Manitoba Hansard — 19 September 2003 (Sitting 09C, 38th Legislature, 1st Session)

38-1-09c

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LIV No. 9C – 10 a.m., Friday, September 19, 2003

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY First Session–Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine Riel N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P.

SMITH, Scott, Hon. Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

971 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, September 19, 2003 The House met at 10 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND YOUTH * (10:00) Mr. Chairperson (H arry Schellenberg): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply meet- ing in Room 254 will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Education and Youth. As has been previously agreed, questioning for this department will follow in a global man- ner. The floor is now open for questions. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Chair, I believe we had confirmed yesterday that a Mr. Lloyd Schreyer is the s ecretary of the Compen- sation Committee of Treasury Board. I am just wondering, like, again, just sort of getting some background information.

Again, as sort of one of the newer members, I am not really quite sure how all government departments work and pro- cess. Mr. Chairperson, is it common practice for an employee in the Department of Finance who works for Treasury Board to have that person negotiating on behalf of other government departments? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Mr. Chair, I thank the Member for Tuxedo for the question.

Within the Department of Education, there is no expertise, to the best of my knowledge anyway, and what I have been advised is that there is no expertise with regard to labour relations and negotiations and so on. At least that is what I understand. I believe that that addresses the member's question. Mrs. Stefanson: In that case, then, Mr. Chair- person, would it not be appropriate to go to the Department of Labour to look for that kind of expertise? Mr. Lemieux: The Department of Labour was involved with mediation and conciliation.

When you take a look at the partnership, you have conciliation and mediation involved. I mentioned before that this is something that, not something that disturbed me this morn- ing but certainly made my ears perk up when I heard the story announced that somehow the Province of Manitoba is not willing to support Prairie Rose School Division in any way. That really surprised me because the Prov- ince of Manitoba is willing to support Prairie Rose School Division. Now, it may be financial. It may be in other ways, and that is where the Department of Labour comes in.

We are asking that Prairie Rose, if they cannot get their issues resolved, that they go to mediation. We are asking that Prairie Rose seriously consider medi- ation. That is where the Department of Labour comes in, conciliation and mediation. Sunrise School Division went to mediation and they were able to hammer out an agreement. After mediation commenced and the parties con- cluded their tentative agreement, then, of course, the strike ended and the parties went back to work.

I want to make it quite clear that to the best of my knowledge, we have not received any correspondence or any indication from Prairie Rose that they want either assistance from the Department of Labour or anyone that has the expertise to be able to assist them, because con-

972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 ciliation broke down there as well, so mediation would be very important as it was in Sunrise. We are asking that the Prairie Rose School Division look at all their options in order to end this strike that has been going on now for, I believe we are into day five. Mr. Chair, we mentioned that there was, I believe, around 1400 students, approximately, who were affected by the lack of busing. I be- lieve there was double that amount of children who go to that school division, but approxi- mately 1400 are transportable.

Now, it might be 1300-something or over 1400. We will try to clarify how many children are affected by that. But the bottom line is that we want the par- ties to get back to the table. It is certainly in the best interests of the children and the parents. If you cannot resolve your issues, ask for medi- ation and get it done. Mrs. Stefanson: The minister mentioned that the Department of Labour was involved, I guess, in negotiations in the Sunrise School Division to help in that dispute. I am wondering who from the Department of Labour was involved in these strike negotiations? Mr.

Lemieux: Well, when I say the Department of Labour, what I am referring to is that I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs of how Labour Relations and the Department of Labour works. I understand that they are the ones who appointed a conciliation officer and they are also the ones who appointed a mediator. So that is their role. They play a very, very important role in the labour relations in Manitoba, and it has been very successful. We have a very good sys- tem and, certainly, it appears to work well. That is why I make reference again to Prairie Rose. The Province of Manitoba will assist where we can.

When I hear stories that we will not assist, will not give them any money, no, we did not say that. We just said that you have a process in place, follow it through. We have not had any conversations, to the best of my knowledge, with anyone from Prairie Rose, nor have they contacted us in any way, shape or form, informally or formally, with a letter; no letter. My understanding is that we have not had any discussions with regard to harmonization of salaries in particular. So we would certainly want them to get back to the table and get back to bargaining.

If they are unable to be able to do that and they want an independent party, that is where the Department of Labour would be. I mentioned yesterday, I do not mind going to talk to the Minister of Labour and have the Minister of Labour have an arbitrator put in place if that is what the parties wish. Mrs. Stefanson: The minister mentioned that it is the Department of Labour that appoints a conciliator and a mediator in these disputes. Did the Department of Labour appoint the conciliator and the mediator, the conciliator, I guess, and a mediator in the case of the Sunrise School Divi- sion dispute? Mr.

Lemieux: I will have to take that as notice just to make sure that it is accurate, but I believe they did. They are th e ones who are involved when there is any strike or when parties are not able to agree. I believe it is labour relations; I believe it is the Labour Relations Branch or Conciliation and Mediation Services that get involved. I am only guessing, but I will confirm it whether or not and who appointed those indi- viduals or how that happened. Mrs. Stefanson: In the case of the Sunrise School Division, who was the conciliator? Mr. Lemieux: The lady's name was Ms. Beth Stitchell. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr.

Chair, I just wanted to sort of establish a time line here. We have a strike beginning on April 8. If the minister would like to clarify his answers for my last question, that would be fine. Mr. Lemieux: Sorry, I thought the Member for Tuxedo, my Education critic, was asking who is the conciliation person in Sunrise, or is it in Prairie Rose? I guess I just wanted that clarified. Which division is she referring to? Mrs. Stefanson: I was referring to the Sunrise School Division.

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 973 Mr. Lemieux: Okay, because I had understood it as Prairie Rose. Beth Stitchell is the concili- ation person for Prairie Rose School Division. Conciliation has broken off, and, of course, now there is a strike. Mrs. Stefanson: Who is the conciliator in the case of the Sunrise School Division? Mr. Lemieux: I will have to get back. I will take that as notice. I will have to get back to the Member for Tuxedo. Mrs.

Stefanson: Okay, again, just trying to establish a bit of a time line here, we had the strike beginning on April 8, I believe, and then the minister mentioned yesterday that the mediation began either April 9 or 10, I believe. I do not think he was sure at the time whether it was the 9th or 10th. The strike vote took place on April 17. I am wondering at what point dur- ing these few days did Mr. Schreyer, was Mr. Schreyer involved with the negotiations. Mr. Lemieux: The member is correct. The letter raising the wage discrepancy and so on was March 24. The strike happened on April 8. With regard to Mr.

Schreyer's role representing the Government, I believe he spoke to them. There were a lot of conversations that have taken place. I think maybe that is something I should state, that the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, I have had meetings with them. Wage harmonization was one of the areas that they raised with me and other areas with regard to not only amalgamation but other divisions that they see collective bargaining and those issues related to the school trustees as being very important. They see that as being a real challenge to the Government.

They have raised that repeatedly. * (10:10) I know that this morning I heard Ms. Carolyn Duhamel on the radio speaking about harmonization and how some contracts have been settled, like, I think, Pembina Trails and Louis Riel, settled essentially without looking for assistance. I mentio ned repeatedly, and yes- terday I mentioned again that that $50 per stu- dent that we talked about amounted to about three quarters of a million dollars for Louis Riel which I believe was really helpful. I understand Pembina Trails was very si milar.

I cannot recall the amount of money that they received from the Government on $50 per student but initially people said, well, what good is that. Well, I can tell you that in Louis Riel as well as Pembina Trails–I mean, Pembina Trails received almost $680,000 and Louis Riel $740-some thousand. Mr. Chairperson, I believe that $50 a student has really helped out with their collective bar- gaining process because that money has really assisted them in a way that they did not come back to government looking for extra money or assistance,

whereas when you have those school divisions that have declining enrolment or declining student population, I can see that they are going to be really challenged.

Where you have Sunrise School Division and even Prairie Rose that have lower student populations, but I think, well, everything is relative, but on the other hand, in the areas where you have de- clining enrolment I can see that really being a challenge for those school divisions because when you give that $50 per student, in the school divisions that have the large populations and have even growing populations, that has been a real benefit for them in order to assist them in their collective bargaining.

So the long and the short of it is that, and it should be made quite clear that as a government, we have been there for the school divisions and we will be there for Prairie Rose and we will be there for other school divisions if they are hav- ing financial problems or their collective bar- gaining has ended up at a standstill.

We can help them with mediation services or conciliation and then mediation through the Department of La- bour, but I still want to make it quite clear that no, there is no blank cheque, negotiations have to take place, collective bargaining has to take place, and, I believe, all parties realize that. In the case of Prairie Rose, that has not totally worked its way through. There are still some other steps in the process and yet we are avail- able to talk any time they wish and any time they want to meet or talk to government in any way, shape or form, we are there.

So I want to make it quite clear that the Province of Manitoba is able to and is a willing partner in education. If there is any way we can assist, we will do so.

974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 Mrs. Stefanson: Again, the minister is referring back to this March 24 letter that he received from the Sunrise School Division. I am wonder- ing if he could tell us at what point between March 24 then, we will add that into the time line, and April 17 did Mr. Schreyer begin his discussions with the nego tiators in this strike dispute in Sunrise School Division. Mr. Lemieux: As I mentioned, Mr. Schreyer, who is a highly respected person within the pub- lic sector and within many workplaces, he has a lot of expertise with regard to collective bargain- ing.

He has a good understanding of the labour market issues that are out there, and I know that. I just want to reiterate once again that he is highly respected. I know he probably does not appreciate having his name bandied around but I would certainly want to commend him for all the hard work that he has done. In his position, it is not very easy because you are dealing with whether it is the health care sector, whatever sector it is, you are dealing with very difficult issues and especially in the public sector.

Public sector means government and government fund- ing, and government funding health care, gov- ernment funding education, there are a lot of pri- orities within government and the priorities for us are health care, ed ucation and many other areas.

So a balance between spending between all those priorities is a challenge and as a govern- ment, we have been able to do quite well I believe, not only in the amounts of money that we have been able to provide school divisions throughout the last four years at the rate of economic growth and, as I mentioned, last year we provided $23.8 million, approximately, and that is around a 2.8% in crease over the previous year. These are important. I know that other departments also have priorities but, as a government, we made a pri- ority of education and we will continue to do so.

We made a commitment that we will certainly be looking at the ESL. We reduced the ESL by $10 million the first year and then $17 million last year, $27 million out of the approximately the $100 million in ESL. We are, as a gov- ernment, going to be facing a lot of challenges in years to come. I believe that is a given. No one said that, for example, in the area of amalga- mation, that amalgamation would not have its challenges. We felt, yes, it is the right way to go. We made, I believe, a courageous decision as a government to go ahead with amalgamation.

I t i s n o t a n e a s y t h i n g t o d o , b u t w h e n y o u take a look at the alternative, the alternative was not very rosy. You can see that now, there are a lot of school divisions who have declining enrol- ment, depopulation of their area. So you hear anecdotally that in the next five to ten years, they are going to have to look at partnering with someone. So I am sure that they will be writing government and looking for government for a way and some assistance that can help them amalgamate. It will not be forced amalgamation, or it will not be an amalgamation that is asked for by the Province.

It will be an amalgamation where divisions want to do it themselves just in order to survive and provide all those benefits that I talked about for the last couple of days, of what amalgamation can provide. The previous government had the Norrie report that sat on the shelf for a while. I know it must have been a tough decision for them not to go ahead with it. It was a more drastic amalga- mation. Instead of amalgamating to 36 school divisions in total, down to 22, I believe, would have been quite drastic in a sense that we know the challenges we are facing just getting down to 36 school divisions.

If the previous government were to go down to 22 divisions, that really would have upset the apple cart in a sense that that would have created a great of deal of hardship for many school divisions. What we try to do is to have a balanced approach to amalga- mation. * (10:20) The reason I put that on the record, Mr. Chairperson, is that what we are talking about here is amalgamation.

We are talking about amalgamation and the benefits of amalgamation, because when you start talking about Sunrise, you talk about Prairie Rose, you talk about Louis Riel, you are talking about not only harmoni- zation of salaries, but what we are talking about here are amalgamated divisions. I am trying to stay within the context of the question and I believe I am doing so. I just want to make it clear that as a government we are

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 975 committed to these amalgamated divisions. We will sit down with them and talk to them if they are having financial challenges. Some school divisions have more where- withal than others. By that I mean, because the student population has increased, so they are getting that $50 per head, has increased to the point where the dollars they are getting seem to be sufficient to assist them in their collective bargaining. Others who might have lower stu- dent enrolment, declining enrolment, depopula- tion, it has put some pressure on them. We have to address that.

As a government, we are prepared to sit down and talk to the school divisions about their financial challenges, just like Sunrise. Louis Riel did not need any assistance. Pembina Trails did not need any assistance. They may down the road someplace, but as a government we are prepared to sit down and talk to them and work things out. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Chair, I guess the minister is not aware of the answer to that question either, because he seems to be going on and on about a number of things and just talking around the question that has been asked.

I think it is unfor- tunate and it is rather frustrating, I find. I will try another question of the minister. At what point during the days, we set between April 8 and 17, did the Province arrive at the $428,000 sum? Mr. Lemieux: If she is getting frustrated, I might show my frustration a little bit sometimes as well, because some of the questions I felt that I have answered previously and maybe, Mr. Chairperson, when I receive some questions I will just say: Look at my answer from yesterday or look at my answer from Tuesday.

I hope the member from Tuxedo does not take that as a criticism of her; it is just that the questions I have answered in days gone by. So I will just say I have answered that and leave it at that. The answer I would like to provide for her previous question that was asked. Under The Labour Relations Act, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) can appoint a mediator or the two parties can agree on a mediator. Mr. Chairperson, in Sunrise's circumstance, the parties agreed on a mediator, Mr. Michael Werier, was an agreed-upon mediator. I believe Michael Werier was one who also settled another dispute.

I cannot remember which other one he was involved in. The person is certainly another person who is ve ry well respected. Mr. Werier has a very, very good track record of dealing with settlements. I just wanted to note that because the question was asked with regard to some steps involved. That is why I wanted to mention, Mr. Chairperson, with regard to a mediator, the Prairie Rose School Division has that at their option. They can request one. They can agree on a mediator or the Minister of Labour can appoint one.

What I am prepared to do with regard to Prairie Rose is ask the Minister of Labour if he would appoint a mediator for those parties if they cannot agree upon one, or if they are find- ing difficulty coming to an agreement on even getting back to the table to negotiate. So just wanting to clarify that with regard to Sunrise and also the door is open for Prairie Rose. Prairie Rose has an option to go to medi- ation and that can either happen by the Minister of Labour appointing one or they can ask for one hemselves. t Mrs. Stefanson: I appreciate the minister get- ting back to me on my first question asked.

I am wondering if the minister could answer the ques- tion as to who appointed Mr. Schreyer to be the negotiator on behalf of the Government. Was it the Department of Labour? Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Schreyer is a representative of government and he is a person who deals with issues around the public sector and public sector strikes. The Department of Labour continually monitors what goes on in the province of Mani- toba in the public sector, public sector being schools.

When they are looking at all the issues related to schools and school divisions, it is very, very important that you have people who are on top of what is going on with regard to labour relations and also wanting to make sure that any kind of disputes that are happening in school, that the disruption does not take place hopefully for too long a period of time to affect children. When children are out, or not out, but I mean the

976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 employees are out on strike, that the children are not able to have the bussing, for example, they have, or services in school that make a school function well are not happening, it is very, very mportant. i I know Mr. Schreyer, his reputation working with not only the health care sector but also dealing with the public sector has been very, very important to the public of Manitoba, be- cause he has been able to work closely with different organizations and in his capacity has been able to assist them.

Once again, I know you have not only Sunrise School Division, which had that huge discrepancy, much larger I have been advised than any other school division, or will have more so than any other school division, that it was very important for those children and the parents and everyone concerned in the Sunrise School Division that they were able to reach an ami- cable solution. With regard to the other school divisions, I believe that Ms. Duhamel mentioned today that there are about, I think she mentioned 10 or 12 collective agreements that have expired.

She mentioned there were Pembina Trails and Louis Riel settled, Sunrise settled, Prairie Rose are cur- rently on strike, but she mentioned there are a number of other school divisions, that their collective agreements have expired. A lot of them, I believe the majority of them will get settled without having to go on strike. That has been the Manitoba way with regard to working out your differences with regard to collective bargaining. Sometimes it ends with conciliation, sometimes that is enough. Other times it has to go to mediation. I guess that is generally how things are solved.

As was mentioned before by other individu- als, 80 percent, I believe, of all agreements are by arbitration. Teachers' salaries, for example, with regard to negotiations with teachers. So you have 80 percent of the contracts, or approxi- mately 80 percent of the contracts in the prov- ince of Manitoba are dealt with through arbi- tration and are settled in that manner. You have the non-teaching portion of the employees of school divisions that make up approximately the other 20 percent. That is where the challenges lie for government. Mr.

Chairperson, having said that, also teachers, there is a discrepancy in salaries be- tween teachers, whether they are amalgamated or not, and has been for many, many years in Manitoba. The argument has always been made that the reason there is, is because of the ability to pay. School divisions will say: We are located by Deloraine, Manitoba, in Southwest Horizon, for example. They are giving their reasons why they are only able to pay their teachers a certain amount or their employees.

What the difference is I think is that for us as a government when you start to see huge discrepancies in salaries, when you see Sunrise School Division that has 60 percent, a gap, or up to 60 percent, I do not want to, you know, people should not be misled with that, but it is the letter from the chair and the superintendent that stated there is a 15% to 60% gap in wages, that it is important to note that when you have gaps like that around the province, it is almost impossible for those divisions to deal with that kind of a gap. So the Province will be there. M r .

C h a i r , w e t o l d Prairie Rose, or I am telling Prairie Rose, through you, that we will be there to assist them. In order to do that, we do not know their circumstances exactly. We know there might be approximately, I believe, a 10% to 20% gap in salaries. Compare that to Sunrise. There is a huge difference. Mr. Chairperson, Then the challenge for us as a government is that you have divisions like Pembina Trails or Louis Riel that are able to do it without essentially having much discussion with government, other than letting us know that it will be a real challenge for them.

We under- stand that, but they are able to resolve their dif- ferences, either through conciliation and get it done even before it goes to mediation or cer- tainly before it even gets to where a strike is. Mr. Chairperson, it is something we have talked about often, but it has to be stated and repeated and put on the record that the Province of Manitoba will be there and will stand by not only amalgamated school divisions, but other divisions where there is a request for assistance or where they are having some difficulties. * (10:30)

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 977 We have had the Manitoba Association of School Trustees asking that there should be a fund of money put aside for harmonization. I mentioned to the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) yesterday, that if I were to say in Prairie Rose that there are X amount of dollars available for their settlement, guess what would happen? To do that is not the way to go. I cer- tainly cannot designate a certain amount of money to Prairie Rose. That would not be pru- dent There is a collective bargaining process that takes place.

In that process, you have negoti- ations that take place. There are trade-offs that take place all the time during negotiations. Some may be dealing with pension issues or benefits. That process in Manitoba, I believe, has worked well. We continue to support that. Mr. Chairperson, in th e case of Sunrise, they went through a process where they eventually ended up being in a strike, and then they went to mediation and mediation commenced. Then the parties were able to conclude their agreements, but you had the employer negotiating team com- ing to the Province and telling the Province where the shortfall was.

They were saying, they just could not cover that gap of 60 percent, that it was impossible for them to do that, how they needed the Province's assistance. That is where Mr. Schreyer came in and helped them. He was able to address that an d talk and discuss about those items, but it was the employer negotiating team that came to government. It had nothing to do with CUPE whatsoever, as was intimated and suggested before somehow. I know that has been clarified, and I appreciate that.

So I just want to reassure members opposite that we are, as a Province, going to be there for any division that is having challenges related to amalgamation. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I think we have to look at what has happened in the last couple of days. When we started with this minister, at the beginning of this minister coming into Esti- mates, we actually got answers. The minister was fairly forthright. He lay answers on the table, and I think the reason why he did that is he had no idea what actually had happened with the Sunrise School Division.

Once the minister started to put real answers on the table, what happened was a lot of problems started to sur- face with the answers that were given. Being one of the individuals that was sitting here, we saw a note come from on high. It was walked in. It was given to the minister and, clearly, the note said th e minister should stop answering questions beca use he was getting the Government into trouble. Basically, what the minister was not part of, but what he was ex- plaining was that up on high there was a dis- cussion made on how his Government best could go out and buy an election.

The decision was made that the election of 2003 would be pur- chased at whatever cost, by whatever means, and obviously, it was a small group which the minister was not part of. The decision was made that no matter what the price tag, somebody would be found to do the bidding for the Gov- ernment and the election. There would be an at- tempt made to purchase the election. When the minister laid out that $428,000 had been committed to Sunrise School Division, the first alarm bells went off. What is even more troubling is that you have Mr.

Fix-it, an NDP hit man if you like, Lloyd Schreyer, who has trav- elled through many departments in this Government. He started off in Labour and now he is at Treasury Board. Mr. Schreyer was obvi- ously a part of that group on high that was tasked to try and ensure that the NDP govern- ment purchased itself an election. Letters were forthcoming. I think we have had more than enough discussion about the letters. Lots of them.

The school division crying out to this min- ister, to this Governme nt, for a meeting, for some kind of discussion, for some kind of help, and that all fell on deaf ears because this had very little or nothing to do with Sunrise School Division. It had nothing to do with the staff and even less to do with the children. It had to do with political fortunes of the current Government. What was the Government going to do if they went into a spring election?

Clearly their candidate, Mike Hameluck, putting a lot of pressure on the Government, indicating that it would be difficult, if not nearly impossible to be going into a general election and have a strike in Sunrise, in what was basically deemed as a terribly unpopular amalgamation fiasco that this Government went through. So the group that was tasked with doing the bidding, to do the purchasing of an election, and clearly Lac du Bonnet was a target of this Government, and

978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 they had intended that at all costs and at any cost, they were going to ensure that they took that seat. So they tasked Lloyd Schreyer to go and see what the price would be to settle the dispute in Sunrise. Not that the division was approached. Basically, the bargaining agent on behalf of the taxpayer–oh, good heavens, no. Why would you possibly go and talk to the school division? Those who are tasked to negotiate an end to the strike on behalf of taxpayers, no, that was by- passed. There were discussions all around the place.

Smoky, dark, secretive meetings, where the Government started to infiltrate into and whisper around that, perhaps, there would be a secret pot of money that would be at the disposal of anybody who could ensure that this problem would disappear. What the Government made very clear, and it obviously came from the highest levels of government, fix the problem; make the problem go away. We will win the next election at all costs as an NDP government, whatever the price we are willing to pay. Do not even look for a sale tag on an item. Do not even negotiate or haggle on the price.

Whatever the price is, the Government is willing to pay that price. What- ever it costs to buy the election that is what the Government is prepared to do. Cut the school division out of the loop, cut everybody out of the loop.

Clearly, the union bosses indicated to this Government what the price tag was going to be and that is what the announcement was made. * (10:40) What is very, very uncomfortable for any- body who follows democratic financial account- ability is that due process, which protects the taxpayer and in fact even more protects elected officials from any kind of accusation of impro- priety, those steps and those protections were not followed.

An announcement is made that monies would go forward to help settle the strike before any commitment had been made by government, no due process, at least not until this point in time. The minister has spun stories. This is like cracking open Grimms' Fairy Tales . Obviously, he goes home and he reads fairy tales and then comes here and he spins all kinds of nonsense, ludicrous, frivolous, little fairy tales and does not talk about where the Opposition is going with their questioning. That is there was an attempt to fix an election, to purchase an election.

An an- nouncement was made by government without proper approval from government, because otherwise the Government would be forth- coming. The minister would, and I quote, "answer the questions," and would say no, this was discussed at a departmental level. The appropriate forms were written out. It went to Treasury Board. It went to Cabinet. It got ap- proval. The monies were then committed once that process took place. Mr. Chairperson, this actually was a depart- mental negotiation. Oh, but the minister points out: Yes, well, we have no negotiating skills in the Department of Education.

That is the Depart- ment of Labour. Well, Minister, Treasury Board has no nego- tiation skills and should not have been involved in the process either. Th en it should have been from the Department of Labour notifying the Department of Education that some kind of agreement had been made. Was the Department of Education interested? The minister should have been briefed. The proper document should have been written up. It should have gone to Treasury Board. It should have been approved and should have gone to Cabinet and it would have been approved.

Then the minister could come to this committee and could say due pro- cess was done. It is interesting that not once, not once in all, all the rambling of this minister has he ever said: We did due process. We protected the taxpayers. We protected the Government. Everything was pristine clear. In fact, Mr. Chairperso n, throughout this in most cases his department officials sit silently because they know they cannot comment on this. This was a political move. This was not a depart- mental move. This was done by political oper- atives.

This was done with a political operative having a government cheque saying: How much will this election cost us? How much will it cost

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 979 to settle this? We will pay the price. We will go into election and we are going to target Lac du Bonnet. We are going to buy it. That is what this is about until the minister is willing to come forward and say, oh, no, no, you have got it wrong. That is not the case. We did due process. It was done way ahead of time. The departments met. There was no political interference. Oh, no, no, no. Lloyd Schreyer, our political appointment at Treasury Board, he had nothing to do with it. No, no, no. It was purely the civil service that deal t with this issue.

They came up with a formula where we felt that it was appropriate to get involved. These are the criteria should anybody else be looking for money. So that way it is seen as transparent and fair across the board. Then any school division can come and these will be the criteria. But that is not what happened. That is what the minister is not laying out for the committee. The minister can sit and spit his Grimms' Fairy Tales and talk about all kinds of stuff because he knows basically he is just putting in time until his boss, the Premier, fires him from this posi- tion.

Frankly, I would suggest to anybody listen- ing that this Opposition is doing the public a favour. We are doing our civic duty keeping the minister out of his department so he does not destroy any more in this department, does not create any more damage in his department. In fact, we should be keeping him here until his boss actually fires hi m from this position. The questions have been laid out very clear. Was due process done? If so, lay it out and prove us wrong. Tell us how the Department of Educa- tion, the Department of Labour worked together to ensure that there were some kind of criteria.

If there was a policy area that had a weakness in it then that should have been identified, it should have gone to the departments. They should have written up the criteria. The discussions should have been done with the school board, not with the union bosses. With the school board, negoti- ations should have gotten into, a formal request should have been made, proper forms should have been signed, Cabinet approval and then the announcement made, and we would not be sitting here. In the beginning, the minister could not even identify where the money was earmarked.

He had no idea, and his department could not help him because it was a political decision. It is not up to the department to start bailing out a minis- ter who got his fingers caught in the cookie jar. That is not the department's role, and they were right to sit quietly and not advise the minister on it because that was not their role. Mr. Chair, this was a political decision. It was an attempt to buy an election at whatever cost. This was not about the best interests of the children. This was not about the best interests of employees or the taxpayer.

Not at any point in time did those individuals who were on strike come in and factor in in this Government's deci- sions. This was purely about trying to buy the election in Lac du Bonnet. That is what is so disgraceful about this. That is what is so disap- pointing about this whole issue. Not once has the minister refuted these claims. Not once did he say the Member for Springfield is a great guy but I will lay out the process for him, he is wrong. Here is the pro- cess. It was a departmental discussion. The cri- teria were set out. Anybody else can come in and ask, but they have to ask of the department.

Who do they ask? Lloyd Schreyer. What, Minister? What? You have given up that much of your department to political operatives, that now school divisions approach Lloyd Schreyer, a political appointee to the Treasury Board? No wonder your department sits silently. Minister, that is unbelievable. This should be a departmental program, that if school divi- sions are in difficulty with negotiation, that cri- teria should properly be set up. You speak to the deputy minister in the department. Whether you meet that criteria or you do not meet that criteria, that information is passed on to the minister.

If it is met, it goes to Treasury Board, it goes to Cabinet, and the money then is flowed. But not the way it was done, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. That is not the way it is done. That is what this committee is trying to get at. We are not trying to get Grimms' Fairy Tales . We do not care about Little Red Riding Hood , and all the other stuff that the minister has talked about.

980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 Minister, through the Chair, cut to the chase. Was due process done? I ask the minister: River East Transcona, other school divisions, have they approached about this? Have they looked at money to help settle negotiations? In fact, why would anybody settle any negotiations when they know they can come to the Government and get a bailout? Oh, I have the answer for that one. Do you want to know why?

Because there is not n election. a There is a big sign on the door of this Gov- ernment: You need not apply for help, for a bail- out for a strike until the next election. In fact, there should be a note going out to all the school divisions: Do not settle any contracts until the next election. If you are a targeted seat for the NDP and they want to try and buy that seat, monies will be forthcoming, because it is not something that is done departmentally. We have seen so much buck-passing at this table. Oh, no, the Department of Labour, oh, no, it is there. His own Premier (Mr. Doer) started that.

In fact, his own Premier had to get up and try to bail him out. Unless you are a targeted seat and the NDP think they can buy the election, you need not apply. But if you think you might be, then wait. Government will forward all kinds of money to you; $428,000, oh, within hours, $428,000 was flowed, intriguingly right before an election. Mr. Chair, unless the minister can lay out clearly where this was done properly, the mini- ster will have this tagged on him that there was an attempt to buy the election in Lac du Bonnet. That is what this is all about.

I would like to ask the minister if he would finally come clean, either lay out the process or explain to this com- mittee how this issue got out of hand? Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Chairperson, I know we have heard a lot of ranting and raving from the mem- ber from Springfield. I do not know what goes on in his Machiavellian-twisted mind. I do not pretend to understand him. The negative com- ments, the derogatory comments he has made towards Mr. Schreyer, I mean, again, those are his twisted comments. Mr. Schreyer is a highly respected indi- vidual in the province of Manitoba.

He deals with the public sector, has worked with the public sector in many different ways. Schools are part of the public sector. I mentioned repeatedly that in days gone by, governments do make commitments before the formalized approval process is completed on occasion. An informal approval is secured in a variety of way, and the formalized approval was completed before any expenditure was made. Mr. Chairperson, the money was there. We identified the money. I think it is called the Expenditure Estimates booklet. I think it was on page 64 or 65, Support to Schools in the Oper- ating Grants area.

We have talked about exactly where the money has come from. We have talked very openly abou t the documentation go- ng to Treasury Board and so on. i * (10:50) So all his ramblings and his manifestations in his own twisted mind as to what has taken place, as I mentioned before, I do not know what kind of Machiavellian-twisted caucus and dis- cussions go on there. But I can tell the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schul er), and I have said this repeatedly, with regard to amalgamation, we are there. We are there to help the school divi- sions. We are there all along the way. We are there now.

The Member for Spri ngfield raises a good point about Prairie Rose, for example. Prairie Rose School Division was in conciliation. Con- ciliation broke off. They have not even pursued mediation, and they are at one step in their negotiations.

They have not communicated with government in any way that they are–as far as I have been advised, we have had no communi- cation from them, nor did we get any communi- cation specifically, I believe, from other school divisions that are saying that there is such a huge wage gap, they need assistance and they are un- able to complete their collective bargaining as a result. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Please excuse me. Minister, continue please. Mr. Lemieux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I just want to comment. The member also made some comments about amalgamation and what

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 981 has amalgamation done, for example, for not only River East, Transcona, but also for Sunrise which used to be Agassiz and the Springfield side. I will try to address that and then try to touch on a couple of things. I know throughout the discussions we have had in the last few days, the member also made reference to the departme ntal officials.

Depart- mental officials, when you are here, are here to assist in any way they possibly can with regard to any kind of financial numbers that we have given, but not to address any kind of twisted political manifestations of the Opposition on where they might be going and there might be bogeymen hiding in any closet someplace that are going to pop out. They have a job to do. They do it well and they have provided me an- swers when I have asked. For example, Mr. Chairperson, for funding they provided everything that the Opposition has been asking for.

We have laid out how you had the negotiating team made up of a gentleman right from MAST. You also had the superinten- dent of the school division who is an employee of the board. You also had a couple of people from the Sunrise, and you had their negotiating team talking to the representative of government pleading, pleading that they would not be able to address their shortfall because of the huge gap hey have had. t So we have been very forthright with the Opposition. We have answered their questions with regard to process. I absolutely disagree with his point that we have not been forthcoming. We have.

Again, as I mentioned to the member from Tuxedo, through the Chair, the questions they ask, they can ask any questions they like but they may not like the answer they get back. It may not be the answer that fits into their little twisted Machiavellian scenario which they are trying to paint. There is not any such devious ind of plot. k It is regrettable because education is really an important area. In eight-years' time or twelve- years' time, the member from Springfield might be a Cabinet minister and might have the oppor- tunity to be in Education.

So here we sit in Estimates, prepared to talk about programs, prepared to talk about funding and where those dollars go. We might disagree on where. The Opposition may think, you know, you are putting too much money into building schools. Maybe more money should be going into something else in education. Maybe there should be more in computerization. The department officials are here. I am here as a minister, but I think it is a real disservice to the public of Manitoba to be looking at devious Machiavellian twisted plots instead of talking about education. That is why we are here.

We are prepared to talk about this. We have laid out, for example, one, one collective agreement in Manitoba that was settled and the children went back to school and that was great. Sorry, the employees went back to school. The busing, there were busing con- cerns and so on and the children went back to school in the normal environment that they had. I thank the Member for Sp ringfield for that, and it is true. Again, we have Prairie Rose in the same situation. There are approximately 1400 chil- dren.

Well, it is anywhere between 1300 and 1500 children that are transportable, that are being affected by the bus drivers and the strike that is taking place in Prairie Rose. I mean, these are very important issues along with programming, along with how is computerization of schools taking, what is happening there? What is happening in literacy? What is happening in numeracy? What is hap- pening with regard to new curriculum, in their social studies, curriculum that we are looking at making changes? We are looking at special needs, a special needs review, the SERI report. What is going on with SERI?

What is happening with regard to, what we are doing with special needs? How are we making the special needs level 1, level 2, level 3 funding? How are we making the school divisions and ourselves more accountable with regard to special needs funding? There are many, many important areas in education that I certainly felt and, I believe, the public of Manitoba feels that need to be dis- cussed. Yes, the Opposition has a responsibility

982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 to hold the Government's feet to the fire with regard to programs. I agree with that, but I also firmly agree that to take cheap shots and shots at individuals who work for the Province of Manitoba or whether it is department or other people, I do not believe it has a place in our dis- cussions. I am not pointing the finger in any particular direction. I am just saying that we have heard a lot of comments in the past week coming from all different areas about the edu- cation system. Personally, I do not mind. I do not mind continuing this discussion.

That is fine because I believe we have laid out a process. We have shown that in the first year's allocation of $112,000, that occurred after the Government Budget was introduced. Therefore, commitments had to be found from within existing budgets. We were able to identify the funds from within the Budget through the usual process of re-assigning priorities and the balancing of overages and underages. In future, annual com- mitments for Sunrise will be budgeted and iden- tified within the budget like Sunrise and other school divisions. There is a process that worked through, that went through.

You had the Sunrise negotiating team begging, pleading for assist- ance from government because of that huge gap, different than any other school division in Mani- toba, up to 60 percent. So, as we told amalga- mated divisions, we will work with them. We will work with them; we cannot guar- antee any kind of particular money even before their process has happened or before they work through conciliation or mediation and have gone through the collective bargaining process and are working to get that done. We will work with them if we can assist them. Now, if Prairie Rose wants to speak to me or speak to Mr.

Schreyer or get a mediator involved, that is fine. We want to ork with them and we are prepared to do so. w * (11:00) Mr. Schuler: First of all, it is one of those things in politics, people get involved and they do get caught in the crossfire. As far as Lloyd Schreyer is concerned, he is a very educated, bright individual, a very smart man. I respect his political mind. I think he has done good political work for the Government. I am on the other side, so I do not necessarily agree with what he has done, but he is good at what he does. This is not about Lloyd Schreyer doing a poor job.

In fact, I am not running him down, not at all. I think Lloyd Schreyer did what he was asked to do. This is not about Lloyd Schreyer. The minister then went on to say, Estimates are about nicey-nicey. We come and we talk about programs. We talk about strobe lights, which he spent a lot of time talking about, and he talks about the colours of the tiles in the bathrooms, and those are the nicey-nicey things that we are supposed to talk about. What he does not understand, clearly does not understand, and the members opposite beca use they are too new, is this is about accountability.

That is what Estimates are about, to the minister through the Chair. This is an opportunity for anything and everything within the Budget to be laid out very clearly and questions aske d. And if the minister is looking for nicey-nicey, then the minister should perhaps look for a different profession, because this is about the taxpayers' money. And, yes, this does get a little nasty at times because that is what the taxpayer wants to ensure is that the Government is held to task for how they spend the money.

Right now, the issue that we are asking about that we are not getting answers on is what happened with the attempt to purchase the election in Lac du Bonnet by the Government. That is the focus. So now that we have that out of the way, I want to direct the minister back to the March 24 letter in which the division states that they are writing as a follow-up to the division's letter of February 10, and I quote: in which we asked for a meeting to discuss certain issues related to amalgamation. As of this date, we have yet to hear a response to this request, and we await your reply.

In fact, the minister did not deem it worthy to meet with Sunrise School Division until July. This is the minister's, oh, they begged and they begged; they were begging and begging. How would the minister know? He never met with hem. t This was not about the school division's begging and the fact that there was a disparity which everybody knew and the division was

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 983 trying to lay out for the minister. The paper trail is very clear how the division was asking for a meeting and asking for help from the minister and the minister had the closed-door policy. We will open the mail, but we will not open the door. You need not ask for a meeting because you are not going to get one. Then, all of a sudden, the minister's boss decided: I need an election and I need a problem fixed. Does he ask this minister to deal with it?

We are not sure what the discussions were there, but we do know that an individual who is good at fixing these problems, Lloyd Schreyer, was asked to intervene from Treasury Board. The minister just said that should other school divi- sions need assistance, Lloyd Schreyer has been tasked to deal with amalgamation costs. So my question, then, Mr. Chair, to the minister is: What criteria has Lloyd Schreyer set up? Clearly, it has been taken away from the Department of Education, and I feel very poorly for the department, because this is exactly where this should be dealt with.

It should be dealt with professional staff within the Department of Education. Number one, they know how to deal with these issues, they are professionals and they are that one step removed from the political process. They deal with it in the best interests by policy, by criteria on behalf of the taxpayer, but it does not become a political decision, which it was in Sunrise. So, we now know, the minister cleared up for us, that it is not within the Department of Education because he said school divisions–the minister should check his words in Hansard, if he does not agree with the record–should contact Mr.

Lloyd Schreyer. So then the question is–and if the minister does not know what the criteria is because he is so out of the loop, we understand that as well: What is the criteria that Lloyd Schreyer has set up for school divisions to come to him and ask for help to settle labour disputes because of the botched amalgamation? Mr. Lemieux: The member from Springfield raises a number of different issues. I want to clarify the whole issue about contacting Lloyd Schreyer. If that is the way Hansard shows it, I will correct my statement. I will make it very clear now what I meant.

I am glad the member from Springfield retracted his comments about calling Mr. Schreyer a hit man and a number of other derogatory comments. It is a very deroga- tory term, but I am pleased to say that he re- racted that. t Mr. Chair, I just wanted to touch on the fact about the comments he made about contacting Lloyd Schreyer. What I am referring to, and make it quite clear to Prairie Rose, is that, if they need assistance, I am prepared to go to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) and ask him to have a mediator be involved. There are other options.

There are steps th at the Department of Labour, for example, or government can assist them in. That does not preclude Prairie Rose contacting me personally or writing a letter any time. I mean, they can write a letter, make a phone call any time they wish, as well as other chool divisions. s What I am saying is that the Government of Manitoba is prepared to assist amalgamated divisions. Have been, right from day one and have so and have done so, financially and otherwise, and will continue to do so. There are other collective agreements that are going to come up.

There are other negotiations that are going to happen. Some divisions may feel they do not have the wherewithal because of de- clining enrolment, loss of student population, declining population overall in their area. They may find it very difficult in days and months ahead to address their financial challenges. So the point I am trying to make here is that you have a great disparity between school divisions in the province. You have one like Sunrise, a rural school division, and you have Louis Riel, two divisions who both had collec- tive agreements expire, but yet Louis Riel was able to address theirs.

So you have a lot of chal- lenges in education. You have a lot of school divisions that are going to be facing these chal- lenges down the road. I mean, collective agree- ments would have expired no matter what, whether they are amalgamated or not. It creates huge challenges for these divisions because they still would face declining student population or enrolment. So it creates a problem for them nonetheless with regard to funding. So what I am trying to refer to here is that the member opposite made reference also to the

984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 benefits of amalgamation, amalgamation in his own area, saying, what are the benefits of amalgamation. Have we seen them? A n Honourable Member: No. M r. Lemieux: Yes, we have. A n Honourable Member: No. Mr. Lemieux: The member from Springfield says no. What I would like to point out through the Chair is that the benefits of amalgamation, now that there are new and larger school divisions that are in place, what benefits do their superintendents expect to realize.

We have had a number of different people working with amal- gamated divisions in order to provide assistance and in order for them to have a better handle. So we have a better handle on what is going on with regard to amalgamated divisions. So the following benefits were identified in the responses to questions that were opposed to these divisions. What they stated was improved access to programs and services for students. In most cases, amalgamation offers students and their parents new programming options in a vari- ety and gives them access to a wider range of support services.

In the words of one superin- tendent: We bring what is good to each former division to a larger audience. That example comes from River East and Transcona. Transcona was not computerized to the extent that River East was. So now they are going to become, as a result of, as this superintendent point out, we bring what is good to each former division to a larger audience. The second point is more efficient use of physical resources that many respondents identi- fied to when we were having discussions with them: economies of scale resulting from sharing resources within the amalgamated divisions.

This took various forms, depending on the scale of operation of the former divisions. Some reported savings from re-examination of con- tracts and business practices, better pricing on computer licensing and improved cost efficiency through bulk purchasing. * (11:10) Mr. Chairperson, the third point that was made was that creation of new collaborative and principle-centred organizational culture which was different than they had before.

Amalga- mation offers school divisions a rare and valu- able opportunity to rejuvenate their organiza- tional culture by articulating a set of explicit values to provide a foun dation for all the future organizational development. This re-examina- tion has contributed to enhanced communication within organizations and with the communities they serve. This process has also shifted organizations to more participatory and inclusive mode of operation. One superintendent called this the vitality of change, which has had a very positive impact on the division's learning culture.

So you have had three examples that I have given thus far–there are a number of others– where you have amalgamation working and the result of amalgamation working. They have been able to bring the best of what divisions have to offer and be able to share that with each other. There is an adoption of the best educational practices based on research. The process of amalgamation has required the school divisions to examine what they ar e doing and why. This requires research, evaluati on and reflection.

In the words of one superintendent, this process of re-examination of past practices has led us to adopt better practices. This can be beneficial for teachers and for studen ts. In many cases the outcome is better than what we had or either had. Another stated this process of re-examin- ation makes people realize that there are other ways of doing things, it broadens perspective and enhances professionalism.

You have had that take place all over the province, where you have had divisions now getting together and sharing amongst each other and wanting to be positive with regard to what is happening in amalgamation. I know members opposite realize we are not going to turn the clock back. Amal- gamation has happened. It is going to go on and we are going to work through a number of challenges. The fifth point I want to mention is that there is enhanced profes sional growth and shar- ing of expertise. When I met with Southwest Horizon, I believe it was in Souris, I had a chance to talk to them about it.

A number of them mentioned this particular area and that in many amalgamated divisions, staff now benefit

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 985 from additional opportunities for professional development and growth. More staff allows for more connections for professional growth, said one superintendent. Another stated, tremendous sharing and joint learning is now happening and will go on for years. Just to touch on this, what I am saying is that we have said that amalgamation and the benefits would not happen overnight. We made it quite clear that there is no finite or end date to the benefits of amalgamation. It is going to take time for this to happen. Mr.

Chair, No. 6 is specialization at the administration level. In the past you had many administrators in small school divisions who worked in isolation. Amalgamated school divi- sions now have a larger pool of administrative personnel to draw upon, enhancing their capacity for team leadership. One superintendent com- mented, having greater specialization allows us to make further progress in areas of curriculum where in the past we lacked manpower.

You have school divisions that not only benefit from having three school division offices now having only one division office or instead of having three superintendents you have one, there are many benefits as a result of amalgamation. Also, there is stimulation, stimulating col- laborative community development using educa- tion as a catalyst. You have, particularly in rural, which Sunrise is, and northern communities, superintendents report a positive effect on broad- ening the local perspective to a more global– Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

I would like to take a moment to remind all members to provide courtesy to the member who has the floor. The conversation, just quiet down a bit. I thank you. Mr. Lemieux: Just because amalgamation is the focus of a lot of the questions from the members opposite, I just wanted to ensure that on the record that we are talk ing about Sunrise as an amalgamated division and also Prairie Rose.

I just want to make sure it is clear and on the record, where anecdotally, right from superin- tendents and people within the school divisions, what they have told us in conversation, yes, there are some challenges in education and some challenges with regard to amalgamation. There is no question about that , but there is another side to it. There is a positive side to it. That is why I am attempting to put on the record, Mr. Chairperson, that it is clear that there are benefits. We hear those benefits coming straight from the superintendents themselves.

An expanded divisional assessment base, this deals with the economic side that members opposite have talked about and touched on. The changing economic circumstances of com- munities, particularly those with agricultural- and resource-based economies, can affect their ability to provide consistent financial support to their school division. For these, amalgamation offers more consistency and less variability.

It is important to note that when you have agriculture seeing the challenges that they are facing nowadays in smaller rural communities, whether they are dealing with the BSE or dealing with drought, which, I might add, Mr. Chairperson, I understand today that there is go- ing to be a signing of a document between the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and Canada to deal with trying to get more money flowing to the farmers and beef producers of the province. I believe that is really important be- cause, what it does, what we are talking here is rural school divisions.

I just talked about how amalgamation has changed the economic circumstances of many communities. Agriculture is also doing so, or BSE is doing so, so what we are trying to do is try to not only through support that we provide them in funding and also through the $50 in the amalgamated school divisions, the $50 per student for those divisions. In the case of some divisions, it is of course larger dollars ac- cordingly.

Also, maybe the last point I might want to make and then entertain another question from the Opposition is of that a stronger and united voice for public education at the local level. * (11:20) Amalgamated school divisions can identify their needs and formulat e responses on a much broader basis and they can advocate for these needs with an extended community to support

986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 their initiative. So what you have is many res- pondents talking to people within our depart- ment providing important contextual information regarding these benefits, and one noted that all of this is possible only because we have tre- mendous people doing their best for students and education. Another noted that while some im- mediate benefits are evident, program imple- mentation does not happen overnight and I want to reiterate that, that a three- to five-year implementation process will be required for many divisions to fully realize these benefits.

What you have is that you have anecdotally coming straight from these school divisions and superintendents and people within the amalga- mated divisions telling government about all the advantages that they have seen. Finally, all of these benefits require that those involved continue to focus on the best interests of the students whose educational future is served by these new school divisions.

That is what we are talking about and when I mention about the benefits of amalgamated divi- sions, I have reiterated this to members opposite and the member from Springfield says, well what we are talking about is finances. Yes, that is right. Finances is one part of what we talk about in Education and they can ask any ques- tion they want, which is also correct. That is the role of the Opposition. Also, as the Minister of Education, I am here also to tell the member from Springfield that there is another side to amalgamation which I wanted to put on the reco rd.

These are anecdotal comments coming straight from superintendents and individuals from the amalgamated divisions, which is important to note. I know I heard some chuckles when I talked about the Minister of Agriculture trying today to come up and finalize an agreement with the federal government.

We have heard from the Opposition non- stop for a few days about how important BSE was and so the case is that these rural com- munities that are being hard hit and hard pressed financially and will be and even some scare tactic that was even raised by I am not sure who it was about somehow the municipalities may withhold funds, they are not going to withhold the funds. One administrator, I believe, from one of the municipalities said that we have collected the money, but we might use it on new tractors or new equipment. They actually collected the taxes.

The point I am trying to make here is that agriculture, all of these things fit together. The finances of the Province are important. The agreement that the Minist er of Agriculture is working out will be very beneficial. The transportation assistance that is provided to the flood areas, or the drought areas, are very impor- tant. All of these mesh together in the challenges that are going to be faced by Education because of circumstances that no one is to blame for that, but that has happened. So I just want to say, Mr.

Chairperson, that I just wanted to put on the record that from the benefits of amalgamation, at least what we have heard anecdotally from many people, superin- tendents and others and school trustees from amalgamated divisions saying that they are seeing some benefits. Again, they point out it is going to have to be a longer period of time where these benefits are going to actually be- come a reality for many of them. In the short term, you have some admin- istration, some actual savings with regard to busing–not busing, but those kinds of savings that are being pointed out to us, are important.

You know, cutting down the amount of division offices and those types of administrative costs, but that is important, I believe, to put on the record because there is another side to amal- gamation and I just wanted to point that out. Mr. Schuler: The minister has just gone where unfortunately this entire debate has gone. The minister always veers into the political, and it is unfortunate that he had to read to us from his last NDP political brochure. Perhaps it is even Mike Hameluck political brochure about how they all think that amalgamation went wherever. I want to bring it back onto the topic.

I know the minister wants to go into cows and Little Red Riding Hood and all those issues. I want to bring him back to what we are trying to get across here. In the February 10th letter, a letter signed by Eleanor Zieske, who is the board chair–and if the minister would have spent any time with

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 987 Sunrise School Division he would know that Eleanor Zieske takes her position very serious. She works very hard as a trustee and as board of Sunrise. She was there through the whole amal- gamation issue. She went around the parts of the division that were supposed to be amalgamated, worked with everybody. She is not to be trifled ith. w She sent a letter to the minister on February 10. We are writing on behalf of the trustees of the Sunrise School Division and the general public of the division.

Representatives, and I am going to the last sentence, the minister can read along. Representatives of the division would appreciate a meeting with yourself to discuss these issues, the issues that she laid out in the letter. So, on behalf of the students, the children, the parents, the staff and the board they asked for a meeting to deal with the issues in Sunrise School Division. March 24, no response from the minister. It was not important. He did not care. It was not on his radar screen. It just did not matter. It was irrelevant. March 24, another letter comes.

We are writing as a follow-up to the division's letter of February 10, in which we asked for a meeting to discuss certain issues related to amalgamation. As of this date, we have yet to hear a response to this request and we await your reply. In fact, she ends off the letter by saying we eagerly await a positive response to our request, a request to meet with the minister. The minister does not deem it worthy, does not deem it important, not worth his time, his effort to have a meeting with Eleanor Zieske and the Sunrise School Division until July. This is where the entire issue veers off into the politics.

She lays out here, in her March 24 letter: It is our understanding that you are meeting with CUPE representatives during this week to dis- cuss this issue, the strike. As powers on high realized that the NDP government was going to call a spring election, they realized that to attempt to win Lac du Bonnet seat, they could not have a strike and that it had to be dealt with. Where this Government went wrong, where this minister went wrong, whether he was cut out of the action, then it was higher-ups went wrong is that they did not go through the right channels. This should have been a departmental issue.

This should have been something that the department staff deal with internally and not political operatives. That is what we are trying to get at here. Clearly, they did not deem it important to meet with the school division but all of a sudden there was money flowing to the school division right before an election. The minister admitted noth- ing within the department.

In fact, we now know this minister has made this issue so political that the senior departmental staff deem it not im- portant to be here at Estimates anymore because they cannot stomach how political this minister has made the entire issue, because they know that there is no use in senior departmental staff from Education to be here and try to defend something that was a political decision to go out and buy the election in Lac du Bonnet. So the Government went to a Mr. Lloyd Schreyer from Treasury Board and they had him fix the issue. That is the crux of this issue.

It is about the process that was abused, the process that was gone around, and that is improper when using public money, when using taxpayers' money. That is what this issue is about. It is not about the worthiness of it. It is not about the tea in China. It is not about strobe lights on buses and it is not about Little Red Riding Hood. It is about due process. The minister is trying to kill time at this committee. He is going in circles and getting himself further and furthe r into trouble, instead of laying out the process because that is what the public wants to know.

Who advised Lloyd Schreyer to get involved with this and why did it not go through Treasury Board? Why did it not go through the Depart- ment of Education who should have prepared the document for Treasury Board? Why did it not go through Cabinet, get approval and then be an- nounced? Because, Mr. Chairman, there was an election looming and they had to fix this if they had a chance to win in Lac du Bonnet. That is what all of this is about. * (11:30) I wish the minister would take this seriously. I know he loves to attempt to put down the mes- senger and confer all kinds of names upon me.

That is fine, Minister, if that is where you want

988 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 to go. I have not done anything to you like that and I will not. What we are asking about is where was the due process, or will you finally come clean that this was political interference and that this whole issue was fixed so that it would be out of the way before a provincial election in attempt to win the seat in Lac du Bonnet. Show us due process or admit political interference. That is what we are trying to get at. This is not about calling people down. This is not about where you stand on all kinds of issues.

It is about protecting the public and the taxpayers' money, because if it does not stop here, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, if it does not stop here and we do not call the Government to task, then what is next? It is our responsibility as an opposition to sit here at this committee and call this minister to account. That is our job and that is what we are doing. It is not about the tea in China. It is about the taxpayers' money in this province. The taxpayers have a right to have their tax dollars protected. There is a proper process.

That is why we have senior staff in departments who make sure it has gone through a right process. The minister does not have the courtesy to explain to this committee what criteria did Mr. Lloyd Schreyer use to recommend this money. No criteria has been laid out yet. Lay down the document on the table, protect the public's interests, protect the public in all of this, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. You can sit here and you can call me all kinds of names and that is fine, but in the end I am here about the taxpayers' money.

I am here to make sure that if this went awry and if this was an attempt to buy an election on behalf of the NDP Party, then that is bad, but it is even worse if we do not make sure that does not happen again. This must not be the norm in the Government. There is a proper way of doing this and it should have been followed. The school division was cut out of the loop. Then the Government decided they were going to fix it before an election was called. If there is not due process, then it is time the minister admits that this was a political process.

If it is not a political process, then show us due process, stop beating around the bush and stop wasting time. Take this seriously. [interjection] It is funny for the member across the way, but it is ot funny for the taxpayer. n Mr. Lemieux: I am not sure where to start. I do not believe any comments were made–[inter- jection] No, I do not think any derogatory remarks were made toward the member, but with his machinations and subplots and plots that he was referring to before, th at is why I made those comments about where he was going with this and his caucus. We have laid out what has happened.

We laid out that not only has the chair made refer- ence to the huge gaps and they problems they have had and the challenges they have in Sunrise in their letter, but also about the strike that has happened there in Sunris e. Also that the impor- tant negotiating team are the ones with, where you had a high level official from MAST, you had the superintendent, you had a couple of other individuals from Sunrise meet with an agent of the Government, a representative of the Government and tell the agent of the Govern- ment exactly where their financial shortfall was. That is what we have explained.

We have also explained that governments make commitments before a formalized approval process is completed on occasion, that has hap- pened, not like the previous government where we came in, in 1999 and they had $70 million laying there unfunded through the Manitoba Medical Association, not a damn penny any- where to pay for that. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about that the formalized approval was completed before any expenditure was made. We pointed out exactly where that money came from within the edu- cation budget.

We talked about overages and underages that do take place within the Grants line that we have, and we have repeatedly said that. We have repeatedly said that there is a process. We followed the process. The process is legal and we have absolutely done it in a proper fashion. We have repeated that, and I will repeat it again. So the next time the member asks that question, I will just say please take a look at Friday's comments with regard to what has been ollowed. f Mr. Schuler: It would be irresponsible on behalf of the Opposition if we just said, oh, the

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 989 minister is a nice guy. He says this, he says that. That would be irresponsible. The minister can say whatever he wants and he has said whatever he wanted to and made mistakes at it. What we want to know is will he lay down exactly what documents were filed and when. I am not doubting that he could find the money within his department. Nobody is doubting that issue whatso ever. There is a lot of room, I am sure, that the minister can cut a little bit here and cut a little bit there and find the money. That is not the issue.

The monies to settle the strike in Sunrise School Division were not part of the initial budget and, thus, for the minister to authorize that expenditure must go through Treasury Board, unless he is indicating that he personally has the authority to make expenditures over $100,000 without Treasury Board looking at it. Second of all, what were the criteria? This is not an overage or an underage, and I know this Government loves to spin terms out there, just spin any kind of a word. This is about overages and underages. Where are the criteria that were used to flow the money? I will explain that.

I will even make it simpler for the minister. What was the reason given to help out in that school division? If it is a percentage issue, if it is a number-of-students issue, there has to be a document. There must be some criteria that were set out before the discussions could be made. I do not think the minister has indicated, or maybe he is indicating, that they walked in and they said whatever the cost, whatever the rationale, we will up-front money. Go ahead, whatever it is, you go negoti- ate it, and we will cover it without any policy guidelines, without any criteria.

That would be terribly irresponsible, and that is where this Gov- ernment is starting to point to. That is exactly what happened. They sent Mr. Lloyd Schreyer in and said, at all costs, at any cost, for whatever reason, fix it, deal with the problem. If that were not the case, the depart- ment would have set up criteria and with that criteria negotiations would have started. This is not overages and underages. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with settling a labour dispute.

That better be in place, and there better be some kind of criteria because when other school divisions come in, on what basis do you accept or deny their request? In fact, the minister could be setting himself and the Government up for a lawsuit because now that you have set the precedent of bailing out one school division, on what basis will you deny the next one?

This Government, by trying to buy them- selves an election, got th emselves in deep, and it is time for the minister to start laying out what the criteria were, what the process was, and explaining to this committee why it is that before an election an announcement was made without approval of Treasury Board. Mr. Lemieux: I thank the member for the ques- tion. I know he does not like to hear about strobe lights but let us just put this into context. The member wrote me a letter about bus safety, and he talked about bus safety.

That was about a week ago and if he has such a concern about safety and bus safety I just want to put on the record that what we are doing as a government, for example, we provided monies and dollars for strobe lights retroactively as well as for anyone who wanted to add them on.

I do not have the letter before me, but I just want to remind the member that he sent a letter approximately a week ago about Dugald Road, Highway 59, and the safety issues around the bus stopping on the ighway. h * (11:40) Just to clarify that, that is where I was trying to point out to him that as a government we take bus safety seriously, as he does, for children. I mentioned about strobe lights, for example. I just mention we put money into strobe lights to try to assist. He will be receiving a letter from me just addressing the safety issue.

So just to clarify that it has nothing to do with Robin Hood or little Red Riding Hood or anyone else. It was just a particular issue that came up that day about bus safety, and as a government we put quite a bit of money into strobe lights. I was trying to point that out, that we are concerned, as he is, about bus safety and the transportation of children.

990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 I am just wanting to reiterate a couple of things with regard to Sunrise School Division. There have been many discussions that have been going on for a fairly long period of time now. Certainly I have been the minister for ap- proximately a year, but throughout that period of time there have been many discussions with many school divisions about their challenges, not only the positive side which I put on the record but also about their challenges that they are looking at.

We have had an individual, a representative of our department, talking to all the amalgamated divisions and talking with them in depth, working with them. If they have any problems, to come back to us, to come back to government to let us know what the challenges are. Through his conversations with all of the superintendents and I, believe, chairs–and can I just digress slightly with regard to the chair of Sunrise School Division? Nowhere, I hope no- where here in our comments are any kind of derogatory remarks made about her because she works very hard.

Every chair of every school division has a huge task in the jobs that they do, and trustees have an important role to play in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Chair, I want to take this opportunity to say that, because they have an important role to play. We do not know what that role will be in years to come. I know the Opposition, during the election, commented about changing taxation, changing their ability to tax as such, keeping it I think at 10 percent or 12 percent. I think it surprised a lot of trustees out there.

I believe it surprised MAST that they were to hear this from the Progressive Conservative Party, because they thought immediately that what the Opposition was talking about here was doing away with school trustees and going to kind of a health care model. So I just want to say that we respect the role that chairs have right now and what the school trustees are trying to do and the jobs that they have. I know at this table we have a couple of former school trustees, and they should be congratulated for the hard work they have done.

Also with the chair of the Sunrise School Division and their trustees there, they have worked extremely hard. Getting back to the official we have had who works with all these divisions, amalgamated divisions in particular, the anecdotal remarks he has received and the comments he has received have been around issues like salaries, harmoni- zation of wages, taking a look at possible pension, looking at, in particular in Sunrise, the issue about the 2005 agreement that is going to expire.

What happens to the programs now that Sunrise is using and trav elling into Transcona or oing to Selkirk? g All those issues have been brought to his attention, and he has brought those to my atten- tion. But he has also brought concerns to me about Sunrise. Without meeting with the board on March 24, those concerns were certainly brought to me, and government was aware of not only their concerns but many concerns raised by amalgamated divisions. We talked repeatedly about how the–I can never recall the gentleman's name. It is not that his name has to be mentioned, but from MAST who certainly talked to Mr.

Schreyer, a repre- sentative of the Government. Also, you had the superintendent who was there. You had two representatives from the school division who informed our representative about the shortfall that they received, about the shortfall they were facing, the financial shortfall that they were having to deal with and that going to mediation would certainly highlight this. It would be highlighted, the fact of that shortfall because of that 15% to 60% gap in salaries.

So Sunrise is, I still believe to this day, the one that stands out more than any other amal- gamated division with regard to the difference in the differential in salaries of their non-teaching employees. It was such a huge gap. You have other divisions, as I mentioned, Louis Riel, Pem- bina Trails were able to settle. Now you have got Prairie Rose. We have talked repeatedly about Prairie Rose. As a government, we want what is in the best interests of the children there, obviously, and the parents. We also want the employees and the employer to be able to settle their dis-

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 991 agreement amicably. They have to live together, work together in the same communities. We believe and I suggested that mediation might be the way to go. If they cannot see their way through this, I am prepared to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) to appoint a mediator if they just cannot get their issues settled in a way that is satisfactory, have mediation involved. They have gone through conciliation already.

The conciliations broke off, and they have been on strike now for about five days, I believe, and it has to be creating some hardships out there. We wish, as a government, to have the par- ties get back together and talk and resolve their differences. As a government, we are there to assist divisions in any way, shape or form we can. We are willing to sit down and talk to them any time that they wish to do so. A comment that I made earlier with regard to Agriculture and this agreement that is going to be signed, we are hoping, with regard to all the rural communities that are out there.

This will help them and relieve some of the pressure off of them. It was a direct comment made from one of the members of their municipal government in rural Manitoba. He came out and made a comment about how they are going to withhold the taxes that they have collected. Regrettably he made comments about fixing his machinery and equipment, but he was making those comments because he felt there was pressure there as a result of the BSE and drought and so on and a combination of that. Hopefully, the document that I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Ms.

Wowchuk) and the federal government are trying to resolve and get settled will be able to put some money into farmers' hands and will thus take more pressure off of rural Manitoba, and by that I mean also pressure off those school divisions. Mr. Schuler: Does the minister think that it was appropriate for a senior member of Treasury Board to intervene and settle the strike in Sun- rise School Division with government funds? Was that the right thing to do? Mr. Lemieux: Before I answer that question, I just want to mention it was the APF, the Agri- cultural Policy Framework Agreement.

I under- stand that is certainly what is being looked at being signed. I believe this will be a huge benefit for rural Manitoba and the agricultural com- munity, and thereby that affects the Department of Education and it affects us. We told school divisions, the previous min- ister told the school divisions that we would be assisting them and helping them out. We have provided $50-per-student assistance.

In the case of Border Land School Division, that amounts to $116,000 over three years; Frontier School Divi- sion, $168,000; Louis Riel, $742,000; Mountain View, $164,000; Park West School Division, $99,000, almost $100,000 actually; Pembina Trails, $679,000; Prairie Rose School Division, $120,000; Prairie Spirit School Division, $130,000; Red River Valley School Division, $111,000; River East-Transcona School Divi- sion, $891,000, almost a million dollars; South- west Horizon School Division, $91,000; and Sunrise School Division, $246,000.

This amount of money, these funds that have been provided to these school divisions at $50 per child, has been part of what the previous minister, Minister Caldwell, the Minister of Family Services and Housing, was able to work within the Department of Education and Youth– at that time it was Education, Training and Youth, I believe–was able to put that assistance in place in order to assist these divisions. Now we said to these divisions, we are not going to leave you out there, we are going to try to work with you and help you as much as we can.

These dollars, the dollars that I have put on the record, I believe, point out that we are not going to leave them without assistance. * (11:50) We know that due to declining enrolment, depopulation, that scenario for a lot of those rural communities and those urban communities also within the rural part of Manitoba has cre- ated some pressure for them. It has created some pressure for the organizations that are there. Now, these are over three years.

It is something that the department takes very, very seriously, because it is very difficult to predict what is going to happen over three years to a lot of these communities and the declining enrolment and population overall, but it is something that we

992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 have to be prepared to look at and look at the financial support for these communities. The BSE was something that I do not think– maybe people certainly more familiar with agri- culture than I might have been able to predict or at least foresee, but no one thought that we would get a drought, BSE and forest fires, the three whammos all in the same year. That has put tremendous pressure on the finances of the province, but also tremendous pressure on also school divisions with the BSE and drought, as well as declining enrolment and depopulation for them.

As a government, as a department, we are working very closely with educational organiza- tions and the stakeholders, discussing all the is- sues around what their challenges are down the road and trying to formulate a plan to be able to assist them in any way we can. The point has to be made, though, that we are there to work with these divisions, to help them and to assist them in any way we can. That does not mean a blank cheque, no, but it does mean that if financial support is necessary we will support them. Mr.

Schuler: A senior staffer from Treasury Board involves himself in a dispute in Sunrise School Division, in a strike, and attempts to settle the strike. Does the minister think that was the proper way to go? Does he feel that was ppropriate? a Mr. Lemieux: I will repeat it one more time about how the government representative and the employer negotiating team met. The nego- tiating team explicitly laid out exactly what their challenges were and told and made known exact- ly where the shortfall was with regard to finan- ces. When we are talking about $112,000 for this year, that is what we are talking about.

We are talking about how that negotiating team felt that because of the huge gap, the huge salary or wage gap in non-teaching em ployees, not only the mechanical side but the bus drivers and also the custodians and the teacher s' aides and the secre- tarial portion of their division, all the non-teach- ing employees, when you have a huge gap like that they made it quite clear that the potential for escalation with regard to the strike, that it would e very difficult to get an agreement. b So it is quite clear that when you have a high-level employee representative of MAST, the parent organization, you have the super- intendent and you have a couple of other indi- viduals off the negotiating team, their nego- tiating team, the management negotiating team, the people who are supposed to pay the bill and pay the wages made it quite clear to the Gov- ernment's representative that there was an extreme shortfall with regard to the harmoni- zation of salaries over the 3-year period.

That is where the numbers came from. That was laid out quite clearly to government, and the Government responded in kind. Mr. Schuler: Instead of using a government mediator, third party, a senior member of Treas- ury Board got involved and interfered in a strike between management and union. Does the min- ister think this is appropriate? Was it the proper ay to go? w Mr. Lemieux: Well, thank you.

Once again, I apologize for being repetitious, but I had men- tioned it before, about how the Government of Manitoba has repeatedly said that we are there to support amalgamated divisions, not only finan- cially but otherwise. We have a staff person who continually worked with these divisions and wanted to make sure there was a contact person, a liaison person and worked closely with the amalgamated divisions to ensure the amal- gamated divisions would be in touch with the Government and had a conduit or a way to be able to let us know what exactly is going on within those divisions, amalgamated divisions.

I am sure it was very challenging but we ended up getting some good anecdotal com- ments back, some very honest comments with regard to not only the challenges they faced but also the positive side of amalgamation and what it really meant for these divisions. Mr. Schuler: Does this minister think it is appropriate that the superintendent and a high- level person at MAST, quoting the minister, were sent to a senior official at the Treasury Board to have that individual interfere in a labour dispute? Was that the right way to go? Mr.

Lemieux: I believe a right way to go on behalf of the Government is to be there for amalgamated divisions. I believe what we have to do is, I have mentioned about the drought and BSE for a lot of rural communities, that creates a

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 993 huge challenge for us as a government because it is certainly something that is unexpected. We feel that, and I heard comments today, not comments from the Opposition, but there were some media comments about how there would be no financial assistance, for example, for Prairie Rose School Division. That is incor- rect. We do not know that and, our under- standing, they are following, going through their process. Conciliation broke off.

I hope they go to mediation if they cannot settle their own dispute, but the Province of Manitoba has said all along, and it has to be put on the record, that even though there is a difference and there is a discrepancy between Sunrise, Prairie Rose, Louis Riel and Pembina Trails, the difference being you have Sunrise who had such a huge, huge gap in salary. The differential was put be- tween 15 percent and 60 percent. By that I say I understand the difference in Prairie Rose is anywhere between, I think, 15 to 20 percent or thereabouts, I believe. The difference is not the same as was at Sunrise.

The difference that you see also with Louis Riel and Pembina Trails is different. So you have a number of different situations which for the Government really is important because you can see that some school divisions are able to cover their negotiations or their salary differentials, other school divisions are unable to. That is something the division has certainly looked at– or the department, sorry, has looked at and we are looking at how to a ddress those challenges down the road. Mr.

Schuler: Yesterday, the minister, when asked about who was involved with this whole negotiation, said I just asked my department to find out who the person was from the Labour Relations area. It is a Mr. Schreyer. He was the person who was contacted. Does the minister think it is appropriate that Labour Relations is being run out of Treasury Board? Is that the appropriate way to deal with these issues? Mr. Lemieux: Well, I think the Department of Labour certainly has a role to play. As I men- tioned before, the Department of Labour is responsible for conciliation and also for medi- ation.

This is an area where Prairie Rose, as I mentioned repeatedly, I asked the member and I have asked my critic from Tuxedo whether or not they feel that an arbitrator should be put in place in Prairie Rose. I ask them again: Do you want me, would you join with me, to encourage me to talk to the Minister of Labour to get an arbitrator put in place in Prairie Rose? * (12:00) Mr. Schuler: This is the area where the minister gets himself into trouble over and over and over again. In fact, I think this committee would be fine if the minister would pause and consult with his departmental staff.

The problem is that this is now so political that professionalism will not even allow them to do that. What the minister has just articulated is that when it comes to labour relations and bailing out the Government, pre-election in seats they wish to win, labour relations are now run through Treasury Board. Can he confirm or deny that? Mr. Lemieux: Well, the Member from Spring- field is incorrect. Mr. Schuler: But the minister has no difficulty in a senior staffperson of Treasury Board nego- tiating an end to a strike in Sunrise School Division? Mr. Lemieux: Mr.

Chairperson, the province of Manitoba is a province that has had, thankfully, very few labour disputes recently. I know that I would say there were more during the 1990's than we certainly have seen in the last four years. Employees and em ployers are able to work out their differences amicably and we are very fortunate for that. I know that if the mem- bers opposite had their way, they want teachers to have the right to strike. That is definitely different from what our Government has pro- posed and has always said.

Arbitration takes place, I believe, in 80 per- cent, approximately 80 percent in contracts in Manitoba, thereby leaving approximately 20 percent of the employees the ability to strike and to negotiate and go through conciliation and

994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 mediation and so on. So what you have in Mani- toba is that you have an opposition, a Con- servative party, that wants to allow teachers the right to strike and it is something that I certainly have not heard any different from my critic to Education or the member from Springfield. They want teachers to have the right to strike and here you have Prairie Rose School Division that we see a strike taking place. This is what we have heard from the Conservative party.

They want the teachers to have the right to strike and we as a government feel quite differ- ently. Arbitration has served us well and we want to also point out that 80 percent of those agreements are solved th rough arbitration. So you have 20 percent of the employees in the province who have to go through a different process. Now, with regard to the school divisions that we are looking at down the road, there are a number of them that have collective agreements that have expired. I believe Ms. Duhamel from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees.

She is also, I believe, their executive director, I apologize if her title is not correct. She and we have met often to discuss not only the amal- gamated divisions, but other school divisions. So you have a case where we are in continual dialogue with either the president of MAST, Mr. Draper, or Ms. Duhamel to discuss issues around whether it is contracts or har- monization or pension. They are in continual contact with me. They know that they have my private line. They understand they can reach me any time. My door is open.

We often talk on an ongoing basis and we have, I believe, a good dialogue in the sense that our open dialogue to the point where if any issues come up like Sunrise or otherwise, th ey will certainly call me and let me know of any challenges they see on the horizon. Now, today, Ms. Duhamel mentioned that, I think, there were something like 10 or 12 collective agreements that have either expired or are about to.

Certainly, there will be discussions about that, but the point that has to be made is that all along, through th e previous minister and through the current minister, the Province of Manitoba has said they are there to work with the divisions, amalgamated or not. If they have financial challenges, we want to be there, we want to know about it, and we want to be able to work with them to see if they can be overcome. I will try not to be too political about this, but the point is that we provided a tremendous amount over the last four years into education.

I know the previous government in the 1990s had their challenges; they did. The economy was not as great in the beginning of the 1990s. I know, having spoken to Eric Stefanson and other individuals about the challenges that they have faced. They have stated, and I certainly take him for his word and other members of the Con- servative Party that I have had conversations with, how tough it was in the early nineties for them. So that is why I am very hesitant to throw stones or political rhetoric at the members at the table because they had their challenges.

They decided to spend the money where they wanted to, and we as a government have made education a priority for economic development reasons, for the benefit of children, and to also ensure the quality of education that our children get, be- cause we believe that is our future, it is not just rhetoric, and I understand, I hear the same. I know that the member from Tuxedo feels like- wise and feels how important education is, and I am sure she reminds her caucus often about the importance of education and how it is important to all of us.

So, just on that note, I just want to say that we in the province of Manitoba have a very, very good track record with regard to education, no matter what the measurements are that are placed upon us, internationally or otherwise. I know that we currently received a report from the OECD with regard to international testing results. I am certainly prepared to discuss that, and I know that the members opposite would be very interested in hearing some of those results. So I see the member from Springfield nodding and saying, yes, he wants to know that.

He wants to know that in Canada, for example, that we are ranked second in literacy, we are sixth in math and fifth in science. This is a Program for Inter- national Student Assessment, a PISA. This is something that ranks us, Manitoba, as a province within Canada, fifth in literacy, fourth in math and fourth in science. So, if you take a look at

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 995 what we have in Canada, you have the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut and you have six other provinces. That puts us well ahead of the pack with regard to literacy, math and science. So we are doing well, and what is important to note is, among all other countries, only Finland ranked above Manitoba in literacy and reading.

Here we are, as the Province of Manitoba, putting more money into literacy, more money into math or numeracy, and I be- lieve what we are doing here is we are ensuring that there is a great future for the children of Manitoba and that Manitoba, for example, ranked above the United States in all categories, the province of Manitoba, little Manitoba, and we should be very proud of that fact. So what we are doing is putting money into education at an unprecedented rate, at the rate of economic growth. We are very proud of that fact and the Premier of Manitoba (Mr.

Doer) is one that has stood tall amongst all other Premiers in the country saying that education is not only for economic development–it is certainly part and parcel of our whole overall plan–but that edu- cation for the children of Manitoba is truly one of our legacies that we can be proud of when our time, and the people of Manitoba decide that they wish to go in a different direction. We can certainly look back and say that what we did we can be proud of. I know that 32 OECD country members participated in this.

There was some- thing that I know that the, I think the National Post has really published this, and they were surprised, I think really, truly surprised not only that we ranked second in literacy in Canada but that what we have done is that we in Manitoba, when they take a look at Manitoba and saying, you know, you are fifth in literacy, fourth in math, fourth in science, it is an area that shows that–just an aside, yes, we have testing in Grade 6 and Grade 9 or Senior 1 and Senior 4, Grade 12, but what must be happening in the public education system is that you have educators, teachers, who assessed on an annual basis, on a daily, weekly, monthly, annual basis.

It is not one test to determine it all, but teachers know that when you are working with young people you may have to change your way of presenting the material if it is not working. So you have to do those constant assessments. * (12:10) As a province, I can tell you, and I want to share with my critic from Tuxedo, that we are currently chairing and leading an organization, a committee of western provinces, and we are the lead on that, looking at ways of assessment to assist teachers in the classroom, how best you attach assessment to curriculum.

And it is really important to note that we, Manitoba, are the lead on this because we feel that it is not just that chiselled-in-stone hard test at the end of the year that determines where our children are. The OECD and the international student assessment has proven that, that we are making inroads with regard to increasing our ability to provide better education for our young people and, not only that, again, we put more money into literacy and more money into numeracy just to make sure that we are on the right track. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr.

Chair, just earlier this morning, I had asked the minister if he felt that it was appropriate that a senior level of the Treas- ury Board staff be appointed as the official on behalf of his government department to nego- tiate the dispute, I guess to be in negotiations on behalf of the Government in the Sunrise School Division strike dispute. My colleague just point- ed out that basically this minister felt that it was appropriate for the employee to be there from Treasury Board on behalf of his department. Then the minister said, no, that is incorrect. Mr.

Chair, is the minister then saying that it was incorrect and inappropriate for Mr. Lloyd Schreyer, a senior member of Treasury Board, to be involved in this labour dispute in the Sunrise School Division on behalf of his government department? Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Chairperson, sometimes it is difficult to hear the questions coming from members opposite and to determine exactly what those questions are.

I want to say that, with regard to any school division in the province of Manitoba, the Gov- ernment of Manitoba, it is very important that we are listening and wanting to know what is happening with regard to not only collective agreements, but what is happening overall. It has always been and we know that for a fact with regard to the previous government, that it always

996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 19, 2003 has been the Government's role to act in the public interest with regard to labour disputes, especially when there is a possibility of strike action. We know that. Mr. Chair, there are mechanisms within the Department of Labour whether it is conciliation or mediation to address such situations. Labour Relations has a mandate to monitor labour issues throughout the province and to act in the public interest.

Labour Relations also at the request of parties can facilitate mediation and conciliation services through that process and become en- gaged with the parties involved. When we passed amalgamation legislation, we assured school divisions we would work with them through the process on wage disparity and other issues. We made that commitment. They understand that commitment and they know that we are prepared to work with them, no matter where the school division is, what part of the province, and what their difficulties are. Government is always available for that. I hope they always would be available for that.

I know that we have talked repeatedly about the chair of the school division writing to me, ex- pressing concerns about the disparity in wages between the two divisions. We are very much aware that the strike happened and very much aware the government official from the depart- ment who works in compensation issues had discussions certainly with the employer and the negotiating team who laid out exactly what their difficulties were and what were their financial challenges were and what they faced on the horizon.

It is imperative that government, and it always has been government's role in the public interest, in labour disputes especially where there is a possibility of a strike, it has a role to act. The Department of Labour in Manitoba and also the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) in this case where I asked the members on numerous occasions whether or not they feel it is important that a mediator be involved in Prairie Rose, for example. Prairie Rose School Division has been out on strike now for one week. Busing has been affected.

A number of children–we know ap- proximately, give or take, around 1400 children, I understand, at least I have been advised and that is approximate–that are transportable. Whether or not they are di rectly affected by this strike, I could stand to be corrected on that. I know that strikes in the public education system are very important. We have seen what has happened in a Conservative province like Ontario where we have had strikes among teachers. In Manitoba, thankfully, we have a dif- ferent process in place. That may change down the road sometime. Who knows?

I just know that currently it appears to be working. You have arbitration involved where you had a Con- servative province like Ontario where strikes were allowed. I believe, also, Alberta, I think their strikes are allowed there as well. It has created a great deal of hardship in the community, a tremendous amount of anxiety amongst parents and not knowing when children are going to get back to the classroom. In this case, at least they are being bused and they were being transported. Pardon me, their parents and they are being at least accessed to school, as long as they can get there.

We understand that so far there has not been a great deal of difficulty in that area. We are certainly monitoring that closely. We want to ensure that employees and employers have an amicable working relation- ship. That is why strikes can be very, very dif- ficult on communities. People go to curling rinks together, they go to ho ckey arenas together. They have children whet her you are a trustee or you are a member of the CUPE union or other worker group, you may have children on the same soccer team or baseball team.

If you are in rural Manitoba, the likelihood might even be greater of the fact that you could have the chair of the school board or someone from MAST in Winnipeg having their child on the same team as someone from the union. I realize, that is part of the collective bar- gaining process. That is all part of what makes a system run. In rural Manitoba, I might be wrong, but in rural Manitoba where you have small communities like that, it is very, very difficult on people. We have heard from the Conservative Party about how they f eel that the teachers should have the right to strike. Ontario and

September 19, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 997 Alberta, it really has not been very positive. I mean, in Ontario and Alberta the teachers do have the right to strike there, and it is not positive at all and has not worked for the benefit of the children. We know that people have vary- ing or differing views on whether or not that should continue. I know that it is imperative that government absolutely know what is going on within the public sector and know what is going on with regard to acting. We do have a role to act in the public's interest in labour disputes. Mr.

Chair, in some situations you have to participate; others you do not. You have Louis Riel, Pembina Trails, and you have Sunrise and you also have Prairie Rose–four divisions. Two are able to settle their disagreements in an ami- cable way and without any participation from government in a sense, more than what we have given already, the $50 per student, where it amounts to about three-quarters of a million dollars for Louis Riel and almost a million dollars I think it was for Pembina Trails.

That $50 per student certainly assisted them, I am sure, a great deal in resolving their financial differences. * (12:20) You have a real challenge for us. You have a challenge where you have a number of different organizations whose collective agreements have expired and yet we are going to have to parti- cipate and assist these school divisions either through staff or through expertise that we have within government with Labour Relations. We understand that the parties right now in Prairie Rose–conciliation has broken down.

We are asking that it may be time for them to look at mediation if they cannot resolve their differ- ences. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I see that by not correcting the record the minister is finally admitting that it was inappropriate for a senior- level employee from Treasury Board to be involved in a labour dispute on behalf of his government department. I am not going to get focused and bogged down on these types of details.

There are some serious questions that we would like to have answered, so I would like to focus back on the time line that I referred to earlier, being the beginning of the strike starting April 8 in the Sunrise School Division and the end of the strike which took place April 17. I would like to ask the minister on what day, with- in those dates, he approved the sum of $428,000 from his government department to help settle this dispute. Mr. Lemieux: I just received a note from staff with regard to the students in Prairie Rose. I just want to correct some of the numbers I was using.

When I used the number 1400, that is the whole Prairie Rose Division that is transported. Out of those, 900 students are affected by the current strike that is on there. So I just wanted to ensure that that was corrected. It is 1400 students who are transportable within the whole division. Approximately 900 are affected currently by the strike that is taking place. As I mentioned before, I believe it is im- perative that government, and it always has been government's role to act in the public's interest with regard to labour disputes and in the public's interest to know what is going on with regard to strikes.

We had a person that was a government representative who talked with the negotiating team who were the ones who were going to pay the bills after all, and in Sunrise you had the high-level representative from MAST, also the superintendent of the school division, Mr. Bell, also a couple of other representatives off the negotiating team. That was their negotiating team from Sunrise who spoke to the government representative and informed the government representative where the roadblock was, where the challenge was. They are saying the financial challenge is there.

The financial challenge was $112,000 the first year. It was a huge challenge for them, and it was pointed out in the letter where they invited us and wanted us to disc

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-1-09c
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 1st hansardpdf 09c.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8778f6a6573e6783c4ac0c4a4f5d273382558181

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