If I had been on, on Monday evening, that would have been it, but since Monday evening some things have happened. I have made some additions, but I was not able to add them to yours . My name is Maureen Gelinas. I am president of St. Vital Teachers' Association, and I am speaking on behalf of those teachers . I would like to thank the committee fo r this opportunity to share concerns regarding Bill 72.

In 19 56 the Manitoba Teachers' Society, the Manitoba School Trustees Association, and the provincial government reached an agreement where, in return fo r the teachers giving up the right to strike, the trustees agreed to recognize the rights of teachers to bargain collectively with compu lsory binding arbitration as a fair and impartial method of resolving disputes . I mi ght like to add, I think, Manitoba was very fo rtunate in this. In 1956 I was in Alberta where I was born, and I started teaching in Alberta.

Luckily in the years that I did teach there , I did not have to go through any strikes, but as you all know there have been some since 19 56, not only in Alberta but in many other provinces. This method has waked very well fo r all stakeholders, fo r students, parents, teachers and boards. There has been no loss of school time to students due to labour stoppages. Teachers with their boards have been able to work together to constructively resolve issues. In St. Vital in all these years, St. Vital has never had a settlement from arbitration. We are very proud of that.

We have applied fo r arbitration very fe w times . I have not been able to find wt fm sure just how many, but from what I understand, maybe fo ur or five times, but in all those cases the teachers and the board have gone back to the table and they have resolved their differences before arbitration. Teacher salary increases have been well within the range of salary settlements in both the public and private secto rs. Though much mrJigned by school trustees, compulsory binding arbitration has produced teachers' salaries that have remained in line with teachers' salaries

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 765 across Canada, without inflicting on pupils and their families the disruptive and educational damage of teachers' strikes, as in some provin ces. One point I do not understand is how trustees can say that teachers have been granted too much money through arbitration. This is what we get from-and I am not saying all trustee s, I am saying some trustees. If they were to check teachers' salaries across Canada in provinces where teachers do have the right to strike, I would say that our salaries here in Manitoba are very comparable to most other provin ces.

The proposed media tion-arbitration model presented in Bill 72 eff ectively strips teachers of free collective bargaining and forces them to accept a restrictive model. The mediation-arbitration model is norma lly more suitable as an option for workers who are allowed to follow the strike/lockout route. Teachers do not have the right to strike. The short time lines in the bill make the process of solving problems between teachers and their boards almost meaningles s. In fact, our superintendent remarked that the time lines make it almost the reverse of what the government wants.

It is going to end up that just MAST and MTS staff officers will end up negotiating because teachers will not have time. In the mediation-arbitration proces s, the mediator arbitrator is the same person. The problem with mandated mediation-arbitration is that it has a chilling effect on neg otiations when the person with the power to impose an agreement is privy to the give-and-take of negotia tions . Even the conciliation-arbitration route, as provided by the bill, requires mutual agreement.

The board is not likely to give its agreement to conciliate and then arbitrate all items; thus, teachers will be forced to mediation-arbitration. I have firsthand experience with this. Just yesterday I happened to be at a meeting with a MAST staff officer, and he inf ormed me because we had asked, our letter goes in tomorrow to open negotiations and we are looking at the 60 days. So I had put in a letter ahead of time asking that they go the conciliation arbitration route . I thought I might as well try it. I know that this government thinks that teachers run to MTS every time something comes up.

Well, I would like you to know that, with the division, they go to MAST because our letter was faxed immediately to a MAST staff officer for his opinion. His opinion was that MAST prefers the mediation-arbitration route, and he stated that unequiv ocally yesterday afternoon . So, if this is so, then no association in Manitoba is likely to convince their trustees to follow the conciliation-arbitration route when negotiating new collective agreemen ts. It seems that this part of Bill 72 could have been left out, could have saved the paper.

The so-called ability-to-pay legislation further discriminates against teachers . Ability to pay, as described in Bill 72, has been applied to no other labour group. The word "ability," as used in the legislation, has nothing to do with real ability but in fact is a question of willingness to pay. In addition, the ability-to-pay legi slation limits the arbitrator, even if this person wanted to act in a fiUr manner. I believe this still applies, even though Mrs. Mcintosh announced on Monday that the word "primarily" would be dropped from Clause 129(3).

We have to remember that budgets will still be set before negoti ations begin. The governm ent's funding will have been announced ahead of time. The division's budget will already have been worked out. If the division says that they have no money to give a salary incr ease, I presume the arbitrator is going to have to take that into account.

Teachers are also affionted by the matters this government has said shall not be ref erred for arbitration such as the selection and appointment of principals an d teachers, evaluation, class size, schedul ing of reces ses in the midday break, even though if we have no other recourse, we would rather that this be in The Public Schools Act, so that we can grieve it for the fact that every other worker in Manitoba can grieve through The Labour Relations Act. Teachers cannot at this time grieve an ything.

As I tell teachers a lot of times when they ask what rights they have, I have to tell them basically they really have very, very fe w rights, even through The Public Schools Act, and especially through The Public Schools Act. Teachers come all the time or phone and ask, they say they have a spouse or they have a mother or a father or a brother or a sister who says, well, why is this happening? The Labour Relations Act does not allow that. I have to tell them, sorry, but we are not covered by The Labour Relations Act at all. The Public Schools Act is nothing like it at all. *

(2020) 766 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31,19 96 Bef ore conclu ding, I would like to quote from the editorial in today's Free Pre ss. This is a very last paragraph: Virtually all Manitobans have the right to free collective bargaining. The teachers want nothing more . If the Filmon government wants to pursue a deal whereby teachers voluntarily give up their right to strike in exchange fo r a system of arbitration they should do so. Meantime, Mrs. Mcintosh should stop playing games with teachers .

She should shelve Bill 72 and begin serious discussions with MTS about the possibility of a new framework fo r bargaining collective agree ments. This is the only fair thing to do. In conclusion, we in St. Vital believe 72 must be shelved. Bill 72 should be shelved. It is the only fair thing to do. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Gelinas. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Thank you very much for your presentation.

One question, the minister and other members of the government have stated both on the record, off the record, in the committ€:e hearings and in the Legis lature that teachers have not read the legislation, they do not understand the implications of the legislation and, in some cases, they are listening only to fo llowing blindly their union. I would just like to ask you if you believe that the teachers in the St. Vital School Division have not read the legislation, do not understand the implit:: ations and are blindly fo llowing their union. Ms.

Gelinas: Well, I am sure there are many teachers who have not and I make no apologies for them. I do not think anyone has to apologize fo r them. I am in a school practically every day, in and out fo r numbers of reasons, and teachers will stop me and ask me diftbrent things or talk to me. Teachers are stressed. This is just the end of October, and their plates are so full that they do not have time. They are in the school s. If they do get a chance they have a look at it.

Lots of times, when you get something like this, we try to put out a synopsis of it sort of explaining what is in it in a coup le of pages so that at least they do get some flavour of what it is. There are still quite a fe w teachers out there who have read it. I have read it too but I still have to have it. When somebody asks me something, I like to be able to look it up because you say some clause to me, I will have to look it up because I have not-I do not have a photographic memory . Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert) : I would just like to touch on one area that you talked about.

Within your association, you are saying that the teachers would have more rights under The Labour Relations Act . Do you think that the teachers within your association would rather be under The Labour Relations Act than this act? Ms. Gelinas: I cannot speak fo r every teacher in St. Vital but I know a number would. Speaking fo r myself, right now rather than Bill 72, I would rather have The Labour Relations Act That is my own personal opinion. Ms. Friesen: Thank you very much fo r your presentation. You were here on Monday, and now it is another long night, a kind of particularly snowy night I think, still.

I wanted to ask yw about one

section that is still in the bill, the matters that the arbitrator must consider, and that is the nature and type of services that the school division or school district may have to reduce in the light of the decision or award if the current revenues of the school division or school district are not increased . I wondered ifyru rould give us sone COOliDf2l t on what the impact of a clause like that might be on your negotiations and prospectively upon your teachers . Ms. Gelinas: You are meaning the ability to pay plus the other fo ur factors . Ms.

Friesen: I am asking specifically about the direction to the arbitrator to consider the nature and type of services that the school division may have to reduce if the aurent revenues are not increased, and I wondered what the implications of that were fo r your teachers , fo r your classrooms, fo r your parents. Ms. Gelinas: Well, if you cannot reduce programs, you cannot let teachers go because it is the teachers that teach the programs. Theref ore, all that I can see in that instance is that salaries have to be reduced . Mrs.

Mcintosh: That clause was put in at the request of teachers because it would fo rce the arbitrator, they fe lt, to give a raise if it fe lt the music program was in jeopa rdy because the music should be let go. Anyhow, we can

October 31 ,19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 767 discuss the various things about the sword cutting both ways at another time. I wanted to ask you somet hing because I have heard it said- Mr. Chairperson: Very quickly. Mrs. Mcintosh: -by nearly every presenter, you said that under the current legisla tion schoolteachers have very, very, very fe w rights and that you do not like the new legislation.

In order to solve the prob lem that trustees have, I want to ask the same question because I have been asking it of teachers, and I am surprised by the answer, having read both The Labour Relations Act and The Public Schools Act- Mr. Chairperson: I am afraid you are out of time. Mrs. Mcintosh: Do you want to be under The Labour Relations Act instead of this? Mr. Chairperson: You are out of time, Madam Minister. Time, sorry. Mrs. Mcintosh: I want to hear her say it again. Mr. Chairperson: Well, I am sorry, Madam Minister. Ms. Gelinas: I did answer this other gentleman persona lly, I told- Mr.

Chairperson: I would now like to call-sorry, we are out of time. I would now like to call on Ken Pearce. Now, I just wanted to clarifY, Mr. Pearce, you probably have been aware of this, but the unders tanding arrived at the last committee was that equal time would be given to the MAST and the Teachers' Society. The MAST presen tation took somet hing just over 21 minutes, so 22 minutes you will have. Mr. Ken Pearce (Manitoba Teachers' Society): Mr.

Chair, if I might clarifY, I was here that time and I recalled that the agreement was, to my recollection, that the teachers and the trustees should have the opportunity to present their entire brief. Am I incorrect in that assumption? Mr. Chairperson: I guess the implication was that it would be equal . If you have come in with a volume that is going to take an hour or a half an hour, I would not regard that as being fair. Maybe we should begin and then we will see where we are at- Mr. Pearce: I have nine pages and I can do it in under 30 minut es. Mr. Chairperson: Why do you not begin, sir?

We will start the time when you begin. Mr. Pearce: Thank you very much. The Society appreciates the opportunity to make this presentation to the Legislative committee rev iewing Bill 72. Considering that the ma jor partners in education are the gov ernment, school boar ds, teachers and parent s, we wish we could show general agreement with the intent of the legisla tion and restrict our comments only to certain technical aspects. Unfortun ately, consideri ng the content and intent of the legislation, this is not possible. The Society's main objection is the ability-to-pay provision as it is def med in the bill.

This definition does not address real ability to pay; rather it defines ability in terms of what a school board and the province are willing to spend. The Society is aware that the minister has indicated verb ally that the primacy provi sion in relation to the applicability of ability to pay has been removed and that apparently all the conditions are now applicable. We have not seen the amendment and ther ef ore cannot take a definitive position in relation to it. As currently provided in

Section 18 of Bill 72, the proposed

Section 12 9(3) of The Public Schools Act will require that the arbitrator base his or her decision primarily on the division's ability to pay as determined by the division's current reven ue. Since the proposed

Section 11 0 and other attendant sections determine that collective bargaining commence only after the division's budget and revenues are set for the year, then the proposed legislation effectively limits the salaries and benefits of teachers to the amounts predetermined by the division befo re any collective bargaining has taken place . Additionally,

Section 12 9(4) provides four more factors which can be used to limit teachers ' salaries and

768 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 19 96 benefits. These factors , contrary to certain public statements made by government officials, are in addition to and not in place of the prov isions of subsection 3. Even if teachers qualified fo r an intcrease under subsection 3, subsection 4 could then be used to reduce this increase. Whether or not the primac:;y requirement has been removed, we have a ma jor problem with the definition of ability to pay in Bill 72. *

(2030) If the go vernm ent is serious about having real ability to pay in the bill, we submit that this definition be removed as it still foc uses on the willingness rath.er than ability and does not acknowledge the constitutional respons ibility of the province to fund education. We also note that, although the minister has verbally indicated an amendment to the bill, the minister did not propose to amend

Section 12 9(2), which states tha1t an arbitrator must explain his or her rationale fo r the award on the ability-to-pay prov isim. The arbitrator has no obligation to explain the rationale fo r other aspects of the award. Therefore, the law fo rces the arbitrator to disclose fmancial implications but not any other implications on the wor king conditions of teachers or students. We believe such a one-sided explanation is unfair. If the arbitrator is required to justifY some aspects of the award, then the arbitrator should be required to jusltify all aspects of the award.

Consequently, the Society submits that, as long as the defmition of ability to pay is not changed, these provisions effectively remove teachers' right to bargain collectively and replace this right with the employer's ability to impose salaries and work ing conditions under the guise of bargaining. We believe that this proposal is contrary to any known

interpretation of the right to free collective bargaining, including the International Labour Code, to which Canada is a signatory. ha view of this, respected arbitrators such as Mr. Martin Teplitsky, who was quoted in the governm ent's own JanuaJry paper, have stated that no self-respecting arbitrator would consent to act in such a one-sided procedure. This principle is not applied to any business . If it were, business could predetermine the cost of supplies and then legally fo rce the sel ler to provide these supplies at that price. The marketplace does not work in this mann er.

The Society submits that this principle is neither fair nor justified. In previous negotiations and arbitrations, real ability to pay has always been considered as one of the many factors influencing a reasonab le settlement. Arbitrators tend to fo llow, not lead, other settlements. Teachers, as a result, have received only a fair compen sation in comparison with other labour groups and in relatim to economic conditions .

If I might add an editOOal there, I believe that it is true that in Manitoba in 40 years only once in one round of negotiations had an arbitration award been made as the first settlement in a round of negotiations. In all other years, negotiated settlements have established a pattern in bargaining, and, if I recall com:ctly, St. Vital School Division-and I hope I am correct in thi9-has never been to arbitration, and yet outside of the North, St. Vital teachers have the highest salaries in the province .

Working cond itions provisions obtained by a few ass ociations in recent years generally only gave to teachers those rights which were aheady enjoyed by most other employees in Manitoba. Since teachers do not enjoy the provisions of The Labour Relations Act and The Employment Standards Act, they do not have the rights of other employees . While other employees have the right to a lunch break, teachers have to negotiate for and, in some cases , even pay fo r this right. While other employees are entitled to know the hours of work required, teachers are not.

Teachers , therefore, had to negotiate pro visions which. at best, limited the increase of their workload to S percent over the current workload with no increase in pay. Effect of

Section 12 9. The Society fears that the imposition of this provision-that is, the ability to pay will seriously affect public education at a time when it is aitical b our society to prepare fo r the next century and millennium. The disparity between poor and rich divisions will increase, and the continuing downward pressure on salaries and working conditions will make teaching an undesirable lifetime prof ession fo r the most able and intelligent of young people. Due to our aging teaching population, close to half of the CWTent teachers have to be replaced over the next 1 0 years.

These new teachers will form the core of education fo r the next 30 years . Admittedly, there may be a small oversupply of teachers at this time. Supply-and-demand statistics, howevCI", can be deceiving. A long time before these statistics indicate a shortage of teachers, the best, most innovative, most intelligent and most enthusiastic

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 769 might have already gone into other occupations or left for other regions . If this occurs, the government will not be able to corre ct that situation immediately through a mere change in government policy. One cannot attract or replace thousands of high-quality career professionals merely through a temporary increase in funds. Any change in policy today will have a significant effect in the future . Some of these pr essures are already evident in other regions.

New Zealand, which over the past decade has followed policies similar to those proposed by this government, is now hiring large numbers of teachers from Canada. California, which, prior to significant reductions in educational financing, had among the best results in standardized tests, now is near the bottom of the nation. As a result, California has decided to hire about 20,000 new elementary teachers this year. In the United States, as a whole, accord ing the U.S. Department of Education, over one million new teachers will be required in the next 10 yea rs. Manitoba is not an island.

Considering our own need to replace the curr ent generation of teachers and the poten tial shortages in other jurisdictio ns, we submit that imposition of the ability-to-pay principle and its concomitant erosion of teacher salaries and wor king conditions is not only ill advised but also ill timed. If this legi slation passes, we will lose the best of the new generation of teachers to other jurisdictions or professions . The Society agrees that one should examine the bargaining process in order to determine methods by which it can be improved .

Unfortunately, the government's amen dments to the bargaining process have little relevance to any improvements in the pr ocess. Instead, their sole intent appears to be to impose the ability-to-pay principle and other limitations on teacher bargaining to ensure that the concerns of teachers about conditions of work cannot be adequately addre ssed. The mandated opening of negotiations during the month of April appears designed to ensure that the school board's budget has been approved and the mill rate set bef ore teachers ever start to negotiate.

Due to the ability to-pay principle and the arbitrator' s duty to follow this principle, teachers will have minimal influence on bargaining outcomes since all relevant decisions respecting their remuneration and working conditions have already been made by the school board. We acknowledge that the minister has indicated that an amendment will be introduced that will permit the parties, by mutual agreement, to change the opening date to some other time.

We have yet to see the actual amendment but do not believe that it will alleviate our main concern, namely, that negotiations start only after the budget has been set by the board . Admittedly, the board could agree to open negotiations bef ore the budget is set; however, we cannot see any situation where a board would take such an action if it can avoid prejudicing its own bargaining position by merely delaying the opening of negotiation s. The time lines are very restrictive.

If applied literally, teachers and boards have only 60 days to negotiate a collective agreement and, if impasse is reached, another 60 days to mediate bef ore arbitration takes over. By these time lines, teachers would have only the months of May and Jtme to negotiate-the busiest months of the year for both teachers and trus tee s. The 60 days for mediation would fall into the summ er months, a time when neither teachers nor trustees are generally available. The time lines apply only if the parties cannot agree, and one or the other party decides to take the next step .

But one should not design a collective bargaining statute on the assumption that the parties will always agree or be reasonab le. If the time lines can be applied unreasonably, one can be certain that the situation will likely arise in which they will be. The bill proposes two dispute resolution procedur es, the conciliation-arbitration route, if there is mutual agreement, and the mediation-arbitration route as the def ault route, failing such agreement. The conciliation-arbitration route is not likely to be used because of the requirement for mutual agreements and also because of the short time lines.

Unless the minister decides other wise, the conciliator has only 14 days from the time of appointment to make a rep ort. If the minister does not intervene and increase the time allowed, it is not likely that much will happen in conciliation. In view of the uncertainty of the conciliation-arbitration route, it is unlikely that the parties will agree to use this rou te.

770 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 19 96 The mediation-arbitration route, therefore, will most likely be the only dispute resolution route used by the parties . Unfortunately, this route is not conducive to either effective mediation or effective arbitration. Since the mediator can impose a settlement and does not require the approval of either party, the process of mediation is more concerned with the priorities of the mediator than the wishes of the parties. Arbitration is little more than the f ormalization of the media to preconce ived solutions.

As such, the process is little more than a unilateral arbitration with an informal discussion at the beginning. The Society is aware that the mediation-arbitration process is sometimes used in labour negotiations. In such cases, however, it is usually chosen after the parties have negotiated for months; the issues separati ng the parties are crystal clear; the parties agree with the proce ss; and the work stoppage is imminent. In such a situation, the mediation-arbitration may be a better alternative than strike/lockout. *

(2040) These conditions do not exist in educa tion. There is no work stoppage since teachers cannot strike and school boards cannot lock out. Moreover, the mediation arbitration process is not imposed in oth(:r negotiations until months of stalemated negotiations have ensued. The proposed legislation creates the potenlial that, if one party does not wish to negotiate, it can use 1this process to stop discussions and effectively impose cllosure. In this light, the Society submits that the purpose of these amendments is not to improve the proce ss, but to reduce the right of teachers to effectively negotiate with their employers .

Section 11 5(2) states that where the u>arties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the minister shall select such an arbitrator from a list maintained by the Manitoba Labour Board or from a diff erent list maintained by the Collective Agreement Board . The Soci€:ty prefers the provisions of subsection (

b) respecting the selection of the mediator or arbitrator from a list maintained by the Labour Board. We rec ognize that such a list would include some persons who may have a tnarulgement bias as well as others with a bias towards labour. However, these biases are balanced by the fact that these persons would have a wide experience in labour arbitrations involving diff erent companies and diff ere:nt unions and thus have a more distant relationship from education . We are concerned, however, that the current list maintained by the Labour Board under

Section 11 7(2) of The Labour Relations Act was not created for interest arbitratioos but rather brights arbitrations. Some of the persons on this list have absolutely no experience with interest arbitrations. We would pref er that a new list be aeated in view of the purpose for which such a list is to be used. The Society strongly objects to subsection (

a) which would provide a list of arbitrators which in the previous five years have been jointly selected by school boards and the bargaining agents. At first glance this provision seems to be reasonable since an arbitrator considered to be neutral in one case should be equally neutral in another. In actual practice, however, the parties chose an arbitrator not on the basis of his or her personal attributes, but m the basis of the issues in dispute . Thus, an arbitrator who is considered to be satisfactory for one set of issues may not be satisfactory in a diff erent situation.

For this reason , placing such a jointly selected arbitrator on a list fm-five years is not to the advantage of either party . The most likdy result of such process would be a reduction of jointly selected arbitrators since the parties would be stuck with this person on a list for five years. Each such selection would likely become a provincial issue between MAST and MTS rather than an effort to solve a local problem. The parties would also have a serious problem with selecting a person who has no previous educatim experience, notwithstanding his or her public perception of neutrality.

Once selected, this person is automatically on the list for five years, even if he or she is found to be unsatisfactory by both parties. The Society therefore suggests amending the proposed subsection 11 5(2) by making provision for a list of appropriate arbitrators to be developed by the Labour Board fm-interest arbitrations within the education sector. We would also recmunend that the Labour Board consult with the Society and MAST in developing that list.

Section 12 8(3) stipulates that any information submitted to an arbitration board may be made public unless the arbitrator considers that the interest of either party in keeping the information confidential outweighs the impo1ance of the principle of public disclosure. The proposed amendment is a cxmplete reversal of the current provision of The Public Schools Act, which states that

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 771 information shall not, except as the arbitration board deems expedient, be made public. The Society submits that the principle of public disclosure usually applies to government operations and not to the deta ils of collective bargaining. In collective bargaining the results may well be published since these results affect the public. The details of the submissions, however , are not required for such disclosure, nor do we bel ieve such disclosure is in the public intere st.

The Society fe ars that this change will stifle the submissions of teachers to arbitrators. There are many issues in the field of working conditions where sensitive information is submitted in order to allow arbitrators a more complete understanding of a situation. If the teachers' privacy is at stake and the teachers fe ar that they may become an object of media attenti on, the chances of such teachers submitting evidence regarding their teaching conditions is diminished. An even greater difficulty exists in that the working conditions of teachers are related to the learning conditions of stude nts.

While teachers observe their professional respon sibility to keep information confidential in respect to specific studen ts, a condition in the workplace can be described to an arbitrator in situational terms . The arbitrator who comes from outside the division cannot make a connection between the situation and specific students and merely determ ines whether such situation warrants a change in working conditions.

If the information were to become public knowledge, there is a possibility that the persons who are familiar with the community could identify the specific students from the description of the situation. Not respecting the privacy of teachers could also inadvertently affect the privacy of student s. The Society submits that the decision on whether information affects the public's right to know properly belongs in court and not in the hands of a single arbitrator. When faced with such situations, courts often hold separate hearings . Surely we do not wish to put this much power into the hands of one person.

The legis lation also proposes to have the costs of conciliation or mediation equally divided between the parties. We note that the proposed amendments to The Labour Relations Act provide for a three-way split of such costs between the parties and the governme nt. The rationale given by the Department of Labour for the partic ipation of government in paying the costs is in recognition of the public interest involved . Government should continue to contribute to this cost. Is the government suggesting there is no public interest involved in resolving bargaining disputes as they relate to the public school system?

We are not particularly concern ed about paying a share of the cost of the dispute resolving procedure, but we must question why collective bargaining disputes in the education sector are deemed to be ofless public concern than such disputes in the private sector. Prior to 1956 teacher bargaining was controlled by The Labour Relations Act. In 1956 all parties in education, the government, the school boards and the teachers , arrived at a grand compromise which removed teachers from The Labour Relations Act and placed all employment-related issues in The Public Schools Act.

This compromise provided significant benefits to education in this province. While other provinces suffered many strikes, Manitoba was free of labour unrest for the past 40 years . Moreover, contrary to the government's allegations, the remuneration of teachers in Manitoba has stayed reasonably constant in relation to other provinces. The compromise was not without liabilities for teache rs. While The Labour Relations Act was continuously improved, The Public Schools Act was not.

Although on numerous occas ions, the Society requested governm ents to transfer some of these improvements to The Public Schools Act, governments have stea dfastly declined to do so. As a result, in many respects the rights of teachers are 40 years behind the times. In view of the above, the Society submits that, if the compromise no longer meets the needs of the parties, a new compromise should be negotiated between the government, the school boards and the teache rs.

In the interim, Bill 72 should be withdrawn and teachers should continue to bargain under the current legislation of The Public Schools Act or, in the alternative, be placed under The Labour Relations Act. Placing teachers in The Labour Relations Act should not pose any problems since this act applies to all other employee s. The concern with the right to strike can easily be alleviated by making a provision for teachers similar to that of the police or firefighte rs.

772 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 In summ ary, the Society submits that the proposed amendments to the bargaining proce:ss cannot be interpreted as improveme nts. We are instc:ad of the view that they will lead to a more problematic bargaining environment between tc:achers and school boards. The Society appreciates the addition of

Section 131. 4, which applies the fair and reasonable doc;trine to broad policies and practices as they relate to the matters identified in

Section 12 6(2}-that is, the selection, appointment, assi gnments and transfer of tc:achers and principals, methods of evaluation, class size, scheduli

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-la14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf la14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	533a7958ec34054dabb53738ebd0481a4d262d46

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