Manitoba Committee Hansard — 18 February 2004 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 01, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-la01

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Ms. Marilyn Brick Constituency of St. Norbert Vol. LV No. 1 – 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 18, 2004 ISSN 1708-668X

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew 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, Hon. 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, Hon. 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, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Wednesday, February 18, 2004 TIME – 6:30 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) ATTENDANCE - 11 – QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Mackintosh Messrs. Goertzen, Hawranik, Ms. Korzeniowski, Mr. Martindale. Substitutions: Mrs. Rowat for Mrs. Taillieu Mrs. Stefanson for Mr. Reimer Mr. Dewar for Mr. Maloway Hon. Mr. Bjornson for Hon. Mr. Rondeau Hon. Ms. Melnick for Hon. Mr. Selinger Ms. Brick for Mr. Nevakshonoff APPEARING: Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster Mr. Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell WITNESSES: Bill 8–The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act (One-Tier Assistance for Rural and Northern Manitoba) Mr. Stuart Briese, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Chris Luellman, City of Selkirk Mr. Bill Comaskey, Mayor, City of Thompson Mr. Wally R. Melnyk, President, Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association Bill 13–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Educational Programming) Ms. Karen Carey, Board Director, Manitoba Association of Parent Councils Ms. Diane Duma, Private Citizen Ms.

Gladys Hayward Williams, Private Citizen Mr. Brian Ardern, Presiden t, Manitoba Teachers' Society Ms. Connie Allsopp, Chairperson, Council of School Leaders Mr. Dale Kendel, Association for Community Living in Manitoba Ms. Tanis Pshebniski, Assistant Superintendent of Program and Curriculum, St. James- Assiniboia School Division Ms. Linda Archer, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Ms. Irene Meyrowitz, Manitoba School Counsellors' Association Mr. Ross Eadie, Private Citizen Ms. Edie Wilde, President, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents Ms. Lori Johnson, Winnipeg School Division Mr.

Jim Hoddinott, Manitoba Council for Exceptional Children Bill 7–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act Mr. Ken Mandzuik, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Mr. John Stefaniuk, Manitoba Bar Association WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. Ian MacKenzie, Mayor, City of Portage la Prairie

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 Mr. Les Magnusson, Mayor, City of Steinbach Mr. Alex Fedorchuk, Councillor, Town of Mor- den Ms. Jan Chaboyer, President, Brandon District Labour Council MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 8–The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act (One-Tier Assistance for Rural and Northern Manitoba) Bill 13–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Educational Programming) Bill 7–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act * * * Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. Committee Substitutions Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Prior to proceeding with the business at hand we need to deal with some committee resignations and substitutions. I have before me the resignation from this committee of Mrs. Taillieu, effective immediately. Are there any nominations to replace Mrs. Taillieu? Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I nomi- nate Leanne Rowat, the Member for Minnedosa. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mrs. Rowat has been nominated. Is that agreed? [Agreed] A committee resignation has also been received for Mr. Reimer, effective immediately. Are there any nominations to replace Mr. Reimer? Mr.

Hawranik: I nominate Heather Stefanson, the Member for Tuxedo. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mrs. Stefanson has been nominated. Is that agreed? [Agreed] A committee resignation has also been received from Mr. Maloway, effective immediately. Are there any nominations to replace Mr. Maloway? Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): I nominate Mr. Dewar, Member for Selkirk. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Dewar, Selkirk, has been nominated. Is that agreed? [Agreed] A committee resignation has also been received from the Honourable Mr. Rondeau, effective immediately. Are there any nominations to replace Mr. Rondeau? Ms.

Korzeniowski: I nominate Mr. Bjornson, Member for Gimli. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Bjornson has been nominated. Is that agreed? [Agreed] A committee resignation has also been received from the Honourable Mr. Selinger, effective immediately. Are there any nominations to replace Mr. Selinger? Ms. Korzeniowski: I nominate Ms. Melnick. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Melnick has been nominated. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Finally, I have before me the resignation from this committee of Mr. Nevakshonoff, effective immediately. Are there any nominations to replace Mr. Nevakshonoff? Ms. Korzeniowski: I nominate Ms.

Marilyn Brick. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Brick has been nominated. Is that agreed? [Agreed] There is now a vacancy in the position of committee Chairperson. Ms. Korzeniowski: I nominate Ms. Brick. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Brick has been nominated. Is that agreed [Agreed] Hearing no other nominations, will Ms. Brick please take the Chair. * * * Madam Chairperson: This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 7, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act; Bill 8, The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act; Bill 13, The Public Schools Amendment Act.

We have presenters registered to speak to all three of these bills as follows: For Bill 7, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act: presenter Ken Mandzuik, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties; John Stefaniuk, Manitoba Bar Association.

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 For Bill 8, The Employment and Income Assist- ance Amendment Act: presenter Stewart Briese, Association of Manitoba Municipalities; Wally R. Melnyk, President, Manitoba Municipal Administra- tors' Association; Chris Luellman, Private Citizen; and we have one person who has withdrawn from the speaking list, Darlene Swiderski, Deputy Mayor of the city of Selkirk; and we have Mayor Bill Comaskey from the city of Thompson. We have Bill 13, The Public Schools Amend- ment Act.

The following presenters are here: Karen Carey, Board Director for the Manitoba Association of Parent Councils; Diane Duma, Private Citizen; Brian Ardern, President, Manitoba Teachers' Society; Janice Dedenus, Cheryl Chaban, Connie Allsopp and/or Gary Comack, Council of School Leaders; Dale Kendel, Association for Community Living in Manitoba; Ron Weston from the St.

James Assini- boia School Division; Linda Archer from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees–this was a change from the previous pr esenter of Garry Draper; Irene Meyrowitz from the Manitoba School Coun- sellors' Association; Ross Eadie, Private Citizen; Edie Wilde, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents; Lori Johnson, Winnipeg School Division; Jim Hoddinott, Manitoba Council for Exceptional Children; and Gladys Hayward Williams, Private Citizen. Those are the persons and organizations who have registered so far. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening?

You may register with the staff at the entrance of the room. For the information of all presenters, 20 copies of any written versions of the presentations are required. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. Four written submissions have been received regarding Bill 8 from the following individuals or groups: Ian MacKenzie, Mayor of the city of Portage la Prairie; Les Magnusson, Mayor of the city of Steinbach; Alex Fedorchuk, Councillor, from the town of Morden; and Jan Ch aboyer, President of the Brandon District Labour Council.

Copies of these submissions have been provided to the members at the start of the meeting. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] In what order does the committee wish to hear public presentations on the bills? Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): As listed on the Order Paper, Madam Chair. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Is that agreed? [Agreed] You will note from our lists that we have a number of out-of-town presenters in attendance this evening. These names are marked with asterisks on the lists.

Is it the will of the committee to hear from the out-of-town presenters first? [Agreed] I would like to inform presenters that in accord- ance with our rules a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another 5 min- utes allowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

I would also like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hours of ad- journment. Except by unanimous consent, a standing committee meeting to consider a bill in the evening may not sit past midnight to hear presentations unless fewer than 20 presenters are registered to speak to all bills being considered when the com- mittee meets at 6:30. As of 6:30 this evening, there were 19 persons registered to speak to these bills. Therefore, according to our rules, this committee may sit past midnight to hear presentations. I have one last announcement for the committee.

With agreement from the NDP and the PC caucuses, arrangements have been made for staff from Information Services to be in attendance this evening in order to videotape parts of this meeting for in- clusion in "A Day in the Life of the House," an educational video produced by the Assembly. If there are any presenters in attendance who do not wish to be videotaped, please inform our staff and arrangements will be made to turn off the camera during your presentation. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations.

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 Bill 8–The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act (One-Tier Assistance for Rural and Northern Manitoba) Madam Chairperson: The first out-of-town pre- senter for Bill 8, The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act, I will now call on Stuart Briese, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. Minister Melnick , would you like to come and join us? Do you have written copies for distribution to the committee? * (18:40) Mr. Stuart Briese (Associ ation of Manitoba Mu- nicipalities): Yes. Somewhere. They are being handed out right now.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Briese: Thank you. I am Stuart Briese, president of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities is pleased to appear before the standing committee today and would like to take this opportunity to present our views on Bill 8, The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act. As the AMM represents all 199 municipalities in Manitoba, we feel that it is important that a munic- ipal perspective be considered, and we appreciate this opportunity to do so.

Bill 8 proposes a one-tier system of social assistance for rural and northern Manitoba, effectively bringing the administration of social assistance in Manitoba under provincial juris- diction. In the nineties, the Province assumed the respon- sibility for the administration of income assistance for the City of Winnipeg. In response to this, AMM members passed a resolution at the 1999 AMM convention calling for provincial administration of all income assistance in Manitoba on a cost-neutral basis.

AMM members are concerned that under the current system chief administrative officers are in poor positions to deliver social assistance. First, CAOs are not trained to administer social assistance, and many of them experience difficulty when dealing with social assistance recipients. The AMM believes that appropriately-trained staff is necessary to ensure a well-functioning system of social assistance.

Furthermore, if social assistance is administered solely by the Province, the AMM argues that this will lead to be a more consistent approach to social assistance and will enable the Province to respond to the various needs of social assistance recipients, putting an end to the current patchwork approach to social assistance administration in Manitoba. On March 8, 2000, the AMM met with repre- sentatives of the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association and the Department of Family Services and Housing to begin negotiations regarding pro- vincial administration of income assistance.

The group discussed a number of issues including the transfer of employees, changes to existing legislation and service delivery standards. One of the most important issues for munic- ipalities relates to the cost, and AMM is pleased that the proposed legislation addresses this issue, as the municipal income assistance costs will be based on a seven-year average from 1995 to 2001, representing a cost-neutral agreement. The AMM has already received feedback from its members indicating how pleased they are that a one-tier, cost-neutral system will soon be in effect.

Furthermore, although municipalities will no longer administer income assistance, this does not mean municipal responsibilities will end in this regard. Municipalities are willing to continue to co- operate with the Province in helping those receiving income assistance to find meaningful employment within their communities. In fact, the proposed amendment under

Section 16.3 addresses this very issue. While finding mean- ingful employment for social assistance recipients is, indeed an objective of municipalities, the AMM urges the Province to ensure that this clause does not become overly burdensome for municipalities. The success of the proposed amendment rests in great part on the fact that it was reached on a cost- neutral basis and the downloading of additional re- sponsibilities to municipalities should not compro- mise this fact.

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 Recently, some of our members were concerned. This is not part of the written presentation; this is something that happened just very recently. Some of our members were concerned about employment for their staff members administering social assistance. We are pleased that the Province is committed to the ongoing employment of those staff in the provincial civil service. Due to the prompt attention of the Minister of Family Services (Ms.

Melnick) and her staff, we are pleased to say that the City of Selkirk, the City of Portage and the R.M. of Portage la Prairie, have asked us to withdraw their recent concerns related to this bill. The AMM is pleased to have worked so closely with the Province on this important issue. This is something that we have been pursuing for some time and look forward to this becoming a reality. Therefore, the AMM urges the Legislature to pass Bill 8, The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act. We believe this bill is good for the province, municipalities and income assistance recipients.

The AMM strongly supports the imple- mentation of a one-tier system of income assistance for Manitoba. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Do the members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Thank you for your presentation. Can you expand on the staffing concern or issue that was raised by the communities that you have indicated? Mr.

Briese: There were some concerns that the staff would have to compete for the positions in the civil service, that it was our understanding early in this negotiation that they would be offered jobs in the civil service. In negotiations with the department over the last couple of days, we were able to resolve that and they will be offered those jobs. Mrs. Rowat: Can I ask how many employees this will affect? Mr. Briese: There are 18 employees across the province. Mrs. Rowat: And has the civil service indicated how many positions will be created to address the 18 positions, or will there be 18 positions created?

Mr. Briese: I should clarify that a little bit. These positions, I think, in all cases were 50 percent funded by the Province already and the other 50 percent is included in that cost-neutral thing, so there is no additional funding required for these employees. It is already covered in the agreements that were made. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Just very quickly a couple of questions: Someone receiving social assistance, let us say in Thompson, compared to Brandon, today, I believe, would receive maybe some differential amounts through your organization.

Is that a concern, or has that issue been addressed with the Government? Mr. Briese: I am not sure about differential amounts, but up to this point in the province, roughly 90 percent of the social assistance was provided by the Province already. We were only providing about 10 percent of it. I cannot comment, though, on dif- ferential. I do not know whether there is or is not. Mr.

Lamoureux: In terms of a variance, would you acknowledge, representing the organization, that there would be a difference in cost of living, then, in Thompson versus, let us say, Brandon and, if so, that that should be taken into consideration for the Gov- ernment? Mr. Briese: I really cannot comment on it. It may well be there already. I do not know. Madam Chairperson: Did any other members have questions? Hon.

Christine Melnick (M inister of Family Ser- vices and Housing): I would just like to say what a positive experience it has b een to work with AMM throughout the whole process, and I certainly look forward to continuing our work. I think we all re- cognize the necessity for jobs throughout rural and northern Manitoba, so I would like to ask you an open-ended question. If, in the future, you have some ideas, some creative ways of helping us work to- gether to achieve that goal, I would really encourage you to let us know. I would really look forward to working with you in that aim. Mr.

Briese: Part of the agreement was to work with the Province on local jobs under social assistance, or

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 to help people that are on social assistance, and we intend to stand by that. * (18:50) Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Chris Luellman, Private Citizen. Mr. Luellman, do you have any written copies? Mr. Chris Luellman (City of Selkirk): There has been a miscommunication. I am with the City of Selkirk, and there has been a withdraw. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Sorry. Mr. Luellman, who is with the City of Selkirk. Do you have written copies for distribution to the committee? Mr. Luellman: Nothing. Withdraw.

Thank you. Madam Chairperson: You want to withdraw? Okay. Recognizing the next speaker, I will now call on Mayor Bill Comaskey, from the city of Thompson. Do you have any written copies for distribution to the committee? Mr. Bill Comaskey (Mayor, City of Thompson): Madam Chairperson, no, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. You may pro- ceed. Mr.

Comaskey: Madam Chairperson, honourable ministers, MLAs, committee, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I am here on very short notice and I will be just speaking from notes, so I do thank the com- mittee for the opportunity to present the City of Thompson's position with regard to Bill 8. We have steadfastly stated from the onset that we were in favour of delivering social assistance in the city of Thompson. We have provided that service for a number of years. I believe we have provided a very good service.

I did meet with the minister responsible about three years ago, and the understanding at that time was that there would be some discussions with the City of Thompson with respect to the delivery of social assistance. We had a discussion with respect to the Province providing soci al assistance or the City providing it. With due respect to AMM, which is an association that we belong to, we disagree with the Province taking over the social assistance delivery service from the City of Thompson. There are questions with respect to staff. We are very concerned with what is going to happen with our department.

We are equally concerned with the fact that based on the 2002 mill rate, it will cost us a direct cost of just under $59,000. While I recognize that there was a resolution passed at the association convention to support one-tier social assistance in the province of Manitoba, we, as the third largest city in the province, respectfully disagree. We had expected to have some consultation or discussions with respect to this bill. As I said, I am here on very short notice.

I got a copy of a letter on the sixteenth of this month, and it just so happened that I am in the city of Winnipeg, and I was able to register and to appear before this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to do that, but it is not that easy just to drop in. I do not mean that as any disrespect to the committee. We are not in agreement with it and would like to know what happens to the staff.

I have had a copy of the correspondence that was communicated to the cities with respect to staffing, but we are still in limbo with respect to what happens with our staff and the fact that it is going to cost us close to $60,000 to transfer that program to the Province. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presenta- tion. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mrs. Rowat: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for coming tonight. I did receive a copy of a news

article that was in the local paper in January. I just want to touch base with you on one comment that was made and maybe you can let me know whether you have received any answers on it. You had indicated, or your councillor had asked whether there would be funds coming from the Gov- ernment to support an individual in one community, but the person's social assistance bill is being picked up by Thompson. Can you expand on this situation

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 or that scenario so that I have a better understanding of what you meant by that? Mr. Comaskey: An individual in our community who was receiving social assistance? Mrs. Rowat: If it is determined funds are coming from the Government to support an individual in one community, but the person's social assistance bill is being picked up by Thompson, you had indicated, or your councillor had indicated, that was an issue. Can you expand on that? Mr.

Comaskey: With respect to the delivery of social assistance, the offers there of social assistance, we have the province at large and area residents. I believe it was one of my co lleagues that posed that question with regard to payment of social assistance, if we were to provide it in the city. When this trans- fer takes place, I believe that question is a non-issue. Ms. Melnick: Yes, thank you for coming in, Mayor Comanskey.

I am wondering if you are aware—I know you have been away from your office—have you received our communication of today where we ensure that we will be working with current staff to work toward more of a transition for staff, if that would help to ease your concerns about the place- ment of staff? I am just wondering if you have received our communication. Mr. Comaskey: I arrived here in Winnipeg yester- day and I was in communication with my office late this afternoon. I believe th at is a copy of the cor- respondence that was provided to the City of Portage la Prairie and the R.M. of Portage la Prairie.

Is that the letter? Ms. Melnick: From this afternoon, yes. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Your Worship, can you outline for us what your areas of concern are as it relates to moving to the one-tier social assist- ance in your city? Mr. Comaskey: Mr. Derkach, with respect to the delivery of service, we believe that over the last 10 years, we have provided quality service. We are in no way challenging the validity of persons receiving social assistance. We beli eve there are persons that need it. We have well-trained staff that interview and provide recipients with good advice on job seeking.

It is not only a cash issue, it is with respect to having people return to the workfo rce. We have been very successful with that. The costs have decreased significantly over the last ten years to the city of Thompson. So that is a major concern for us, that with less involvement with regard to the recipients of the city of Thompson, we know we cannot expect the Government of Manitoba–or the taxpayer is going to completely take this over and that we are going to not be impacted with it. So there are two issues.

We were bringing the costs down and now we find it is going to cost us, based on the 2000 mill rate, $60,000. So it is bringing the costs down on this side and getting people back into the work force. On the other side, when it is transferred, we fear and see it is going to increase our costs Mr. Derkach: We heard from Mr. Briese, the president of the AMM, that in recent negotiations, I guess as late as today, all staff who are presently working for the municipalities will be assumed by the Province. Is that your understanding of the staff that you have now in Thompson?

Madam Chairperson: Is it the leave of the committee to extend this question period longer, seeing that the presenter's presentation was shorter? [Agreed] * (19:00) Mr. Comaskey: Thank you, Madam Chair. Based on the information that we have just received late this afternoon, that alleviates our concern with the staffing. Mr. Derkach: How many staff do you have in Thompson working on social assistance, then, the program itself? Mr. Comaskey: We have an administrator and we have a second staff person that works half-time on social assistance, so a position and a half. Mr.

Derkach: A final question: Does it appear to be an anomaly in the city of Thompson where you say your share of costs for social assistance is, in fact,

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 going to increase by $60,000? Is this not the case in many other communities across the province as well? Mr. Comaskey: I cannot speak for the other cities or municipalities, but based on the calculations in our city, it is $58,900. That is just under 60,000 in our case. I am not sure. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering if you could indicate: Did the Province consult with your office when they cam e to drafting this legis- lation? Were you in consultation at all with the Government? Mr.

Comaskey: Yes, in many instances I had dis- cussions with the ministers, with the previous hon- ourable minister, the minister previous to that and our staff. We have had some discussions with the officials from the ministry. Yes, we have had some discussions. Mr. Lamoureux: Finally, is there any concern on your

part in terms of the amounts of monies that would be coming from the Province to individuals, recipients of social servi ce benefits in Thompson, as would it be adequate? Does that concern you at all? Mr. Comaskey: I believe the Province has a fair system with respect to so cial assistance and the amounts so I am not concerned with that. Madam Chairperson: Any other questions? No? Seeing no other questions, I want to thank you for your presentation. Could I have Minister Bjornson come to join me, please.

We have been informed that the other presenters on the list are from out of town, so if I could have Minister Melnick come back up here again, please. I want to call up Wally R. Melnyk, president of the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association. Do you have written copies for distribution to the committee? Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Wally R. Melnyk (President, Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association): Thank you, Madam Chair, Standing Committee.

The Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Asso- ciation is pleased to be able to appear before the standing committee to provide its input and reaction to Bill 8, The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act. The MMAA represents chief administrative of- ficers, assistant chief administrative officers and other senior administrative staff who work for mu- nicipal corporations across Manitoba. It could be said that the MMAA represents those who, from a municipal perspective, will experience the most sig- nificant change due to the legislative changes being proposed by Bill 8.

The MMAA would like to go on record as being a long-time advocate of a single-tier system of social assistance for the entire province of Manitoba and now a strong proponent of Bill 8. The following represents our view on what we conclude will be some of the results of the implementation of Bill 8 and the ensuing benefit to the province's munici- palities, municipal administration and social assist- ance clients. Firstly, greater consistency will be achieved when dealing with individual clients should this single-tier system be put into place.

Services to all types of candidates, whether single parents, those who are unemployable, or simply individuals need- ing a financial bridge between work experiences can be provided by staff tasked specifically with these or similar responsibilities who will be able to use the same pool of resources, expertise and programs regardless of the client's personal circumstances. This is not always the case under the current sys- tem.

Program delivery to a diverse range of clients may lack the consistency desired due to deficiency in the level of knowledge and experience in program- ming resources available through municipal staff. This deficiency does not speak to the level of commitment and professionalism displayed by municipal staff, but rather recognizing that social assistance makes up a very small portion of the many duties charged to these individuals. As such, it is dif- ficult, if not impossible, for staff to remain current.

Secondly, right from the beginning, the position of the MMAA on single-tier social assistance focussed on the benefits that would accrue to all those within the system, whether they were providers

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 of the service, or even more importantly, individuals or families in need. When we considered the financial burden currently experienced by municipal governments, however, it was evident that any new initiative could not include additional financial commitments for local government now or in the future. With this in mind, the MMAA is supportive of the formula that has been created within Bill 8 that will see the cost of the single-tier social assistance program supported by the municipalities and the Province in a cost-neutral environment.

Municipal government often has a need for temporary or short-term employees. Its role with social assistance has in the past created a real benefit for the community by providing the opportunity to offer employment to those seeking work or re- questing assistance within the municipality. The MMAA applauds the provision within Bill 8 that addresses this issue and provides a mechanism for continued partnership between the municipality and the social assistance system that will sustain these opportunities for social assistance clients.

The administration of soci al assistance is very challenging and requires a unique skill set. Real evidence of this lies within the many stories told by our members about difficulties encountered when dealing with social assi stance clients and the intricacies of the complex social allowance system. The MMAA believes that Bill 8 will create a real win-win-win situation for the province, municipal- ities and the clients of the social assistance program.

We would, therefore, reiterate our full support for Bill 8 and strongly urge members of the Legislative Assembly to pass Bill 8 providing all the benefits outlined without delay. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Melnyk, in your discussions with the Government, did any discussion take place regarding where the cases would be met with? I am just wondering, would your community have to travel to Brandon, or to any of your clients in the surrounding areas, or to other major centres to re- ceive assistance? Mr.

Melnyk: My understanding of the situation would be that there will be outreach services provided. Currently, the Province provides outreach services for provincial clients of the system, and my understanding is that will continue for those who would be under our current system. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Melnyk. I have a question as it relates to your association and the concerns ex- pressed by the Mayor of Thompson. I am wondering whether your association had any discussions with the Thompson community and whether or not you share any of those concerns. Mr.

Melnyk: Our association represents CAOs, assistant CAOs, as I mentioned in the report, and, as such, there are not any, I do not think, people who are currently in the delivery of social assistance on a municipal level that are members of our association. So we really have not had discussions with the City of Thompson in terms of their personnel being involved.

From our perspective, the members that we represent, we deal mostly with individuals in municipalities who were providing assistance on a part-time basis, not on a full-time basis like they would in the city of Brandon, or the city of Thompson, or the city of Portage la Prairie. Our members are providing assistance po- tentially to half a dozen or a dozen clients over the course of a year and really having to deal with it once a quarter or once a month or whatever it may be, so much different scenarios. Mr.

Derkach: In those communities where there are staff employed by the municipality to look after social assistance programs, is it also your associ- ation's understanding that, as of the letter today, those individuals would be offered positions in the provincial social assistance program? * (19:10) Mr. Melnyk: That is our understanding and, I guess, our hope that the current staff within the municipalities be treated fairly and with respect. So, yes, that is our understanding. Mr. Derkach: I do not like your term of hope.

I mean, your individual's livelihood is at stake when you talk about them working for the social assistance program. I guess my question is specific in terms of a

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 clear understanding by your association that, in fact, these individuals will be assumed into the provincial program. Mr. Melnyk: That is correct. They will be. Madam Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Did anybody else have any questions for the presenter? Well, seeing no other questions, I thank you very much for your presentation. Bill 13–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Educational Programming) Madam Chairperson: We will now be hearing from out-of-town presenters for Bill 13, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Minister Bjornson is coming to join me.

The first presenter is Karen Carey, the board director for the Manitoba Association of Parent Councils. Do you have written copies for distribution to the committee? Ms. Karen Carey (Board Director, Manitoba Association of Parent Councils): I have one copy and I would be happy to provide it afterwards for duplicates to be made. Is that okay? Madam Chairperson: Yes, we will make copies of that. Ms. Carey: Okay, great. Hi, I am Karen Carey. I am a board director on Manitoba Association of Parent Councils.

Just for a little bit of background information, I am a mother of four children currently in the Sunrise School Division. I have nine years of involvement in parent councils. I am currently in my second term as chairperson at Hazelridge Elementary School and I am also a PA C member for Springfield Middle School, Springfield Collegiate. I am on the divisional PAC for Sunrise School Division and I am also sitting on the Student Services/Inclusive Education Committee, and I am the mother of a special needs student.

So I am going to be speaking from the MAPC perspective, but also may share some specific examples of anecdotal information. I want to say, first of all, that MAPC welcomes this new legislation as a positive step forward in guaranteeing appropriate educational programming for special needs students, and, also, as it provides the potential for involving parents in the process of defining the programming that their children receive. MAPC's position regarding representation is always one of support for local decision making.

We feel that local decision making by school boards who work closely with their electorate, parent councils, students, and staff most closely reflects the requirements of the student base. It is only by local autonomy that programs can truly be reflective of local needs. So you may find it surprising that we are actually advocating for a prescriptive course of action by the provincial government in this instance.

We feel that detailed regulations, with accountability for divisions who choose not to follow them, are the best assurance for parents a nd their students that the true intent of the legislation will be fulfilled at the local level. I was quite pleased when I was reading the legislation to read little notes: "as may be directed or prescribed by the minister", "minister may make regulations respecting…programming standards… support services" and that there would be a "dispute resolution process" included as well.

What we have done, as the MAPC board, is focussed on the broad areas that are going to be addressed by the regulations and policies and guidelines, and we have developed recommendations that coincide with those, so I am going to go through that. No. 1: Require a special education plan for students who require modified course content or individualized programming. The term “modified course content” has traditionally meant an M designation. That translates into 50% or more modification.

We have very many students who currently qualify only for level 1 or non-specific funding who also require special education plans. We hear the term IEP or AEP tossed around. Those are terms that refer to plans put in place for students. IEP most commonly refers to students who are receiving level 2 or 3 funding that is specific for that student. But we also have many students on adapted education plans. Those are plans for those students that receive level 1 or block funding. It may not be specific to them, but they also need plans.

We want to assure that when we are talking about that in the regulations and policies that we understand that those students also require those plans.

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 We also want to ensure that there are consequences for failure to comply with the plan. We understand that changes to plans occur and that those can be done with consultation, but we also need to have assurances that the plans will be followed by the school once they are put in place. No. 2: Require meaningful involvement for parents and students in the development and review of the individual education plan. This one is my personal favourite, of course. What really constitutes meaningful involvement?

We have some parents who do not even receive a copy of the completed plan or simply sign off on the plan that the staff have drafted. What we want to see is some prescription here to assure that parents actually help to build the plan. We need to make efforts to incorporate the parents' recommendations. They know their children best. They know what works with their children. If those incorporations are not made, many times we are going back to the drawing board part time through the year to rework the plan.

We also have many parents that are not confi- dent in advising staff, or do not feel confident in coming forward with recommendations regarding their child. I think we need to really ensure here that staff encourage those parents to participate. There need to be documented efforts to contact parents and make them a part of these plans. There needs to be a policy in place to make that involvement easy. Simple things like timing of meetings that can allow parents to fit the meetings into their schedules can make things a lot easier.

The requirement for a resolution process, for instance, is when there is a dispute between parents and educators. Work continues on the dispute resolution document. MAPC strongly believes that we cannot let the protocol of a resolution process become the focus. Resolution really has to remain the focus even if that requires going beyond the protocol in some cases. We have divisions that we have received examples of that consider an issue closed when the protocol has been followed, whether resolution has been received or not.

We need to remember that parents may not always want to follow a protocol, that their primary goal is resolution of a difficulty for their child. Sometimes that means stepping outside of the protocol or going beyond it to ensure that resolution is met. We also are concerned about the costs of dispute resolution. Who is it going to cover? We feel that the process has to be impartial. It cannot only be impartial. It also has to be perceived to be so. For that to happen, we have to have arm's-length organi- zations dealing with this process. That is what we are recommending in this instance.

Things like, we have processes already in place, Association for Community Living; Manitoba Association of Parent Councils has the advocacy project that helped parents to achieve resolution in these processes. Those are things that we can build on and use what is already there. Another item in the list is ensuring that student services plans are developed annually by school divisions or districts with input from families and community. Again, as with the second item, we feel that input requires some specific definition. That word can be construed to mean several different things.

We need to ensure that school divisions have clear guidelines with regard to the process of soliciting and receiving that input. In the guidelines for the advisory councils for school leadership action, No. 8 states that they require schools to include advisory councils for school leadership in developing school plans and divisional budgets. So here we already have something in place that the school boards are supposed to follow when they are putting together their budgets and their school plans. In actuality, we have a complete variety in the way that is approached.

We have some parent councils that sign off on a completed plan. We have some parents that provide input into it with the budgets as well. Some people receive a presentation; other people actually have input. We need to define this so that there is not as much leeway in the process and we are actually really getting input from parents. * (19:20) Some of the things we can do there to achieve that are providing appropriate notice for meetings well in advance, provide advance copies of draft plans to parents for approval or for modification.

We also feel that student se rvices plans consultations should occur separately from budget consultations. Quite often they are lumped together and it is when the budget is presented to parent councils and to the public that we find out about changes to the student services plans. Those things need to be separated in order to actually build a plan that works and then look at the financing of that plan.

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 No. 5: Ensure that schools offer a continuum of supports and services that will meet the needs of stu- dents. Anecdotal evidence here suggests that the trend in one division is to expect the classroom teacher to be all things to all people. We already have staff, resource and paraprofessionals who are special needs specialists. These teaching assistants perform necessary tasks, both to ensure that inclusion occurs whenever possible and that special needs students receive the one-on-one time necessary to achieve success.

Budget cuts proposed this year in one division will see these positions, which are an integral component of student success, cut. What is the result? A watered down program where no student receives what they truly require. One teacher alone cannot cope with multiple special needs students and be all things to all students successfully. The focus should be on meeting– Madam Chairperson: Excuse me, you have one minute remaining in your presentation. Ms. Carey: I do not think I am going to get through it. An Honourable Member: We can provide leave, Madam Chair.

Madam Chairperson: Is there leave from the committee to allow the presenter to continue her presentation? [Agreed] You can continue longer. Ms. Carey: Thank you. We were talking about budget cuts proposed this year in one division that would see cuts to support positions within the division. What can result from that is a watered down program where students do not receive what they require. One teacher cannot cope with multiple special needs students and be all things to all students successfully. The focus should always be on meeting the needs of all students, special needs or not.

Needs of students, this is something that needs to be prescribed by a collaboration between parents and staff. It may mean in some cases not 100% class participation in the regular stream. So, in order to ensure that all students are receiving an appropriate education, that has to also be a part of the package. Consideration has to be given to timely supports and services. Divisional services are not always timely.

We have a case of a child waiting three years to be assessed for attention deficit disorder, an Asperger's child who receives one visit per year from a psychologist or zero sessions with a school counsellor. What we propose is that there should be provision for outside services with funding or reimbursement by the school division should they be unable to provide timely services. No. 6: Inform parents in a timely fashion of any changes in programming, procedures and delivery of specialized services used to accommodate their child.

Again, prescription here would help to define both how and in what cases parents would be informed. Timely can mean anything from a month to a day ahead. Special needs students in many cases require considerable preparation in the face of change. Routine and structure are extremely important to these students' success. In addition, in many cases, parents are entitled to significantly more than simply being informed. An agreed upon plan should only be changed after consultation, not at the discretion solely of the school.

There are some cases, of course, where information is all we are going to receive when a person gives notice and there has to be a staff change. We receive that as information, but changes to the plan that change fundamentally the programming for a child or something that always should be done in consultation with the parents, not just received as information. No. 7. Ensure that decisions about the instructional environment or placement are based on inclusion and provide the most enabling environment. An environment must be enabling for all students, both special needs and regular.

I touched on this earlier, but forcing inclusion with inappropriate classroom supports in place creates an environment that is not enabling for anyone. Inclusion must be based on the best interests of students as agreed upon with parents. We have examples of schools where specialized programming was the focus of education and that a group of students who were at risk were being sent to a specific school, and that school was closed, and those students were put into the regular school system with paraprofessional support. After only one year, 50 percent of those students had dropped out.

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 So inclusion is not always the answer. We need to look at programs that are working and benefiting students, and make sure that we are not putting them aside in favour of inclusion and possibly to the detriment of the students. No. 8. Ensure that disability is taken into account in making disciplinary decisions. This is one that we definitely agree with. All disciplinary decisions must be documented with explanation. With special needs students we are not always confident that information arrives home with the students.

Students have difficulty communicating situations. So it is something that we need the school to do to provide that information home to us in a documented manner so that we can accurately assess what happened and support that student at home and teach them what things they can do to improve next time. Decisions are also made outside the classroom, and that is something else that we have to keep in mind with this item, is that disciplinary decisions are not necessarily made by the classroom teacher who is informed about the student and informed about their educational plan.

They can be made on field trips by a parent volunteer; they can be made during bussing. Disciplinary options should be a documented part of the edu cation plan. There should be a plan in place for what will occur when discipline is required, and then that information must be made available to all of the staff that those students interact with. No. 9. Ensure that decisions involving students with special needs be based on appropriate and well- documented assessments. There is not much to say here, except that we need some outside assessment from a personal psychologist in some cases.

Divisional assessments are not, as we have discussed earlier, always timely so in some cases we do need to accept an outside assessment. If assessments have already been done, why do it twice? Let us take what the professionals have already done and utilize it as part of the programming for that child. Parents' own assessments are also a key source. Parents know their children best. They know what their child's struggles and successes are, and that is extremely useful information. There are just a few additional areas that I wish to address and I am almost done.

There are also important things that go along with this legislation that need to be made part of policies and procedures and one of them is a parent's right– Madam Chairperson: Excuse me. You have about 10 seconds left to wrap up your presentation, okay? Ms. Carey: Okay, alright. Parents should have access to their children's school file. Staff training is a key component of the legislation. We feel that staff at all levels from senior administration to paraprofessionals require training in administering and working within the new legislation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presen- tation.

If any of the members wanted to ask questions, we will have to have leave to ask questions. We have exceeded the 15 minute limit. Is there leave of the committee? Yes. [Agreed] Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Just a very quick question. First of all, I just want to thank you very much for your presentation, taking time out of your busy

schedule to be here and present tonight. I think you had some excellent advice and insight in this area. So thank you so much for coming out. One thing you touched on was the cost potentially associated with the dispute resolution. Do you feel that those costs should come from the school division budgets, or is that something that should be offered by the Province along with this legislation? Ms. Carey: That is a tough one to answer. I am not a financial expert.

I do know that we have some things in place that are working, that are assisting parents right now in dispute resolution and that we would like to see those built on ra ther than creating brand new processes, but we do want a provincial hand in making sure that those things are equally distributed. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation.

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 The next presenter is Diane Duma, private citi- zen. Thank you very much. Do you have written copies for distribution to the committee? That is fine. Please proceed. * (19:30) Ms. Diane Duma (Private Citizen): I actually had something done on my computer and then I did not bring it, so I had to quickly in the hallway write it up. I may not flow as well as I hoped I would, but I just thought it was still really important to come here. My name is Diane Duma. I live in a rural area. I have four children.

I have been involved in the public school system for the last 15 years and have been a strong advocate for my child's education throughout those 15 years. Probably the most important thing that I wanted to share with you is as the standing committee and as the people that have the power, I suppose, to develop this legislation, I was thinking that little, old Joe parent needs to come in and just let you know where I am coming from. I am not a systems person. I am not a person that is looking through lots of pieces of legislation, but I am just looking at, what does Bill 13 mean to someone like me?

What does it mean to a parent with a child who has special needs and how will it impact me as a parent? When I first looked at the word "appropriate" legislation, and I have now discovered where the history of that word came from, but when I thought of the word "appropriate" legislation, I thought, well, that is a funny word. That means all this time we have been doing inappropriate education. I thought, I do not think so. So I suppose what we are trying to get to is something that makes things more suitable for kids in public education that their educational needs are being met.

When I looked at what that meant, that is what it means to me. Let us make things suitable for kids and meet their needs as best as we can. One of the most important things I thought that needs to be in this law is the rights of the parent, that the parent has to be viewed as the advocate for their child. The day that people say I am an incompetent parent, that is fine, but for the time being, I am the parent, and I should be the one that has the final say as to what I deem are the most appropriate measures for my child. I want the public school to support me.

I want the support of the public school to help me, but I am the one that makes the final decision. I am also the one, I think, that takes the ownership over that decision in the long term, because I have my child for my whole life. I think that is probably one of the most important pieces that I like to see in The Public Schools Act. Other pieces, if you walk the walk of a parent with a special needs child, I could say you walk into the public school, some schools are better at giving you information as a parent, some are not.

You walk into the school, you do not necessarily get a handbook saying this is what your school offers, these are your options. You do not necessarily get that sort of thing. I think it is really important that parents have something that they can take in their hands when they walk into a school and say, oh, this school has a good program for this or this school excels in this, so that you have the ability to make some choices; you have the ability to have informed consent so that you know what you are putting your child into. Also, the other piece is as you walk the walk, you walk into the IEPs.

The IEP has to be a part that parents are very much a part of. They have to be part of the development. They have to be part of the implementation process. They have to be part of the evaluation of that IEP, and they have to be part of that IEP if their child needs it, through the whole school system. From year to year, grad e to grade, school to school, they have to be part of that process for as long as they need that. Ther e are some kids that will not need an IEP throughout their 12 years.

There are some that it may be something that they need for one piece of their life and it is not necessarily something that they always have to have, but for the duration of that time, parents have to be part of that, and a big part of it. I know that there are some discussions about whether this IEP looks like a contract. In my mind, I do not see it as a contract. Behold and you do this; you do that. I see it as something that is

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 collaborative, and I see it as something that defines the roles for people, defines the goals of the planning for the student, and defines how we are going to work with that kid and who is going to do what. I see that as not something that I would be frightened of because that is a contract, but I would be looking at, is it the best way for everyone to come on the table and have a common understanding of what that child needs?

It also helps people to buy into it when you have ownership of that IEP so everybody that is a part of implementing that IEP has to be a part of developing that IEP. One thing that is not addressed in this legis- lation, and I do not know that it will be, but I think it is important to address the f act that your child is not just like this from nine to three. Their child is like this from three o'clock until nine o'clock the next day and on Saturdays and Sundays also. The school life is only a part of their life and that, depending on what is happening with your child, families also need supports.

We need to take from other sources besides the public school system. I would really like to see something that draws not just from the education system, but from mental he alth, social services, family services, and that there be more collaboration between those other departments that say, well, if school is done at 3:30, but there is someone else that can help you at four or on the weekend–I really think that even financially, there needs to be support for these kids, because it is beyond just pure education.

The other part of it is that I really have my own passion in believing that we need to look at not a family deficit model, but more a model that families can be strong and can be encouraged to be stronger, and that if everybody works together, families and children will be better in the long run. The other piece that comes to mind is, also, as you walk the walk, you may have to one day go through an appeals process. I guess the most important thing for that appeals process is that it be very fair, very objective with very knowledgeable people at the table, and that the appeal process be swift.

We cannot wait a month. We cannot wait two weeks, sometimes. We have to get on with the life of that child. Appeal processes cannot be dragged out for months and weeks. They have to be quick. In this legislation, I would like to see this appeal process with time limits: ten days, five days, seven days. Go to step one; go to step two. It has to be quick. It has to be swift. Also, while the people on the system are waiting, the parent is dealing with that child while they are in limbo. It is not healthy and it is not good for people to be left in limbo.

I will conclude that my experience in the public school system has, for the most part, been very good. I find that there are some excellent people in the public school system. I hope that your committee draws from some of the strengths from the public school. There are some excellent people that work with our kids. There are excellent people in the Department of Education that I have also met. I just think that we have got some wonderful expertise out there that has some very good knowledge of kids. I would like to see their expertise used.

I would also like to see the expertise at the local level increased, enhanced by those people that are doing such won- derful jobs. I think there are some really good ones out there. Collaboration is really, really important to me and parent voice is really very important. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Duma. Do committee members have questions? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): First of all, I would like to thank you for that very forthright and down-to-earth presentation, Ms. Duma.

You present a very st raightforward case for parents to be involved at every step of the way in the provision of education to children with special needs. I certainly am one who supports that wholeheartedly. Have you had any discussions with any of the department staff or with the minister's office as it relates to the regulations that are going to be put in place with respect to standards and also dispute resolutions? Ms. Duma: Personally, no. Mr.

Derkach: Have you had any feedback or have you asked for any informa tion regarding what this legislation is actually going to mean in terms of program standards and dispute resolution processes?

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 Ms. Duma: No. Madam Chairperson: Did any other members of the committee have questions? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): First of all, I spent 13 years in the classroom and I was always looking for people to have their hand up. Evidently, I missed the opportunity to raise mine the first time with Ms. Carey's presentation. I wanted to comment at the time that I am very pleased as the new Minister of Education that this is the first bill that I will be bringing forth in the House.

It is a bill that is very important to all members sitting at the table today, as the Opposition had undertaken when they were in government the Special Education Review Initiative, and had also recognized the need in terms of funding and the contributions the Opposition had made in funding as we have continued to do with our increase in funding supports for this legislation. I am very pleased, as I said, that this is the first bill that I will be bringing to the House as a new minister. I wanted to thank you for your presentation. Thank you for being here tonight.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just wanted at this point to make note for the committee that we have a substitution of Linda Archer for Garry Draper. Linda Archer is in town so she will not be heard until later. The next presenter we have is Gladys Hayward Williams who is a private citizen. Welcome. Do you have written copies for distribution to the com- mittee? Ms. Gladys Hayward Williams (Private Citizen): I have one copy that I would be happy to let you have. Madam Chairperson: Okay, and we can get that copied for you. Ms. Hayward Williams: Oh, I need it.

Madam Chairperson: You need it first? Okay. We can take it after you have finished. Ms. Hayward Williams: I am not that good. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. * (19:40) Ms. Hayward Williams: Thank you. My name is Gladys Hayward Williams. I am a parent of three children. We have done home schooling, quite a bit of it, three of them all at one time once. We moved on to private school and eventually to public school. Inclusive education is a new educational buzz- word and it can be good as long as it is inclusive of parents. I think from my background I find that parental involvement is key.

That is probably one of the big reasons why I chose some of the other options to public education. By "inclusive of parents" I mean that we need to make certain that parents are included and involved, not merely informed. By involved I mean involved in decision making and involved in accountability. For instance, school boards and administration will focus on creating a positive learning environment. A workers' union will focus on creating a positive working environment. These, of course, are good things.

However, in the education system, a parent's focus for their child is on the education actually achieved by their student. This is to whom we need to be accountable and what we need to be accountable for. Both a positive working environ- ment for staff and a positive learning environment for students can be supportive of a good education, but neither is equivalent to a good education, nor is either a substitute for a good education. The education system may only create the impression of a good education by creating positive working and learning environments.

Creating accountability to parents for the education that their children receive goes a long way to ensuring quality education for our children. This accountability to parents and the involvement of parents in decision- making needs to be reflected in a functional way in the working policies and procedures of this bill. I think we have heard a number of examples this evening already of how that can be achieved. I encourage you to seek those ways, and to implement those ways, to avoid merely token parental involvement.

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 I have brought you an example. It is not related to this bill. This document is titled Supporting Inclusive Schools: School-Based Planning and Re- porting, A Framework for Developing and Imple- menting Annual School Plans and Reports , and it is dated 2004. On page iii is a list of individuals acknowledged as making a contribution to the development of this document. There are no parents, no parent representatives and no parent groups listed, despite the fact that page 2.7 lists parent representatives as potential team members.

In fact, these are the only potential team members who are excluded from the list of contributors acknowledged. Furthermore, on page 2.15, it cites parental involvement as one of the indicator categories to measure success. So imagine how much more credible, valid and applicable this document would be with actual parental involvement in its development and, again, how much more credible, valid and applicable your bill will be with the prescriptive provisions that have been described here for parental involvement. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Do committee members have questions? Mr.

Derkach: Well, thank you for your presentation. I have a question with regard, perhaps, to the specifics of the bill. If you look at the legislation that is before us, it appears to be nothing but enabling, and all of the meat will be in the regulations. Do you have any idea from the minister or any of the staff what, in fact, the intent of this bill is and what the regulations really will say about the appropriate educational programming of students? Ms. Hayward Williams: Thank you. I do not know the intent.

I would say that the intent will be shown by how much actual parental involvement is actually prescribed by, as you say, the policies and procedures that come out of the bill. Basically, that is where the rubber meets the road. Mr. Derkach: To your knowledge, do you know whether the minister or the department have embarked on any round table discussions or discussions with stakeholders such as parents, teachers, school boards, et cetera, on, in fact, what the contents of the regulations should look like? Ms. Hayward Williams: I have no knowledge of that. Mr.

Derkach: So, in essence, outside of the wording of The Public Schools Act that is before us here, the Amendment to The Public Schools Act, you really have no knowledge about what the appropriate educational programming standards are going to be from the minister's office. Ms. Hayward Williams: I have no knowledge of that. I guess what I am pointing out is that I really, sincerely, hope that there will be much more parental involvement in this bill and in the working out of this bill than I have seen in this document, and that is my sincere hope. Mr. Derkach: And we certainly support you in that regard. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Gladys, you had mentioned that you did home schooling, which can be a challenge, I must say: Do you think the Government supports parents that provide home schooling adequately for special needs children? Ms. Hayward Williams: The question was, I believe, does it adequately support home schooling for special needs children? I would have to say that the support for home schooling across the board is not adequate. There are a number of areas, and I do not know whether we have time to go into that, but, no, I do not find that there is enough support provincially for home schooling.

For instance, in other provinces I understand that there are ways of using your own taxes that then go off to support public school systems or other systems and do not come into the home. So, basically, you are twice paying for your child's education, maybe even more with your own time and resources as well. One of my issues there, I am sure we are not supposed to be going into this, but actually is accreditation. You can only take them so far really, and beyond that you are jeopardizing their accreditation.

So, no, I do not feel that it is adequate support for any home schooled children, Madam Chairperson: Any other questions from the committee members? No. Thank you very much for your presentation.

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 Seeing that all the out-of-town presenters have now had an opportunity to present, I would like to call up Minister Mackintosh. Bill 7–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act Madam Chairperson: We will be hearing presentation on Bill 7, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. The first pr esenter is Ken Mandzuik from the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Thank you very much. Do you have written copies for distribution to the committee? Mr. Ken Mandzuik (Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties): I do not. Madam Chairperson: You do not. Mr.

Mandzuik: No. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Mandzuik: Honourable ministers, honourable members, good evening. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee again. I am here on behalf of the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, which, as you might know, is an advocacy and education group that promotes human rights and civil liberties for all Manitobans.

Due to a couple of recent unfortunately timed courtroom emergencies that have taken up my time and other members' time on our committee, I have not been able to provide a brief or written submission for this committee, and my comments will be brief. At the same time, I have had the pleasure of reading Mr. Stefaniuk's presentation, who is following me on behalf of the Manitoba Bar Association. I will not repeat the points that he is making. Suffice it to say that MARL is in support of everything contained in what will be Mr.

Stefaniuk's presentation. * (19:50) There are a couple of points that I did want to raise for the purposes of this committee hearing that have not been addressed specifically in that report. The first is in relation to the very nature of the bill. The people that will be affected by this bill, the people whose property may be seized or may be subject to forfeiture, may attract a stigma akin to stigma that would attach to someone involved in proper criminal proceedings.

It is entirely possible to have the provisions of this act apply to you and to your property or to apply to one and one's property without ever having committed a crime or having a crime proven in court. MARL suggests, therefore, that the presence of adequate protections, procedural safeguards are all the more important. You do not want to have what is effectively criminal activity proven in court on a civil standard on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

On that note and in light of the presumptions that apply under this act, MARL also suggests that removing the ability to cross-examine an affiant who has put forward an affidavit in support of action taken under this act is frankly a denial of natural justice. There is also some concern about the lack of a limitation period in the act that it specifically removes, so presumably the ultimate 30-year limitation period would not apply. In criminal proceedings, there are good reasons for not having limitation periods.

Except in a civil case, where you are looking at the civil balance of probabilities, it is not fair to subject people to possibly having to find evidence and put together evidence decades possibly after the fact. Not to be all critical, MARL does support the Government's efforts in tr ying to reduce crime. We are not here just for the criminals, as some people have accused us. We do not do popular things, but the reason we do what we do is for the protection of all Manitobans.

If the Government or other members have an inclination to look at this bill in more detail, any formal or informal processes following these hearings, MARL would be willing to participate to whatever extent desired. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Do members have questions for the presenter? Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Yes, Mr. Mandzuik. I thank you for your presentation this evening. I know you have other things to do as well, so it is outside of the terms of your practice, but I thank you for coming here and giving this presentation.

One of the concerns I have with respect to this bill is if assets that are seized are of really little

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 value, or assets are seized by those who do not have the resources to protect themselves in terms of hiring a lawyer to prove the asset is not the proceeds of a crime or an instrument used in a crime, in fact, this bill puts at a disadvantage those people who have little money with which to hire a lawyer to defend their rights. Would you agree with that? Mr.

Mandzuik: At the risk of raising the prospect of legal aid, if there was adequate legal aid funding and access to legal aid funding for civil actions such as this, then that would not be a problem, but that would be a concern. Mr. Hawranik: Yes, I would agree if Legal Aid were to participate in this, but we all know that Legal Aid is strapped for cash. Of course, they are limiting the kinds of cases they are, in fact, funding. So, if Legal Aid would participate, I would agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that Legal Aid is not funding many civil cases, as you are aware.

Given the fact that Legal Aid may not partici- pate, do you agree with my previous statement? Mr. Mandzuik: Having dealt with several unrepresented litigants on several matters, it is not a problem restricted simply to this bill. Is it a concern under this bill? Yes, but it is a concern elsewhere as well. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague and thank you for taking the time out of your normal practice to come here and make a presentation to the committee this evening.

I wonder, you mentioned, obviously, some of the concerns with the civil standard that is applied within this act. It is difficult for members of the committee, I think, to not agree with the intention of the act, which is to ensure that crime does not pay, but there are other pieces of legislation. I know federally there is a Proceeds of Crime Act that exists. Have you done any research to determine whether or not any of those pieces of legislation could cover the field, as it were, to ensure that at least provincially that would be covered off and that this piece of legislation would be maybe redundant? Mr.

Mandzuik: I have not done the research. I know there are provisions such as you have mentioned, as well as provisions in the Criminal Code that do apply to the forfeiture of property used in crime, except in those circumstances someone subject to those provisions is entitled to a full trial, is entitled to a defence on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, rather than balance of probabilities, and, of course, they are entitled to cross- examine their accusers. So there is some legislation federally that does the same thing, but, certainly, on a higher standard.

Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Mandzuik: Thank you Madam Chairperson: I will now call on John Stefaniuk from the Manitoba Bar Association. Thank you very much. You may proceed with your presentation, Mr. Stefaniuk. Mr. John Stefaniuk (Manitoba Bar Association): Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Mr. Minister. I am here representing the Manitoba Bar Association and, much like Mr. Mandzuik before me, I appear here in my voluntary capacity as a member of the executive of the Manitoba Bar Association.

The Manitoba Bar Association, I am sure you have heard things from and about before. We are a voluntary organization that represents lawyers, judges and law students in Manitoba, and we see ourselves as the voice of the legal profession on matters of interest to the profession. We have a number of different practice sections, and Bill 7, as it was presented to the House, was circulated to these various practice sections. We have received responses from the criminal law section, the administrative law

section of the bar association and a number of comments from our real property law

section on the business end, the commercial end of the impacts of this bill. The Manitoba Bar Association often speaks out on issues that do not directly relate to the legal profession itself but, rather, on matters of public interest. In fact, the Manitoba Bar Association con- sistently speaks out where legislation may impact the rights of Manitobans or the administration of justice. These positions are not taken out of self inter- est but, in most cases, have the effect of avoiding

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 litigation. I mean, the lawyers, are here to give our comments on the bill on the public interest basis. The Manitoba Bar Association is not opposed to the principles of Bill 7. The confiscation of the proceeds of crime, we see that as a laudable objective, as was mentioned by the member. However, there are four general areas of concern that are identified at the outset in that material that was distributed.

The first is possibly of more academic concern to the members than anything else, but which may affect the validity of the bill, is the question of the constitutional division of powers. The second area of concern is the protection of individual rights and liberties, as was mentioned by Mr. Mandzuik. Third is the issue of procedural fairness, and, fourth, the protection of third-party property rights. Now, the concerns expressed in the paper before you were communicated ear lier this week to Mr. Schnoor, here, of the Department of Justice.

He was quite kind, and I thank him very much for providing a response to these concerns. A written response was provided to my office today and I have circulated that. Unfortunately, time did not permit us to take a detailed look at that response. Again, as a voluntary organization, we circulate these bills for comments. We get our comments, but our time, we rely on the efforts of volunteers, so we were unable to get our comments to the Government or to the department prior to this week.

On the constitutional division of powers issue, of course, the Parliament of Canada has the exclusive jurisdiction on matters of criminal law. We have not done the research to determine whether or not this would be seen as a matter within the jurisdiction of Parliament as opposed to the jurisdiction of the Legislature. We leave that to the constitutional law

section and those who might seek to challenge the bill to determine that, but we raise the concern. * (20:00) The next item is the protection of individual rights and liberties. Mr. Mandzuik earlier mentioned that the civil standard of proof applies, that property can be confiscated without proof at the criminal standard that an offence has been committed. Even in circumstances where an accused may be acquitted because they do not have the mental capacity, that is not proof that there was no offence, nor is the fact that no conviction was secured proof that property should not be confiscated.

The third item was procedural fairness. There was some concern about the concept of interim orders without notice. As Mr. Mandzuik mentioned earlier, the inability to cross-examine the police chief, the officer defined as the police chief on the affidavit filed in support of the application, perhaps the answer is that that officer will be made available to be cross-examined at a hearing dealing with the matter, but that is not the ordinary process on applications in Manitoba. We have yet to see how the procedural fairness aspect will be addressed. Admittedly, there are no regulations provided with the bill.

There is an ability to introduce those regulations. Perhaps some of these issues will be dealt with in those regulations. We only have before us the bill on which we can comment. Finally, much of the paper that has been provided to you, perhaps the bulk of it, deals with the protection of third-party property interest. These are not constitutionally protected. The issues are varied. They are sometimes complex and sometimes deal with arcane areas of the law. However, it is this kind of complexity that needs to be adequately dealt with. Our chair of our real property

section spent a considerable amount of time flagging some issues for consideration where third-party property interests such as the interest of someone who has done work on a property but has not been paid for the work, but their 40-day period for filing a builder's lien has not expired, what happens to that person's interest in the property if the order is filed in the meantime? How is an interest under the Bank Act that does not require registration in the Personal Property Registry in Manitoba dealt with? What about municipal tax liens that are not registered until after a tax sale has been commenced?

Those types of things are some of the things that have been identified. They have been flagged. There has not been an exhaustive analysis performed simply because we rely on our volunteers to do these kinds of things. We want to express the willingness of the association and its members to sit down with representatives of the department to try and see these issues addressed. If the bill is to go forward in its

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 current form without further amendment, then it would be our express desire that proclamation not occur until some of these issues can be addressed and that appropriate amendments be introduced if necessary. I thank you for your attention this evening. I also would like to say that the Manitoba Bar Association is always open to consultation on legislative initiatives at the earliest possible stages. We appreciate it whenever we are able to be involved in those processes.

I myself am on The Planning Act review task force right now, as an example of a situation where legislation has been discussed with certain communities and stakeholders, as are representatives of the AMM, the intention being to provide our com- ments in advance of the introduction of legislation, recognizing that it is the mandate of the Government and the Legislature to introduce legislation and to see the first version of the bill. We like to get our comments in sooner if we can. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much for appearing, John. I just hope that you, as well, relay back to the association my pleasure in seeing the bar association appear before the standing committee.

It is something that I have long encouraged the association to do, generally, and even with respect to this legislation that is before the committee, because I think the association, through its subsections, has something to offer in terms of perspectives and dialogue, and that is very welcome, as are the presentations from other organizations and individuals in the province.

The concerns that are raised as a result of the canvassing of your member s are issues that the department, certainly, considered very seriously, and my office did, in concluding this legislation, and I think that much of it can be addressed by some further dialogue, not just in terms of what the regulations are intended to deal with, but what is in the legislation. Some of the research that we have done, I think, will answer some of the concerns, so we, certainly, would like to seal the deal with the association so that our officials can meet with representatives of the association and address those issues.

I will just say that your concern, because you may not want to sit through a long evening here today, but the concern regarding the definition of prior registered interest is one that we found attractive. I think that that strengthens the legislation. I think that interests other than security interests, when it comes to real property interests, can be included in the legislation if they are registered in the Personal Property Regist ry, if they meet the requirements of

section 16 in the legislation. I will just conclude by saying, I think that there have been some misconceptions about the legislation, in our view, and, indeed, in the recent view of the Ontario courts, AGO Ontario and Chow [phonetic] I think you got a copy of that decision from December, but it is recognized as legislation that is civil in nature.

It, of course, remains our very strong view that when it comes to actions in relation to unlawful activity, conviction is not required and, under property and civil rights, the Province has the ability to enact this kind of legislation, but on that too, we are certainly prepared to have further discussions with your association. So thank you for coming, John. Mr. Stefaniuk: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I suppose part of the concern is that while the Province may have the authority to act in certain ways in certain areas, the authority does not necessarily mean that it is the best way to proceed.

I think certain sections of our association may express that view. Mr. Hawranik: Yes, Mr. Stefaniuk, I thank you for your presentation this evening and taking time out of your

schedule as well to volunteer on behalf of the Manitoba Bar Association to give us some information about the bill that we may not have been aware of and possibly some ideas that we may present for amendment to the bill, perhaps in third reading and concurrence. I note that in point two of your presentation, you state that the various provisions of Bill 7 may not be in compliance with the Charter. May is kind of a weak word, and I am wondering whether or not you have had discussions with any other committee members of the bar association with respect to whether you believe or the committee believes–and let us use the test in the bill, the balance of probabilities, particularly

section 11 with the reverse

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 onus–that that will survive a challenge under the Charter.

Section 11, if you are unfamiliar with what is in there, indicates that if you are a member of a criminal organization, on the balance of probabilities, property you own or possess is automatically considered to be presumed to be property that is the pr oceeds of a crime or an instrument used in a crime. Does your committee, on the balance of probabilities, or yourself, do you feel that would meet the Charter test? * (20:10) Mr. Stefaniuk: I do not think I can express an opinion on that. It has been raised as a concern.

These issues can become quite complex and it is, perhaps, raised as a concern as much because of the perception of unfairness as it is a charter issue. I mean, there is the old adage that if you have to look in the rule book, then there is a good chance that it is against the rules. That is not always the case, but, sometimes, when our membership, who have expertise well beyond mine in charter issues, raise these kinds of concerns, we give them appropriate credence and say that they are worthy of further examination. Mr.

Schnoor's response to many of these issues, from the position of the Province of Manitoba, expresses an opinion that th ese issues are not issues, and I am not in a position myself to, at this time, weigh the two and give my own opinion. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I am sorry we have run out of time. I appreciate your presentation. An Honourable Member: Madam Chair, could I just have leave to ask one quick question? Madam Chairperson: Can we have leave? An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Chairperson: Yes, leave is granted. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just very quickly, given the minister's comments, it seems to me when I compare your presentation to the minister's comments that, at the very least, even if the Manitoba Bar Association could grudgingly support the legislation, but feels that there is a need for some sort of amendments to be brought forward that could make it better legislation–the minister indicated there will be some ongoing dialogue, but at some point before it would become proclaimed, I believe you had said that there might be a need to make some amendments.

Would it be better for this committee, then, not to pass this bill and wait until those amendments are brought forward? Are those amendments that critically important before the passage of the bill? Mr. Stefaniuk: Well, Mr. Lamoureux, thank you for your question. I do not know that there is a material difference. Legislation, as you know, does not come into effect until proclaimed. It will sit on the books if it is unproclaimed and it has often been the case in the past. Unproclaimed legislation has been changed before it comes into force or a new bill is brought in to replace an old one.

So I do not see any material difference to that. We are certainly amenable to working with the minister and his department in addressing any issues within whatever time frame we can work with and, hopefully, address these even before third r eading, if there is an opportunity, and try and tidy up whatever can be tidied up. Having said that, I expect that there will always be some areas where there will be differences of opinion, and we again say that the overall objective of the legislation is a laudable one. It is a question of the details and whether the appropriate protections are afforded.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Stefaniuk. An Honourable Member: Do we have leave for a quick question? Madam Chairperson: Do we have leave for another question? An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Chairperson: Leave is granted. Mr. Goertzen: Madam Chair, members of the committee, Mr. Stefaniuk, I know that a lawyer's time is worth money. I have been told that before so I will be quick. You mentioned that the Manitoba Bar Association was certainly willing to put their re- sources in place to provide comments and directional

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 legislation. Can you advise the committee at what stage you were asked to provide comments and input into this particular piece of legislation? Mr. Stefaniuk: I will have to go on my recollection. I do not recall this coming to our attention before the bill was introduced. It may have been part of some- thing that the minister had mentioned as part of the legislative agenda coming forward, but we are not aware of any specifics of the legislation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Bill 13–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Educational Programming) Madam Chairperson: We will now return to Bill 13, The Public Schools Amendment Act, and we will now hear from presenters from the city of Winnipeg. Our first presenter from th e city of Winnipeg is Brian Ardern, president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. We will take written copies for distribution to the committee. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr.

Brian Ardern (Presid ent, Manitoba Teach- ers' Society): First of all, I would like to say the last time I was in this room I believe the legislation was very contentious and the room was jammed. It was in the summer and it was about 150 degrees. I recall we opened the windows and then the swarms of mosquitoes came in. Somebody asked me how many times I had been bitten, but, fortunately, I was perspiring so heavily that the mosquitoes could not get to my skin before they drowned. This is a much more pleasant evening to be here.

It is also very pleasant to be here dealing with an issue that has received bipa rtisan support over the last few years. In the 85-year history of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, we have dedicated ourselves to the cause of public education in this province. That is why I am proud to be here today to endorse the amendments to The Public Schools Act contained in Bill 13. These changes entrench th e provincial government's legal responsibility to provide appropriate educational programming to every Manitoba student. We are pleased, as I said, that the path that brings us here today is a bipartisan one.

The Manitoba Special Ed Review began in 1996. The previous government committed to bringing into action the 44 recommendations contained in that report which came out in 1998. Upon taking office in 1999, this Government also made a commitment to adopt all 44 recommendations. In 2000, the Special Ed Review Implementation Committee was created to consult with Manitobans on the process of implementing the recommendations. During the last provincial election, this may have been the only issue that every party agreed on, that it was time to proceed.

The bill we are discussing tonight fulfils one of the 44 recommendations contained in the 1998 report. It puts Manitoba in line with the Canadian Constitution. Some Manitobans may think that our schools are already required to serve the educational needs of exceptional students. In fact, they are not. The Public Schools Act simply requires Manitoba schools to provide an education from Grade 1 to Grade 12. It does not define what providing an education means. How will this legislation affect what happens in Manitoba classrooms?

In some respects, Bill 13 merely formalizes what Manitoba teachers have been doing for years. For more than two decades, teachers have been accommodating students with special needs within their classrooms. Unfortunately, although the provincial government provides special education funding to school divisions, the programs and services our students receive depend on the ability or willingness of school divisions to pay for them. Programs and services available in our province are inconsistent. As a result, today our Province pro- vides a patchwork of services to special education students.

We are all familiar with reports of families who have lobbied school trustees for services, or who have moved to different school divisions that provide more appropriate programming. As every special education review report over the years has said, there is a better way to run our schools. It should not make a difference where a student lives in our province. Every child deserves a fair

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 chance and that fair chance should include access to appropriate educational programming. Bill 13 allows the minister to create regulations that establish consistency across the province by mandating common standards of service delivery for school divisions. The Manitoba Teachers' Society is hopeful that the Government's regulations will ensure that programming fo r exceptional students occurs in the most enabling learning environment possible. What will these regulations mean for students and their parents?

While we have not yet seen a draft of these regulations, the society believes that for many parents there will be no obvious or immediate differences in the servi ces and programs that are delivered to their children. Most of our schools are already providing students with the learning environment best suited to their needs. If there are school divisions that are off the pace, we hope they will be given a reasonable time frame to develop the policies and procedures consistent with the service standards in the provincial regulations.

Bill 13 shifts the onus from the obligation to provide an education to the obligation to provide appropriate educational programming. The Manitoba Teachers' Society believes appropriate educational programming must occur in the most enabling environment for the student. For most students, the most enabling environment will be in a regular classroom with the supports and resources that they require. For others it will be in another appropriate learning environment.

Whatever the case, we expect the provincial government to continue to provide the supports and resources teachers need to do their job. * (20:20) We are looking forward to the passage of Bill 13 and to the consultations and regulations that will support it. We believe it is an enormous step towards ensuring that our public schools provide the best learning environment for every Manitoba student. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Are we into questions now? Thank you very much, Brian, for your presentation today. I just have a quick question for you.

Has the minister's office been in contact with your organization, or have you been in any discussions as to advice or input from your organization as to what we can expect on the regulatory side of things? Mr. Ardern: We have had numerous conversations with the minister. In fact, we have been discussing this legislation for many years. We do not know exactly what the process of consultation will look like.

We do not, at this point, know exactly what the regs will look like, but we have been assured, and, in fact, we are looking forward to and preparing for the consultations that we know are going to take place around the province. Mrs. Stefanson: What is your understanding as to the intent of the regulations regarding the appropriate educational programming? Mr. Ardern: One of these years I will get that right. I will wait long enough. One of the difficulties that we have in Manitoba is, I think, we have a lot of really fine programming. I think a lot of our programming is exceptional.

I think a lot of our school divisions and teachers are doing a really good job of meeting the needs of special education students. The difficulty is that it is a real patchwork system. It really varies from school division to school division. What I see in this legislation is I see it as a starting point to say we need to develop some consistency around the province. We need to develop minimal standards of performance, minimal expectations for programming.

So it makes sense to me that before you start implementing regulations, you start by bringing everything together and trying to get everybody in the same place and on the same page. What I see with this legislation is I see the Province beginning to mandate common standards of service for the delivery of services to special education students. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Brian, thank you very much for the presentation.

I am one who certainly agrees with you that it is time that we developed standards that more closely reflect what it is we really want to do for special needs students across the province so that there is some consistency. I want to ask you whether or not the society, having heard from parents as well, has engaged in

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 any consultation or discussions with parents' associ- ations to ensure that the needs of all vested groups are achieved in developing the regulations for an appropriate educational program. Mr. Ardern: Just once I would like to get it right. No. At this point we have not engaged in talks with other groups. One of the things that I think we need to keep in mind, though, is that there is some overlap in areas.

One of the discussions mentioned by an earlier speaker was the whole question of how do we deal with disputes, which they said they thought needed to be discussed here. It is interesting, because I know the Province has just come out with a document called Working Together: A Guide to Positive Problem-Solving for Schools, Families and Communities . If you go through this document, which I think would become part of what would happen in terms of this sort of regulation, you will find that there are three members of the Manitoba Association of Parent Councils, including one of the previous speakers.

So, in some ways, I think it is important to recognize that you cannot deal with this as a standalone thing. There are going to be other places where some of these discussions are going to take place and, I think, probably already are taking place in terms of safe school committees and things like that. Mr. Derkach: Have you been given any indication from the minister's office or from the department as to what the process is going to be with respect to the development of regulations? Because the legislation only empowers the minister to make regulations, but it does not prescribe how that is to be done.

My question is whether or not you have been given any signal or any indication as to the inclusion of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, along with parents, school boards and trustees, in the development of the regulations. Mr. Ardern: We have not dealt with the specifics of what that consultation is going to look like. We have had conversations with the minister. It is our expectation that there will be broad-based consultations, that they will cover everybody. As to the specifics, we do not know exactly what form they will take or when or where.

We expect that, once the legislation is passed, they will probably come fairly quickly. We have started preparing for them. We have had committees and been part of broader committees that have discussed the sorts of things that would go in regulation for some time. So we have done some preliminary work on these and we are very confident that the consultations will take place, although we are not exactly sure at this point in what form they will be. Madam Chairperson: I would like leave from the committee to allow the presenter to use the remaining five minutes from his presentation. [Agreed] Hon.

Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citi- zenship and Youth): Good to see you once again, Brian. You have referred to the patchwork of programs that are available throughout the province at this time, but would you agree that the vast major- ity of students in Manit oba are, indeed, receiving appropriate educational programming? Mr. Ardern: Absolutely, I would.

One of the things, if you look at funding, and there is no doubt there are funding difficulties in terms of education in this province, one of the areas that government has made an effort in the last few years is to put more money into this particular area. It is not enough. Having said that, there is an emphasis here. I have been very impressed when I go out and look at local school divisions, the efforts they are making. There is no doubt in my mind that everybody is working very hard on this . If you look at where we were 20 years ago, we have made remarkable progress in this province in the last 20 years.

We do need, though, the legislative floor now to be put in place so we can begin dealing with the array that we have, but you are quite right; we do, I think, a pretty good job across the province. Mr. Bjornson: Brian, do you also feel that the process we have been engaged in thus far with respect to the consultation on this legislation and our intent to continue with the consultation around the regulations has been both appropriate and inclusive? Mr. Ardern: One of the things that has really impressed me, going back several years now, and I started off by mentioning it, is the bipartisan nature of this thing.

I am impressed by the fact that every- body agrees this is where we need to be.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 Having said that, I have been somewhat disap- pointed and I know teachers have been somewhat disappointed at the pace of it. This is going back a long way now. There is a feeling among teachers that, okay, let us get to it. Let us get on it. It has taken a long time, going all the way back to the mid- nineties. So I think the consultation, from our perspective, has been very good. We think it will continue, we are happy with it and now it is time to go. We are really thrilled that this legislation is finally coming forward. Mr. Derkach: Mr.

Ardern, as a matter of fact, I am glad I have had the opportunity to ask one more question because it does give me an opportunity to make a comment with respect to the minister's comment with regard to consultation, because I am hoping that he, too, will engage the parent councils in the consultations as he has the teachers' society and other organizations. This also goes for MAST as well. Mr.

Ardern, this is going to carry a dollar figure with it as well, and the resources have to follow if we are going to define a standard of appropriate educational programming for all students, and, as the legislation says, for every pupil enrolled as provided for in

section 58.4. This means that resources are going to have to be made available. Have you been given any indication that the Province has, indeed, moved ahead in preparing for increased funding to ensure that all school divisions are able to offer the kind of programming the minister intends to make appropriate? Madam Chairperson: We have 45 seconds remaining, Mr. Ardern. * (20:30) Mr. Ardern: Thank you. The funding difficulties that you mention have really been exacerbated since the early nineties, when we got a new funding model.

That new funding model really caused difficulties because it downloaded a lot of the costs for public education onto local communities. So that is an issue whenever you talk about funding, funding that really exacerbates the whole issue of funding. We have not received any guarantee that there will be additional monies to go to this area. As I have said, I think there has been an emphasis on putting money into this area in the last few years. But the question that you raise is one that is going to be difficult to deal with.

Even without this legislation, even if this legislation was not being introduced, even if we were not going to get regs, the question of funding for special education students to ensure that they are getting an appropriate education regardless of where they are in this province, that would be an issue that causes some difficulty and that we need to discuss. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I would like to now call up the Council of School Leaders. If the presenter could please give us an indication of their name, that would be much appreciated. Ms.

Connie Allsopp (Chairperson, Council of School Leaders): Connie Allsopp. Madam Chairperson: Connie Allsopp. Thank you. Do you have written copies for distribution to the committee? Ms. Allsopp: Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. You may proceed with your presentation. Ms. Allsopp: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, ministers, MLAs, committee members and ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to share the Council of School Leaders' views. This is a position statement that we have prepared on the Special Education Review and Bill 13.

As chairperson for the Council of School Leaders, I represent 950 to 1000 principals and vice- principals in the province. We are a young organization of about three years. We were formerly the Manitoba Association of Principals, which was an optional membership, but now we represent all of the principals and vice-prin cipals. We are within the Manitoba Teachers' Society as an organization within the union together. However, we represent the principals and vice-principals. So it is a unique situation that Manitoba represents across the country. This evening, we share with you this presentation in brief form.

The Manitoba Council of School Leaders supports Bill 13 and the recommendations outlined in the Manitoba Special

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 Education Review. We be lieve that these goals should provide more inclusive and meaningful educational opportunities for students with special needs in a variety of educational settings throughout the province. COSL believes that the funding levels, the budgets, the subsequent staffing requirements for these students need to be realistic and at levels sufficient enough for admini strators to support the appropriate degree of inclusive programming in the most effective ways possible for each student in their respective schools.

Specific key points raised by COSL members include: that there be an adequate budget for renovations in existing schools to accommodate children with special need s where needed; that there must be a timely procedure for transferring support funds when students with special needs change schools; that the department or agency which provides support funding when a child moves and has medical needs makes contact with the school at the earliest possible opportunity for the health plans to be prepared and implemented; that the student services branch responsible for approving of funding applications gives special consideration to the progress of a funded child with supports made in the event that this progress might result in the loss of funding which has enabled the progress; that research be collected on the impact of children with special needs on classroom learning of other students; that the approp riate educational setting include alternative setting such as the home if the impact on the school setting is too great; that a study to determine the point at which the health care system becomes responsible for a child with mental health needs; that the new dispute resolution process be developed with input or consultation from educational leaders and teachers, as well as parents, to ensure feedback from poten tial future participants in this process.

By addressing these specific areas, COSL believes that Manitoba st udents with special needs will be best served in the most enabling and well- supported environment. We thank you for your work in this area. Mr.Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Allsopp. No other questions? Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much for your presentation today. It was excellent. My question for you: Has your organization been contacted at all with respect to this bill, been consulted with respect to this bill at all? Ms.

Allsopp: Not directly, but within the Manitoba Teachers' Society, we have had communication. Hon. Ron Lamoureux (Minister of Transporta- tion and Government Services): I did have a question in regard to the transferring of support funds for special needs. Is that done today? Ms. Allsopp: The support funds are applied for when the child arrives. If they arrive in September at the beginning of the year, we find out, generally, in November if that funding is appropriate and is approved. So there is a two-month window of time where we have the child and we do not have the supports.

If that child moves to another school, often that funding is not transferred. Mr. Lamoureux: So a special needs level 2, let us say, student that starts at one school in September and for whatever reasons changes in January, the support funds that went to the original school would likely not be transferred, then, over to the new school. If that is the case, your expectation would be that the Province would step in to ensure that does take place? Ms. Allsopp: I think it would be helpful to have the supports needed where the child is. Mr. Derkach: Thank you for your presentation.

I note with interest two bullets that you referred to as it relates to the alternative settings for an appropriate education for children and, also, the point at which the health care system becomes responsible for a child with mental health needs. Just two questions as it relates to those two points: One is, would you consider alternative settings for appropriate educa- tion being within the school, or are you specifically talking about a setting outside the school? Ms. Allsopp : We would strive to find whatever is best for the child.

I guess taking into consideration the entire school population, as a school principal, I would have responsibility for all 500 children in my building. I guess that is where it would be important for me to find an appropriate setting, be it a

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 18, 2004 classroom of six children, be it a one-to-one program, or be it included in an entire classroom. Mr. Derkach: So what your association is looking for is some flexibility in terms of the mainstreaming concept so that we could provide the best setting for each individual child regardless of whether it is to be streamed with other students or, in a separate but, yet, appropriate location. Ms. Allsopp: Yes. Mr. Derkach: Ms. Allsopp, one question with regard to the involvement of the health care system.

Is the health care system involved today with students who have severe learning abilities? Ms. Allsopp: We have provision, I believe, under URIS, which is the combination of the services. I guess it is, at what point do schools remain responsible? Because I believe that we are educators. There is a point where a child, perhaps, present with such mental illness that we are not the ones best suited to meet that child's needs. Mr. Derkach: Would you extend that to physical needs as well? Ms.

Allsopp: I believe the physical needs–we have occupational therapists, physiotherapists available through the school division and, therefore, have significant consultation. It is easier, if I may say that in a way, to support a child with physical needs depending on if you have, for example, a lift, if they needed to be taken out of a chair, like a wheelchair. It is when it becomes a mental health issue that it is very hard to understand what is best needed for that child or that parent at that time. * (20:40) Mrs.

Stefanson: The minister mentioned earlier that consultations have taken place with respect to this bill to various organizations. My question for you: Are you at all concerned, having not been consulted, sort of directly as an organization, but maybe indirectly through MTS, with the process that is going to be taking place, going forward? I would want to ensure that your organization is directly involved and has significant input into the regulatory aspect of this bill. Ms. Allsopp: Yes, we would like to be consulted. We believe that school principals are held accountable.

We need to be involved in making some significant suggestions, input. Mr. Bjornson: Thank you for the presentation. My predecessors have been involved in the consultation process for the past three years with parents and a number of the stakeholders. You did mention, as members of MTS, as an association under the auspices of MTS, that th ere has been consultation through MTS. Can you elaborate on what that consultation has been? Ms. Allsopp: We have had conversations with the executive, with the officers.

We have had information shared with us on any of the papers or drafts or bills that have been sent directly to our organization. We have had members sitting to discuss this as representation within the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I guess it is the role of the principal that we really need to outline because we feel very committed to making this a success for children in Manitoba. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Just in case anyone noticed, the presentation was short, so I allowed more time for questions. Please proceed when you are ready. Mr.

Dale Kendel (Association for Community Living in Manitoba): I am here on behalf of the Association for Community Living. I open with congratulations to the provincial government and Minister Peter Bjornson for bringing forward The Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Educational Programming.) Bill 13 has been long awaited. This is a very long time for our organization–five ministers and numerous reports, and it goes on and on.

This amendment will ensure that all students in Manitoba are entitled to receive appropriate educational pro- gramming that enables students' participation in the academic and social life of schools.

February 18, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 This is good for children with disabilities. This is good for children without disabilities. This is about inclusion. This is about expectation, attitude, planning, appropriate supports and resources. This is about leadership and sup port of the Minister of Education, departmental officials, superintendents, trustees, principals, teachers, resource teachers and educational assistants. This is about partnership, planning and programming with families. The Association for Community Living in Manitoba endorses the intent of Bill 13.

We and hundreds of families have been part of the consultation process of the Special Ed Review completed in 1999, a review initiated by the Conservative government. We have continued to be part of the advisory committee working on regulations, resource material, demonstration projects and information sharing with families on the progress of the legislation. Ron Lemieux, the former minister of Education, in early April 2003, said in a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-la01
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf la01.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b41ece1d2fa731b26ac48ae8598fb3d3c9bb97a6

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