Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 July 2000 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 8, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-la8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

� � First Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Law Amendments Chairperson Mr. Doug Martindale Constituency of Burrows Vol. L No. 8 - 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 25, 2000

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARREIT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY,Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott STEF ANSON, Eric STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Kirkfield Park Dauph in-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

153 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Tuesday, July 25, 2000 TIME- 6:30 p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) ATTENDANCE - 11- QUORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Barrett, Hon. Mr. Caldwell Ms. Allan, Ms. Asper, Messrs. Derkach, Faurschou, Martindale, Reid, Schuler, Smith, Mrs. Smith APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, MLA for St. Norbert Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson, MLA for River East WITNESSES: Bill 45- The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act

(2) Jan Speelman, President, Manitoba Teachers' Society Henry Shika, Manitoba Teachers' Society Bill 12- The Public Schools Amend ment Act Gerald Huebner, President, Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schools Norbert Maertins, Private Citizen Debbie Maertins, Private Citizen Bernd Rist, Private Citizen Bill 42- The Public Schools Amend ment and Consequential Amend ments Act Theresa Ducharme, People for Equal Participation Inc.

Rey Toews, President, Manitoba Asso ciation of School Trustees Carolyn Duhamel, Executive Director, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Len Schieman, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Rhineland School Division Fran Frederickson, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Interlake School Division Val Weiss, Interlake School Division Bart Michaleski, President, Manitoba Association of School Business Officials Jim Murray, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Brandon School Division Linda Ross, Brandon School Division Floyd Martens, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Intermountain School Division Ron Plett, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Hanover School Division Dave McAndrew, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Western School Division Kurt Guenther, Private Citizen Wayne Motheral, President, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mary Hudyma, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Dauphin-Ochre School Area Judy Eagle, Flin Flon School Division John Pshebniski, Superintendent, Duck Mountain School Division Gerald Thiessen, Vice-Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Garden Valley School Division Peter Wohlgemut, Rhineland Teachers' Association Ron Friesen, President, Garden Valley Teachers' Association Bryan Harley, President, Beautiful Plains Teachers' Association

154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 Mr. Peter Wohlgemut, Rhineland Teachers' Association Mr. Ron Friesen, President, Garden Valley Teachers' Association Mr. Bryan Harley, President, Beautiful Plains Teachers' Association Ms. Joanne Huberdeau, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Birdtail River School Division Ms. Val Thomson, Private Citizen Mr. Claude Vigier, President, Association des educatrices et educateurs franco manitobains Mr. Doug Halmarson, Private Citizen Mr. David Rondeau, Private Citizen Mr. Peter Buehler, Brandon Teachers' Asso ciation Ms. Amy Buehler, Brandon Teachers' Association Mr.

Harvey Bridgeman, President, Mountain Teachers' Association Mr. Craig Blagden, Midland Teachers' Association Mr. Andrew Peters, Private Citizen Mr. Garry Hornung, Private Citizen Mr. Ward Kay, Private Citizen Ms. Lori Johnson, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Winnipeg School Division Mr. Peter Kotyk, Private Citizen Mr. Bob Fraser, Chairperson, Board of Trustees, River East School Division Mr. Doug Edmond, President, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents Mr. Roy Schellenberg, Vice-Chairperson, Board of Trustees, St. Boniface School Division Ms. Sandra Paterson-Greene, St.

James Assiniboia School Division MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bili 12-The Public Schools Amendment Act Bill 45- The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Bill 42- The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act *** Mr. Cha irperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. The first order of business before the Committee is the election of a vice chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): I nominate the Member for Transcona, Daryl Reid. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid has been nomi nated. Are there any further nominations?

Hearing none, Mr. Reid is appointed Vice Chairperson. This evening the Committee will be considering the following bills: No. 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act; No. 42, The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; and Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. We have presenters who are registered to make public presentations on bills 12, 42 and 45. It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the Committee to hear public presentations on the bills, and, if yes, in what order do you wish to hear the presenters? Ms.

Barrett: I would recommend or move that we hear all of the presenters prior to going clause by clause on the bills and that we take the bills in order of 12, 45 and 42. Mr. Chairperson: It has been recommended that we hear presenters on Bills 12, 45 and 42 in that order. I believe we have a small number, five on Bill 12 and one on Bill 45. Is it the will of the Committee to proceed in that order? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence of the Com mittee, we have, as I see it, one presenter for Bill 45.

I am wondering whether the .Committee would agree that we dispense with Bill 45 first and then go into Bill 12 and then 42. Mr. Cha irperson: It has been suggested that we do Bill 45 first, then Bill 42 and then Bill-sorry, Bill 12. Is it agreed? No. Bills 45, 12, 42 in that order of presenters. Agreed? [Agreed] I will then read the names of the persons who have registered to make presentations this evening. Bill 45, Jan Speelman. Bill 12-1 apologize in advance if I mispronounce anyone's name-Gerald Huebner, Abe Janzen, Norbert and Debbie Maertins, Dr. Terry Lewis, Bernd Rist.

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 155 Bill 42: Jan Speelman, Lori Johnson, Rey Toews and Carolyn Duhamel, Ric Dela Cruz and Bill McGowan, Wendy Moroz and Howard Holtman, Peter Kotyk for Rod Giesbrecht, Bob Fraser, Doug Edmond, Len Schieman, Paul Moist, Roy Schellenberg, Fran Frederickson, Scott Johnson, Bart Michaleski, Dan Overall, Jim Murray, Floyd Martens, Ron Plett, Dr.

Dave McAndrew, Kurt Guenther, Ruth Ann Furgala, Wayne Motheral, Mary Hudyma, Judy Eagle, John Pshebniski, Sandra Williams, Cindy Smart, Hilda Froese, Maxine Plesiuk, Betty Green, Peter Wohlegemut, Susan Popeski, Ron Friesen, Brian Hartley, Joanne Huberdeau, Colleen Jury, Dan Kelly, Marijka Spytkowsky, Chris Pammeter, Val Thomson, Victor Vrsnik, Claude Vigier, Doug Halmarson, David Rondeau, Barry Wittevrongel, Linda Brezina, Amy and Peter Buehler, Harvey Bridgeman, Albert Cerilli, Craig Blagden, Pam Stinson, Andrew Peters, Bob Land, James Bedford, Garry Hornung, Wendy Land, Henry Pauls, Roland Stankevicius, Ward Kay, Theresa Ducharme, and we have had a sixty-first presenter registered, Darrall Rankin.

Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. If there is anyone else in the audience who would like to register or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register at the back of the room. Just a reminder that 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of this committee who is sitting at my right here. I understand that we have some out-of-town presenters in attendance this evening.

Is it the will of the Committee to hear from out-of-town presenters first? [Agreed] Before we proceed with presentations, is it the will of the Committee to set limits on presentations? Ms. Barrett: I would move that we have a limit of 1 0-minute presentation and 1 0-minute question and answer. Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Ms. Barrett that we have 10 minutes for presentations and 1 0 minutes for answers. * (18:40) Mr.

Derkach : With the greatest of respect for the Minister, I would have to indicate that I think previously, in other years, we have allowed for 15 or 20 minutes for presentations and 10 minutes for questions. Indeed, this is an important bill, one that does require, I am sure, some careful thought in presentation from the public who have come a long way. I would encourage this committee to look at a 20-minute limit on presentations and 10 minutes for question. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): I concur with what Mr. Derkach has said. I put my hand up to say exactly the same thing. I believe it is a very important bill.

I feel very strongly that people have to have time to make their presentations, so 20 minutes to do that should be in line. Mr. Chairperson: The first suggestion put forward has been 10 and 10. What is the will of the Committee? Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): We have always done this on a consensus. I do not think we have ever had to vote at a committee yet on establishing the time frame. [interjection] Well, not when we were in government. We always, by consensus, came to a point. We allowed the 20 minutes and 10 minutes for questioning.

I cannot believe that this govern ment is forcing closure here and saying that the community has not got an opportunity to put their concerns forward. The motion by the Minister, and I do believe it is a motion, so she is not looking for consensus, is overstepping. I do believe that it should be 20 minutes. We will not be supporting a 1 0-minute time limit on public presentations. Mr. Chairperson: We have two proposals. What is the will of the Committee? Mr. Derkach : Mr. Chair, I appeal to the Com mittee to give some latitude to the presenters to be able to complete their presentation.

I know there are presentations that may be only 10 minutes in length, but I am sure there are others that are longer than 10 minutes. I think, for citizens of this province who have put careful thought into their presentations, I know that they will try to make them as succinct as possible. If we can compromise in some way, shape, or form

I 56 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 whereby if the Government feels that 20 minutes is too long to hear citizens, I would say that perhaps we can compromise and look at I5 minutes for presentation, and then look at 7 to I 0 minutes for questions and answers. Mr. Chairperson: We have a third proposal that we have a different limit. Was it I5 minutes for presentations and 7 to I 0 for questions. I have had three proposals. What is the will of the Committee? Ms. Barrett: I would suggest as possibly a compromise that we have a limit of 15 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for questions. Mr.

Chairperson: Ms. Barrett, do you have that in writing? Ms. Barrett: No. Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Ms. Barrett that the presentations be limited to 15 minutes, with 5 minutes for questions. Mrs. Smith: I appreciate the fact that we are all trying to be as diligent as we can with the time here. However, there are some people who have come from a long way out of town. Perhaps if we could-as you say, 15 minutes for presen tation and 10 minutes for questioning.

I believe that 15 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for questions, I am sure some of the presenters will take the full 15 minutes while others would not. In view of the fact that a lot of people have travelled from a long way, I think 15 minutes is the least that we can do and 10 minutes for questioning. Mr. Cha irperson: Actually the out-of-town presenters will be next on the agenda. We will hear out-of-town presenters first. We have a motion on the floor, it is in writing, it is debatable. Do we want to continue this debate or resolve the issue? Some Honourable Members: Resolve the issue. Mr.

Cha irperson: Resolve the issue. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: The question before the Committee is that presentations be limited to 15 minutes with a maximum of five minutes for questions. All those in favour, please indicate. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those who oppose, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. That was probably a problem with the Chair because I did not ask for Yeas. A recorded vote has been requested. Mr. Laurendeau, you are not a voting member of this committee. Formal Vote Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Derkach has requested a recorded vote. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Mr. Chairperson: I declare the motion carried. * * * Mr. Cha irperson: How does the Committee propose to deal with presenters who are not in attendance today but who have their names called? Shall these names be dropped to the bottom of the list? [Agreed] Shall the names be dropped from the list after being called twice? [Agreed] I have heard twice and I have heard three times. Does anyone want to debate it or do we want to- An Honourable Member: Twice. Mr. Chairperson: Twice. It is agreed, twice.

As a courtesy to . persons waiting to give a presen tation, did the Committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening? Ms. Barrett: I would suggest that since many people have come from out of town to make presentations that we should hear the pres-

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 157 entations from the out-of-town individuals and then canvass the Committee at that time. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, I agree that we should hear the out-of-town presenters. On the other hand, there are people who are here to present who probably have to work tomorrow. It would be unreasonable for us to sit beyond midnight if we have already heard the out-of-town presen ters. I would say that we should hear the out-of town presenters. A reasonable time would be midnight. Ms.

Barrett: I would suggest, as I stated, that we hear the out-of-town presenters. We do not know how many will actually appear. We do not know what the hour will be. And that we then canvass the Committee as to the will of carrying on. If there are still people in the hall who wish to be heard, perhaps it would be only fair for them to be heard at that time. I think we should hear the out-of-town presenters and then take a look at what is left in front of us. * (18:50) Mr. Laurendeau: There was one issue that was resolved about two years ago when we had a large number of presenters at a committee.

That was when we called the two committees in two consecutive days, as we did tonight. The House Leader and I specifically called this committee for tonight and for tomorrow. I would ask that you not do the second reading of the list or that nobody drops off the list as of tonight. Then they would all have an opportunity to be called again tomorrow as a courtesy call, Mr. Chair. If you are planning on sitting late into the wee hours of the night, I would ask that you not drop anybody off the list then, and that they have an opportunity tomorrow to put their views forward. Mr.

Cha irperson: It is agreed that we only-call people's names once tonight. We will hear out of-town presenters and then ask if there are other people in the room who want to present tonight. Is that agreed? [Agreed] I would like to inform the Committee that a written submission from Marvin Anderson, Prairie Spirit School Division No. 50, has been received. Copies of this brief have been made for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting.

Does the Committee grant its consent to have this written submission appear in the Committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed] I have received a request from Theresa Ducharme, who is No. 60 on the Bill 42 presenters' list, to be allowed to speak second this evening due to transportation issues. Is it the will of the Committee to allow Mrs. Ducharme to speak second this evening? [Agreed] I would also like to request those presenters in attendance who wish to speak in French to please advise the Clerk of this committee because we are providing simultaneous trans lation for committee members.

As well, I would like to advise that Room 254, the committee room down the hall from this room, is being used as an overflow room. The sound from this room will be piped into that room so you will be able to hear the proceedings. Bill 45- The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Chairperson: Before I read out-of-town presenters, we are going to do Bill 45. I believe we have one presenter. Jan Speelman, would you take the podium please. Do you have copies for committee members? Yes, they are being distributed. Please go ahead. Ms. Jan Speelman (President, Manitoba Teachers' Society): Making a decision here is tougher than in a classroom with 40 kids, I think.

Because of the short notice that this bill was going to be presented this evening, I have invited both Art Reimer and Henry Shika of our staff to join me for the question part of this presentation, as it could be quite technical. My name is Jan Speelman. I am president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. We represent more than 14 000 public school teachers in the province of Manitoba. This seems ironic to me that on the same day I am here to applaud the

158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 Government on fulfilling their commitment to restore our teachers' bargaining rights in Manitoba that I must stand before you to express our disappointment with Bill45. Just last week the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) stood up in the House on second reading of Bill 45 and said: The Government of Manitoba is pleased to respond positively to concerns raised by female teachers.

Their concern relates primarily to the fact that women who take leave from their teaching positions or similar professional jobs in the public school system in order to have children are precluded from purchasing maternity leave of up to 17 weeks as pensionable service. Minister, I am a female teacher and this bill does not respond to my concerns nor to the concerns of the female members of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, more than 8000 strong. At our annual general meeting at the end of May, you stood up before our members and told them that you would fix this problem, and you received a standing ovation.

Minister Caldwell, we are disappointed that you did not keep your word. The proposed amendment does not redress the inequities that face female teachers in Manitoba. I am sure that many people here today would be surprised to learn that Manitoba is the only province in the country, including all other provinces and territories, that does not currently allow its female teachers to purchase their maternity leave as pensionable service.

The Government's intention with respect to resolving this embarrassing situation may have been honourable, that is, to provide access for women teachers to purchase periods of maternity leave as pensionable service. However, Bill 42 will create an economic hardship for those very teachers that you intended to help. Unlike most other public-sector employees in this province, teachers in Manitoba do not have supplementary employment benefit plans. The very first one was just awarded in the Fort Garry arbitration that just ended about a month ago. What does this mean?

Supplementary employment benefit plans top up your salary while you are on maternity leave. Teachers have no top up. The only income they receive during their maternity leave is the income they get from the federal government through Employment Insurance. Employees with said plans get over 90 percent of their salary during their maternity leave. Under Employment Insurance, teachers get less than 55 percent of their salary. So, according to Bill 45, teachers who are only receiving their money from Employment Insurance will now also have to pay for their pension from this much-reduced income.

When their income is reduced so substantially, many of these teachers will not elect to pay for their pension. As a result, the very inequality we are trying to resolve will be perpetuated. Manitoba female teachers will still face inequalities that are experienced by no other female teachers in our nation. That is unfair and it is wrong. Thirty years ago when I had my first child there was no maternity leave. I had to quit my job. So did many of my colleagues. Many women teachers who took time off to have children have been prejudiced by the discriminatory situation in Manitoba.

Many of these women have retired, some only 25 days ago. Bill 45 still discriminates against these women on the basis of gender. It does not provide any access for many teachers who have over the years suffered because of the provisions of the current Teachers' Pensions Act. That is unfair, and it is wrong. I will outline the specific problems inherent in Bill 45 and outline recommendations and alternative texts. First, timing of the election-to-purchase period of maternity leave. According to

section 63.1 (

I) in Bill 45, a teacher must decide prior to the commencement of maternity leave period whether or not she elects to make pension contributions during the mat leave. Pregnancy is very demanding physically, psychologically and emotionally. Pregnant teachers have numerous- decisions to make during this time. They are often pressured by school divisions about the timing and duration of their maternity leave period. Let us not forget that teachers of childbearing age are often at the start of their careers and therefore earning the lowest salaries. Teachers have told us that employment insurance benefits do not meet the

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 159 financial needs of their families. To add yet another financial decision and burden at this time in a teacher's life is unreasonable. Teachers do not have supplementary employment benefit plans. Yet Bill 45 forces teachers to make pension contributions while they are not receiving salary. This will prevent many women teachers from making contri butions to their pensions for periods of mat leave. As a result, women who bear children will continue to be penalized.

If the Government intended gender equity and economic equality for female teachers, this has not been achieved. While the Society appreciates the Government's intent to redress the inequities, the effect of the proposed

section 63.1(1) would remain the most regressive pension provision for women teachers in Canada. No other pension plan forces teachers to make pension contributions during periods when they are not receiving salary. In comparison, teachers who purchase pensionable service for educational leaves are not forced to make pension contributions while they are studying and not receiving salary. Educational leave may be purchased within 18 months of return from leave at the most preferential rate and then still be able to purchase the leave period at a higher cost at any time prior to receipt of pension.

Maternity leave provisions should parallel the existing provisions for the other leaves that teachers are entitled to. Why should teachers who bear children be penalized? The conditions for contributions must be flexible. Women should be able to purchase pensionable service after they return from maternity leave. Just as is done with educational leaves, the act must provide a reasonable window during which time teachers can purchase pensionable service without penalty after they return from their maternity leave. That way they can meet family obligations and contribute to their pension. If

section 63.1(1) is enacted as proposed, many women teachers who take maternity leave will not be able to afford to make those pension contributions.

Section 63.1 (1) does not provide for equality before and under the law. Recommendation 1: The Society recom mends that The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act allow the purchase of pensionable service subsequent to taking maternity leave and that such provision allow teachers the option to purchase service later in their careers at a time when they are more likely to be able to afford to do so. To accomplish the above, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act might be amended by substituting the following for

section 63.1 (1) as proposed in Bill 45: If a teacher has been granted a period of maternity leave as provided in The Employment Standards Act, the teacher may have such period included in computing her years of service if the teacher makes a written application to the board to pay the fund for the period of leave taken, (

a) She shall continue to contribute to the fund throughout the period the same amounts that she would have had to contribute if she had not been on leave and her annual salary rate during the period had remained the same as her annual salary rate immediately before the period; or (

b) Where the application is made within 18 months of the expiry of the leave, an amount equal to the amount the teacher would have been required to pay had the teacher been a contributor during that period and her annual salary rate during the period has remained the same as her annual salary rate immediately before the period; or (

c) Where the election is made more than 18 months after the expiry of leave provided such amount is not less than the amount determined under (

a) above. An amount equal to the actuarial liability of both Account A and the pension adjustment account for the recognition of such period of leave, as determined by the board. * (19:00) In other words,

section (

a) is what already exists in the Act and sections (

b) and (

c) are what exist in the Act for other educational leaves that will apply to people taking any other kinds of leaves. I would dare to say that if it were men

160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 that were bearing children, we would not even be discussing this tonight. Definition of period of leave. Bill 45 does not define the period of maternity leave. Periods of maternity leave vary from one individual to another given. There are different provisions in our 57 collective agreements and different practices by school boards when granting maternity leave. The Teachers' Pensions Act should contain a provision defining the duration of the maternity leave to ensure equality among teachers who purchase pensionable service for periods of maternity leave.

Recommendation 2. The Society recom mends that teachers have the right to purchase pensionable service during the periods of entitlement to maternity leave as defined by The Employment Standards Act. 3. Window for application to purchase period of maternity leave. The Society believes that the window for purchase of maternity leave contained in Bill 45 is inconsistent with the provision for other purchases of service under The Teachers' Pensions Act. For all other purchases of service, teachers can decide to purchase their pensionable service at any time before they start to receive their pension.

We agree that a cost should be attached to delays in exercising a right to purchase that period of leave. Recommendation 3. The Society recom mends that sections 63.1(

b) and (

c) contained in recommendation I above should apply to teachers who wish to purchase past pensionable service and that

section 63 .I (3) should be added as follows: Board conditions. The amounts referred to in subsections 63.1(1) and (2) shall be calculated as at the date the teacher makes the written application, but the remittance may be made at such time and under such terms. and conditions as are prescribed by the board. 4. Right to buy back pensionable service for teachers whose employers denied them the right to maternity leave. Within the last 30 years some teachers had the right to maternity leave while for others their school boards refused the right. Consequently, pregnant teachers were forced to resign their positions.

I am one of those teachers, but there are many other women teachers like myself. The Society believes that all female teachers should have equal access to purchase pensionable service for periods of maternity leave. Recommendation 4. The Society recom mends that The Teachers' Pensions Act include a provision for all teachers who were denied a period of maternity leave or who were forced to resign their teaching positions as a result of their pregnancy to be deemed to have been on maternity leave for the birth of each child and entitled to purchase pensionable service for those periods of time. 5.

Purchase by retired teachers of pensionable service for periods of maternity leave. Bill 45 excludes retired teachers, even those who retired only 25 days ago. Since 1979, the Manitoba Teachers' Society has been requesting the Government to amend The Teachers' Pensions Act to allow women teachers to purchase periods of maternity leave as pensionable service. Successive governments have refused. As a result, Manitoba teachers are the only ones in Canada to be denied that right.

To now deny access to purchase maternity leave to those teachers who have been discriminated against through the years only compounds this discrimination. By amending Bill 45 to include access by retired teachers, the Government would be redressing this historic inequity and right a social injustice towards women teachers that has occurred as a result of government policy over the years.

We recognize that there may be some constraints in tax legislation, but we are prepared to join with the Government in seeking a waiver from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to allow this violation of human rights to be corrected. Recommendation 5. The Society recom mends that The Teachers' Pensions Act include a provision allowing retired teachers who have taken maternity leave the right to elect to purchase pensionable service and have their pensions adjusted accordingly. In the alternative, teachers should have the right to elect to

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 161 purchase pensionable service retroactive to when the legal action commenced on the basis of human rights discrimination nearly two years ago. Administration of Bill 45. I have mentioned this several times already, but teachers do not have SEB plans. For women teachers, their income during their maternity leave comes from the federal Employment Insurance. This creates an administrative dilemma. There is no income from which an employer can deduct pension contributions. What is the intent of the Government in how these premiums are to be collected?

In conclusion, the Manitoba Teachers' Society is disappointed that, despite what were good intentions by this government, Bill 45 has not completely redressed inequities that have existed for many years in The Teachers' Pensions Act. It is still unfair for female teachers. We believe that this will not eliminate our court challenge. The effect of Bill 45 will be to entrench in our pension legislation economic inequality for women teachers. We urge the Government to make amendments to Bill 45 that will ensure equity.

All teachers have the right to equality before and under the law in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns and urge you to implement our recommendations. Thank you very much. Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chair, I guess my first remarks are to all of those who think the Government of Manitoba is in the back pockets of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Notwith standing the last sentence, I think that myth has been scotched by this one. I certainly appreciate the criticisms that were presented.

I think that you have made some very interesting points with regard to this legislation, and I thank you for that. We will take the comments under advisement. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Thank you for the presentation, Ms. Speelman. My question to you is with regard to whether or not any provisions that are not within the Act right now that you are recommending here can be negotiated in contracts between teachers and school boards in any of the divisions across Manitoba. Ms. Speelman: No, they cannot. Mr. Derkach : Ms.

Speelman, in the consultations that the Minister held on this bill, were these items addressed with the Minister? Ms. Speelman: The pensions task force met and addressed these issues. Yes. Mr. Derkach : What was the response from the Minister at that time, Ms. Speelman? Ms. Speelm an: We left our recommendations with the people presenting to the Government, and they took it to the Government. This is their response to it. Mr. Derkach : Ms. Speelman, has the Teachers' Society calculated the cost of the proposals that you have included in your presentation to the public purse? Ms.

Speelman: I will ask Henry to answer this, please. Mr. Cha irperson: Sorry, could we get your name for the record first? Mr. Henry Sh ika (Manitoba Teachers' Society): My name is Henry Shika. Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead. Mr. Shika: I think the answer to the question is, in terms of providing maternity leave for active employees, it is about a $2-million cost. Mr. Derkach : Is that a $2-million per annum cost for working teachers? Mr. Shika: I believe it would be Jess. The costing initially would be to address those people who may be purchasing past service also.

So, on a go-forward basis, it would be less than the $2 million. Mr. Derkach: Just one final question. Do you know what the cost would be for retired teachers?

162 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 Mr. Shika: I do not. Bon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I just have a point of clarification. What you are suggesting, if I understand it right, is that teachers would be able to purchase retroactive to when the legal action commenced on the basis of human rights discrimination nearly two years ago. Or are you suggesting that this could be purchased retroactive for much longer than that? Mr.

Shika: Our suggestion is that, in line with other provisions to purchase various leaves that a teacher have a right to purchase maternity leave on an ongoing basis or at favourable rates, i.e., the current contribution rates within a window upon return. We are suggesting 18 months. And subsequent to that, that they would be entitled to purchase any time up to retirement, but at full actuarial costs. So we are suggesting the ability to purchase the leave up to the point of retirement. Ms. Speelm an: Which is the provisiOns for people taking other leaves currently. Mr.

Gerrard: For teachers who have had maternity leaves in the past, you are only suggesting going back two years. Is that right? Mr. Shika: No, we are suggesting that this legislation be extended to include retirees, and open it and allow that election on the part of retirees. At minimum, we are suggesting to go back two years, at a minimum, for the retirees, which is when we initiate a legal action. * (19:10) Mr. Gerrard: So what your preference would be is to open it up so that anybody could go back who has had a maternity leave in the past but that, at the absolute minimum, ..should go back at least two years.

Mr. Shika: That is correct, yes. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you for your presen tation. Bill 42- The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Chairperson: Next we are going to hear from Theresa Ducharme on Bill 42. Could someone put the microphone beside her? Mrs. Theresa Ducharme (People for Equal Participation Inc.): I think I can talk loud enough. Mr. Chairperson: Just please wait until you are recognized. We are going to set you up with a microphone. Mrs. Ducharme: Because I am here to speak loud. Your Honour, and all those present.

I, Theresa Ducharme, on behalf of People in Equal Participation Inc., am here once again to bring forward my concerns as a taxpayer, as a non parent amongst people who are forced to pay all the school taxes. As soon as you hear the words "school taxes," you run like heck, because you want to know where are the school taxes to educate our lovely children that are in school. Some are being taught at home, some that are being taught are not even attending school like we were forced to once upon a time, that we could not miss school.

Now, we are not sure if children are in school, out of school, being taught in any form or fashion, and how is our educational system being recycled into the fashion that the children today have total control over what direction our education system is going. I cannot believe myself but I have gone to a school board meeting that they do not even know what the children are doing, and why are the school taxes going up and why is the teacher not respected like she once was.

I went to school 25 years ago, 30 years ago and I was taught by teachers that I could hardly wait to go and see, when I had the ability to do so, and I was so glad and proud when she gave me my exam and grabbed me and shook my hand and applauded me in the efforts that I had to put forward to her, not by 1, 2, 3, not by a, b, c but through the intelligence of promoting myself as a well educated student in the classroom and also in front of the school teacher who had the time and

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 163 energy and, most of all, the intelligence and the patience to bring forward the children with honour so that they could develop and become members of Parliament and also respected people in society, and not disregarded and saying well, you cannot touch a student, you cannot talk to them, because they are totally in control. I said how is it possible for us to recycle this whole school system, and I said, by jiminy, I had to learn through correspondence courses so that I could keep my brain alert, keep myself up to date.

Now I find all people who are differently abled, I am one of them, I must be educated but at the cost of whose cost? And how are we going to recycle the system by having everybody-I am there with my respirator, somebody else is there with an Aboriginal problem and more than that a mental challenge, mentally challenged, and they are all in the same room promoting themselves in the same frontage in front of the teacher who is supposed to be a psychiatrist. She is supposed to be a registered nurse. She is also supposed to be a physiotherapist.

She is supposed to be a social worker and get paid the minimum wage that she is getting. Now, I cannot believe that a teacher is supposed to be conglomerated into one whole master of arts and intelligence and come forward and teach our beautiful children that we depend on to run our country some day, and at the same time I am here today to educate myself and promoting the politicians to make the right decision, because you do not have an easy task, you do not have an easy job. You people should be commended for being at this level of intelligence yourself.

Once upon a time, Theresa was called "shut-in." When I was at home, people came to visit me, and they called me "shut-in" because I was shut-in in an iron lung and I could not leave. I was also called "crippled," because that is the level of education that people knew and the attitude of people.

From there, we went to "handicapped." Well, these people are seen a little more, so maybe they are handicapped because we do not know how to handle them, so we will call them "handicapped." From there, if you look in the dictionary, we became "disabled," which means disadvantaged, deteriorative, everything nega tive, dis, dis, dis. Now we are going to change and remove and abolish the term "disabled" and classify ourselves in the company of others as differently abled. So, we do not have to catagorize ourselves, segregate ourselves.

We will all get out there and show the level of intelligence of everybody by encouraging the teachers to have a phenomenal job of educating us, being as patient as they possibly can. I trust the judgment of these people here today. I am going to absorb everything. And I brought a gift for everybody because I want our schools to go out there and earn their dollars, just like I am going to leave the Minister of the school board-not school board. He should be a member of school board, so he can understand how things are recycled, and it should be recycled.

I brought you a little dammit doll, sir, that you are going to purchase because all our children today should be out there raising funds for their old schools and taking enjoyment. They should earn the dollars instead of punishing the taxpayers. If I hear the word "taxpayers" one more-school taxes. Why are the children not raising funds? Here, I have this little dammit doll. I want to read a little verse. Caroline, you are my little assistant, and I cannot do everything myself, so shout it out loud and read the little verse, honey.

Dammit Doll: When you are about to climb the wall and need to scream and shout/ There is a little dammit doll you cannot do without/ Just grab it firmly by the legs/ And find a place to slam it/ And as you whack the stuffing out/ Yell dammit, dammit, dammit. If we do not make the right decision tonight, this little dammit doll is going to be stuffing all over here, because every one of you is going to purchase one. Is that not wonderful? They are only $7, no tax. Is that not wonderful? Hold it up, Caroline. So who wants one? You have to show a vote of hands. We brought you a little marble.

Show them the little marble we are selling. We do not sell chocolates, because 90 percent of society is diabetic, so we cannot sell chocolates anymore. The little marble says: Just to prove that I have not lost all my marbles. That is why I am going to school, because I want to be smart.

164 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 We also brought you a dozen mosquito eggs. Hold the mosquito egg, please, dear. It says: Official bird of Winnipeg, Canada. One dozen mosquito eggs. Caution: keep in a cool place. We cannot find a cool place today because we are all hot and bothered. Open this envelope and show the Minister how he is going to purchase this little mosquito egg. Open it. See. Guess what it is. Show him. Take it out, please, and show them what they do, Caroline. See, it is just a little elastic band with this little saying that we are selling them for $2, no tax.

No school tax, no nothing, but we are out there earning our own dollars so that we can be out there, and that is what the children should be doing. Parents with no children, the recommen dation is that why should people with no children have to pay the whole total amount of school taxes. Maybe one recommendation is that we should have only a partial school tax billing for people that do not have children. Say, holy smokes, there we go. Now, I will even help and offer my name to the school boards and the children to help raise their own funds in every school area.

So everybody would have competition because they are all out there learning how to run sports, learning how to make recreation, doing this, doing that. Let us run them out to make their own dollars and cut the costs of school taxes. Is that not wonderful? We will get the Minister of Education and all the people here tonight to even help us at the same time. So I made a common-sense approach because we are not here, we are not disabled, we are all differently able, and that is why I am here. Does anybody have a question for Mrs. Ducharme? * (19:20) Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Perhaps, if people want to buy something from you, they could -See you at the .. back of the room or out in the hall later before you leave. Mrs. Ducharme: I want to see you first. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you. Mrs. Ducharme: Keep up your good work, people. Bill 12- The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Cha irperson: Next, we are going to proceed to Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. I would like to call the first presenter, Mr. Gerald Huebner, from the Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schools. The pages will distribute the brief. Please go ahead. Mr.

Gerald Huebner (President, Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schools): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, honourable ministers, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gerald Huebner. I am the President of the Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schools and a home-school father of 1 0 years. Our daughter just graduated from Grade 12. I would like to address our concerns with Bill 12. The Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schools represents over 350 home-school families from across Manitoba.

We are concerned about the amendments that are proposed in Bill 12 and have sought legal counsel from experienced lawyers across North America in making the comments that we are presenting in this brief. This legal counsel has been involved in providing input to ministries of Education in over 25 U.S. states and 5 Canadian provinces. Our association is committed to supporting home-educating families. That is really our purpose, is they educate their children across Manitoba.

We are also committed and have enjoyed a relationship; we are committed to working co operatively with the Minister and Manitoba Education and Training in ensuring the home education is administered in a simple and uncomplicated manner. We have enjoyed, as I have already said, working together. In our meetings . with . Minister Caldwell, he has indicated his agreement on the following two points that we have appreciated greatly. First of all, education is a parental responsibility, and we agree.

Parents are responsible for the decisions and choices to home-school or to choose other methods of education that are made by those parents and then do have the right to select the

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 165 type of education that their children should receive. Secondly, home education has shown, both through research and through fact, in our experience over the last 15 years, that home education does provide a good standard of education to students. Minister Caldwell, in our discussions with you, you acknowledged earlier this spring that neither you nor your department felt that there were specific problems existing in home edu cation in Manitoba.

We would further submit that home education in Manitoba, based on evidence, does provide a standard of education that is equivalent, and that is what the law currently requires it to be, and is arguably superior, although that is not our point. In a nationwide study that is attached as Appendix B, each one of you has a copy of that, in a study that was conducted in 1994, home educated students scored in the 82nd percentile in standardized tests in comparison with the national norm at 50 percent. I refer you to the

summary of that study that you have before you. Having hopefully agreed on those two points, we are concerned with the potential conflict that Bill 12 could cause with home-schooling families in various parts of Manitoba. We recognize that provisions for registration and reporting that are currently part of The Public Schools Act and are proposed to be amended in Bill 12 may be similar but are concerned over the undefined nature of these provisions into the future and would respectfully submit concern over the authority that is provided to the Minister to make changes as outlined in Bill 12.

Families in Manitoba home-school for many different reasons. For many families, faith and spiritual convictions are a foundation for their decision to home-school. Families have made decisions to take full responsibility for the education of their children, including covering all the costs that are involved in that decision. We have no problem with that and we accept that fully.

Because we have accepted that responsibility, we see Bill 12 as being an unnecessary intrusion into our families and unneeded action into an area where we have already acknowledged that educational progress is not an issue across Manitoba. We know that many of these families that we represent will object to the provisions in Bill 12 on the basis of faith and religious convictions, and would submit that consideration needs to be given to these objections, and that can be done. We have proposed amendments to Bill 12 and those are attached.

Further, we would like to make the point that home education programs in Manitoba should not be funded, and we would ask for clarification that

section 197 of Bill 12 does not provide for this funding that we would consider to be an unnecessary use of taxpayer funds. We would respectfully request that Bill 12 be amended as outlined in our brief, and that is attached to your brief, as we feel that these amendments address the concerns of Manitoba home-school families and provide an acceptable and accountable means under which home schooling can be administered. As further explanation of our position, we have provided the position statement and philosophy of the Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schools.

I will not take your time to review that, but that is provided for your understanding and information. The attachments, as I have already indicated, propose amendments to Bill 12. I indicated that those were developed with consultation from legal counsel that have been involved in legislation in other Canadian provinces and have a good understanding of the needs of home schoolers, as well as the accountability needs of government. Secondly, attached is the nationwide study that I have already referred to. We would be pleased and look forward to continued discussion with you, Mr.

Minister, and your government, as we look at the future of home schooling families in Manitoba. As a further note, I would simply indicate that I know that there are several families that were not able to be here this evening due to some personal conflicts. They are registered to present, and they requested that I -simply inform you of that, and they want to make sure that they have opportunity to present tomorrow evening. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Huebner. Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): I thank Mr. Huebner for the

166 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 presentation. We have enjoyed a very positive relationship in developing this, and I certainly appreciate the remarks that you made and the brief that you presented to the Committee tonight. I expect that other committee members have had the opportunity at our meetings to review some of this information previously. I expect that other committee members will be pleased to have this information at their disposal as well. I think you made some compelling points, and we will take it under advisement as well. Mr. Cha irperson: Next presenter is Mr.

Abe Janzen, private citizen. Is Mr. Janzen in the room or in the next room? Floor Comment: He will be coming tomorrow. Mr. Cha irperson: Next are Norbert and Debbie Maertins. Mr. Janzen's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Please go ahead. Mr. Norbert Maertins (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairman, Honourable Minister, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen. Home educating parents are highly motivated indi viduals eager to invest quality and quantity time, personal financial resources and much energy to ensure the success of their children.

To us and other parents like us, the vague and open-ended wording of Bill 12 is a great concern. The U.N. charter of rights and freedoms affirms the right and responsibility of parents in choosing their child's education. We believe this includes both the method and the content. We strongly believe this means government intrusion is unnecessary and undesirable. Home-educating parents are an asset to the Government and society at large in several ways. Mr. Chairperson, No. I, we pay education taxes, yet cost the Government nothing since we receive no benefits or remuneration for edu cating our children.

No. 2, studies show home educated children are frequently academically above their public school peers and therefore have a greater possibility of contributing positively to society as citizens. No. 3, home educated children tend to be comfortable socializing and interacting with multi-age groups and therefore are able to benefit those around them at early ages. In light of the above, we are registering our objection to Bill 12.

Our family has chosen in the past to comply with Manitoba Education policy in regard to registering our children annually, providing basic curriculum information and submitting two annual reports of progress in the format of our choice. We believe this is more than adequate to assure the Government that our children are being educated at or above public school levels. Bill 12 provides no definitive parameters regarding requirements for registering and reporting.

It fails to clearly set out the Govern ment's true expectation and leaves home educating families exposed to changing ideas of the current and successive government ministers. As such, Bill 12 is an infringement of parents' rights and intrusive to the process of home educating children. * (19:30) Mrs. Debbie Maertins (Private Citizen): I would like to highlight several of our concerns. For example,

section 26 0. 1(2): "When regis tration to take place ... the parent or guardian shall register the home school, in a form approved by the minister, when it is first established," et cetera. No details are given as to what constitutes a form approved by the Minister, nor is there any indication as to what information could be required on this form. A wide variety of home-school educational curriculum is available, varying greatly in style. Bill 12 fails to reflect this diversity when stating home-educating families will be required to report on a form required by the minister.

Some curriculum lends itself better to a standard form than others do. Allowing for curriculum diversity enables families to succeed in their home-education program. Failure to allow for it would- be seen as intrusive and coercive. We value freedom of choice in curriculum and object to government values being imposed on the education of our children. The vague wording of this

section leaves all of the above concerns unaddressed. We would request that any form developed be done in

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 167 consultation and full agreement with the existing home-schooling associations in Manitoba. We see this as an opportunity to meet both the diverse needs of home-educating families and to the Government's need of assurance that a quality education is taking place. Secondly,

section 260.1(3): "Information to be provided to minister." Again, the proposed legislation is lacking details regarding the number and timing of progress reports, as well as information regarding the contents of the report, "schedule determined by the Minister." Numerous home-educating families teach during all or part of the summer months and take holidays at another time of the year. How will the proposed legislation regarding progress reports meet the needs of these families? How will the needs of various curriculum styles be accommodated in the reporting schedule?

While we recognize specific regulations could be forthcoming, we are also aware that the vagueness of the proposed legislation creates the possibility of abuse of parental rights to oversee the education of their children as they determine to be in the best interests of those children. We would request, again, that any information to be provided to the Minister be developed in consultation and with the full agreement of the existing home-schooling asso ciations in Manitoba. One of the benefits of home education is the ability to tailor education to the individual child with his or her unique gifts and needs.

The strength of a good education lies in its flexibility. This flexibility needs to be reflected in all proposed legislation. Since most government officials are personally unfamiliar with home-educating families, programs and lifestyles, an imposed reporting system is inappropriate. A flexible reporting system will best reflect the program used by each family and assure the Government of the high-quality education which home-educated children are receiving. Thank you for this opportunity to make this presentation and allowing us to provide input into the proposed legislation. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you. Mr.

Caldwell: Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Maertins, for your presentation tonight and presenting some of your concerns to us. I particularly note the two points that you make in your brief and your desire that work be done in consultation and in agreement with the home schooling associations in Manitoba. Certainly we have had, in the last nine months since forming government, a very positive relationship with the associations, and have met with the associations in developing our thinking. I wish to assure you that those considerations that you place in your brief will be taken to heart.

We will continue in all areas where home-schooling issues are addressed to have a full and consultative dialogue with the home-schooling associations. I want to assure you that has been the process that has begun. I think it has been a very helpful one. I know Mr. Huebner who presented before and other associations have been part of this dialogue. Certainly we will continue that. We think that the associations do tre mendous work, as do parents such as yourselves that do undertake to home-school in your homes.

So I will take the specifics of your brief under advisement and assure you that the associations that represent home schoolers in Manitoba are indeed part of the policy-making discussion of this government. Thank you very much. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): First of all, thank you very much for the enlightened presentation. I have to say that I totally agree with your points that you address in your presentation with regard to the consultative approach with regard to the development of forms that should be filled out for the purpose of informing the Department or the Minister.

But indeed, throughout your meetings, I would have to ask whether or not this was a topic that was broached with the Minister in the development of his legislation. Mr. Maertins: Our family was not directly .i nvolved in the discussions. I think, Mr. Huebner would be in a better position to answer this. Mr. Derkach : Mr. Maertins, with respect to the home schooling of your children over the course of time since home schooling has been implemented and refined in the province of Manitoba, there have been some forms, I guess,

168 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 that have been requested of parents who home school their children. But my understanding is that these forms that were required were developed in consultation with the home schooling association. It is my understanding that there was some consultation with regard to the development of those forms,

whereas in this particular case this seems to be a form that we still do not know anything about. We do not know whether it is going to be a form that is going to simply be imposed on the home schoolers or whether indeed there is going to be any consultation. So I would encourage the home-schooling association and the parents to continue the pursuit for consultation in the development of these forms. As a caucus, we certainly will try to work with the Minister to achieve this end as well. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): I want to compliment both the presentations tonight on the home schooling.

I commend you very much. I used to be actually in charge of the home schooling at one point, and I was very impressed with the level in 98 percent of the homes of the dedication and commitment that you do have. In terms of working in collaboration with the development of any forms or any registration procedure or any aspect of the home schooling, I think it is very well thought-out to ensure that you do have input into everything and make sure that that democratic privilege to choose the education of your choice is definitely put in place. On this side of the House, we certainly do commend you for that. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Dr. Terry Lewis, private citizen. Doctor Lewis. Floor Comment: He is here. Mr. Cha irperson: Okay, we will wait for Doctor Lewis. Floor Comment: Mr. Chairman, I believe Doctor Lewis was called away on another matter, and he was going to come back tomorrow. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for that information. Next is Bernd Rist, private citizen. * (19:40) Mr. Bernd Rist (Private Citizen): I would like to apologize that I do not have a printed presentation to pass out to you. It was sort of last minute that I found out about the meeting. Mr.

Chairman, Minister and honoured members of the Committee, as a home-school parent I would like to express my concern over Bill 12. We, as parents, have accepted the responsibility of educating and training our children according to our faith, convictions, and value systems, using our own funds. We feel it is not the Government's responsibility to tell us how this is to be done. My concern is that Bill 12, as currently stated, will hinder us in our objective to home school our children.

The open-ended nature of Bill 12 leaves me concerned that the Govern ment will begin to tell us where, what and how our children need to be taught. By enforcing mandatory registration, having to provide the Minister with information about our home school, and submitting mandatory progress reports, the Government is infringing upon our freedom to home-school. The content of those reports, according to

section 260. 1(4), is to be determined by the Minister, apparently with no input from home schoolers. Where will this end? It is only a matter of time before, as written, a future government may tell us what we can or cannot teach. We as home-school parents are doing a great job. No one is more concerned or interested in the welfare of our children than we, the parents. We are a conscientious group of individuals who want our children to excel spiritually, morally, and, yes, educationally, but we will do this best when certain freedoms are protected, not removed.

I ask you as members of this committee to reconsider this bill and to consider the home schoolers of Manitoba Manitoba has been a wonderful place to raise and teach our children. -Please, do not take away our freedom to do so. Respectfully submitted, Bernd Rist. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Caldwell: Thank you very much, Mr. Rist, for your presentation this evening. I appreciate

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 169 the sincerity with which you presented. I certainly respect your view and share your view that a home-school undertaking is something that parents put in to the life of their children with the utmost care and the utmost concern for the best education of their children. As I mentioned to Mr. and Mrs.

Maertins earlier when they made their presentation, I fully commit, as has been the practice, as discussions on home-schooling issues from time to time emerge in the Department, that the associations who represent home schoolers in Manitoba's views on the development of any policy or the development of any discussion, they are always at the table providing their best advice, frankly. I do respect the advice that the associations give to the Department, as well as the advice that you, sir, personally have given here tonight, and I thank you for that.

We will also take your views as you have expressed them, and they will be in Hansard for us to read tomorrow, under advisement. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): When it comes to home schooling, I believe it is probably one of the most ultimate areas of freedom that you can have in a democracy, and I, too, am concerned after having gone through the Bill and seeing the kinds of things that are asked for, coming from a different perspective, being a small-business owner and it is something that I will share with the Minister when we start going line by line.

One of the things that we, as a society, have done is straddled small business with a burden of paperwork, in most instances unnecessary. And for small business that relies on itself to get all the work done, it really is an onerous task to have to deal with, and I feel that this is probably another one of those things that just adds layers of bureaucracy, that adds more difficulty to those individuals that are trying to just exercise their freedom.

When it comes to designing a form or whatever shape it is going to take and it goes to a committee, the adage always comes to mind: a camel is a horse- designed by a committee. That tends to be where committees take things is that it ends up becoming more involved. So certainly we are concerned about this, and the Minister has said he is open to looking at some of those. Perhaps we can take the recommendations that have already come forward and work on those. But certainly we want to make sure that the fundamental freedoms are protected. So thank you for you presentation. Mr. Derkach : Mr.

Rist, could I ask you whether or not you are currently a parent of a home schooled child or children? Mr. Rist: Yes, I am. Mr. Derkach: And have you been home schooling your children for a number of years? Mr. Rist: For the last two years in this environment, yes. Mr. Derkach : In that period of time, Mr. Rist, has the Department or minister or personnel from the Department expressed any concerns with regard to the way in which home schooling is administered in Manitoba? Mr. Rist: Not that I know of. Mr.

Derkach : Has the Minister, through your association, given you any indication of the motivation that has caused him to bring in the amendments to the home-schooling act? Mr. Rist: Not that I know of. Mr. Derkach: I want to thank you for your presentation. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, sir. Tomorrow evening, Mr. Abe Janzen and Dr. Terry Lewis will be given the opportunity to present their briefs on Bill 12. Bill 42- The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Continued) Mr. Cha irperson: We will now proceed to Bill 42. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr.

Chair, I was reading through the names of out-of-town presenters, and I am wondering if the Committee could take a look at No. 3 and No. 14 . I think there should be asterisks beside the two names. I

170 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 have done some checking, and there are people who are planning to drive home tonight. I am wondering if we can add those to our list of out of-towners. One is from Dauphin and one is from Neepawa. Mr. Cha irperson: Is it agreed that presenters 3 and 14 be considered out-of-town presenters? [Agreed] The first presenters are No. 3, Mr. Rey Toews and Ms. Carolyn Duhamel, on behalf of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. The briefs are being distributed, so please go ahead, sir. Mr.

Rey Toews (President, Manitoba Association of School Trustees): I appreciate this opportunity to present to you. With me co presenting will be Carolyn Duhamel, the Director of our association, MAST. Mr. Cha irperson: Excuse me, sir. You are going to have to be closer to the mike so we can hear you. Mr. Toews: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. Presenting with me today is Carolyn Duhamel, the MAST Executive Director. To answer some of the technical questions, as they might arise, will be Craig Wallace.

The Manitoba Association of School Trustees is strongly opposed to Bill 42. If enacted, the legislative changes proposed by The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act will have a major and overwhelmingly negative impact on Manitoba's public school system. Although MAST has repeatedly communicated its concerns to repre sentatives of the Government, the Bill that was brought before the Legislature on June 22 is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

For the sake of Manitoba's education system, we hope that the Law Amendments review committee will recognize the validity and importance of MAST's concerns. We thank you for the opportunity to express today, on behalf of Manitoba school boards, our profound oppo sition to this Bill. As you may know, MAST membership includes all of Manitoba's public school boards. Given the importance of this issue, we requested specific endorsement of our position from individual boards. Although the timeline has been very short, 40 school boards have explicitly endorsed the organizing principles of the following presentation.

In addition, 98 individual municipal councils have endorsed our position. In total, 45 boards responded either with their own presentations or by writing letters and sending them to this committee. Further support for this position has been provided by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Manitoba Association of School Business Officials and the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, who will be co-presenting with the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.

In the four weeks of summer since this bill was introduced, over 130 locally elected boards and councils, along with three major provincial associations have signed statements opposing this bill. * (19:50) On June 22, the Minister of Education and Training stated that he was proud to introduce a bill that deals with collective bargaining and puts the interests of our children first. We agree with the Minister's assertion that the interests of our children and their educational needs must come first. Our public school system exists for that very purpose.

The Public Schools Act provides the framework within which the powers of school boards and the legitimate interests of teachers and other employees are balanced to ensure that our central purpose, serving our children, is achieved. Our analysis of Bill 42 will demonstrate that it fails to meet the Minister's criteria of putting the interests of our children first.

The Minister further stated that this new collective bargaining process would be fair to both teachers and school boards, and sustainable. _ For more than 40 years, Manitoba students have benefited from a collective bargaining system in which binding arbitration is used to settle disputes between teachers and school boards. Over the years, this process has been modified. The most recent changes, in 1996, were designed to rebalance a process that was becoming seriously skewed in favour of the union to the

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 171 detriment of students and communities. Bill 42 not only undoes the changes that were introduced in 1996, this bill goes much further to skew the collective bargaining process to the advantage of the teachers' union. Our presen tation which follows will substantiate our convictions that this bill is neither fair nor sustainable. Most importantly, it is not the interests of our children that are being put first.

This bill compromises the educational interests of Manitoba children by shifting decision making authority away from elected community representatives and to the teachers' union and its arbitrators. A school board exists to translate its community's hopes and aspirations for its young people into a sound and sustainable education system. School boards also manage that system. School boards have a dual responsibility to their students and to their taxpayers.

Their mandate requires that they balance the responsibility to provide the best possible education for their students with the responsibility to manage their resources effectively and efficiently and to recognize the impact of increased school taxes on their communities. In the

preamble of Bill 42, government affirms this role by stating that democratic local school divisions and districts play an important role in providing public education that is responsive to the local needs and to conditions. However, the legislation then proceeds to contradict itself by undermining school boards' ability to fill one of their most important responsibilities, that of managing the human and financial resources of their communities. The collective bargaining process deter mines teacher compensation and working conditions, which account for approximately 58 percent of school board expenditures.

When this process breaks down, binding arbitration is used as the final dispute resolution mechanism. The system of collective bargaining and binding arbitration is premised on two assumptions: the good faith of the parties involved, the school boards and teachers' associations; and the integrity of the arbitrators. For the most part, these assumptions hold true, but not always. In one notable instance, the good faith of a local teachers' association was called into question when it decided against approving a negotiated settlement in favour of arbitration.

The arbitration board awarded a higher salary increase than what was agreed upon through the negotiation process and included five additional major union proposals for change to the collective agreement. Arbitration is generally viewed by the public as an unbiased means of resolving disputes. School boards respect the integrity of arbitrators to whom they present their cases. But we also must recognize their humanity, their fallibility, and the political process through which they are appointed. A particular concern to school boards is the precedent-setting nature of arbitration awards.

Arbitrators set precedents that influence both future arbitrations between other school boards and teachers' associations and the outcome of collective bargaining that does not proceed to arbitration. Arbitration introduces into collective agreements matters that have never been freely negotiated between school boards and teachers. There are many examples of clauses that, although now common in collective agreements, were first introduced by arbitrators. Two of these are interest on retroactive pay and noon-hour supervision clauses. Both of these resulted in substantial costs to school boards.

Most recently, in June of this year, the first maternity leave provision that provides for a comprehensive supplemental employment plan was introduced by an arbitrator. If such a plan were to be introduced province-wide, a conservative estimate of its cost would be $3.2 million, based on 1999 maternity leave statistics, the same amount of money that could pay the salaries of an additional 64 classroom teachers who could enhance the educational experience for hundreds of school children.

Enhanced maternity benefits is not an area where most school- boards would choose to spend scarce dollars, particularly in light of the potential for the cost of this benefit to increase dramatically with the changing teacher demographics. School boards are elected by the com munities; arbitrators are not. Arbitrators should not have the authority to impose decisions upon

172 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 elected school boards that undermine the board's authority to manage their community schools. We believe that allowing arbitrators to make determinations that would routinely require school boards to increase taxes amounts to taxation without representation, a concept that flies in the face of democratic principles. We strongly support the existing Public Schools Act which provides for reasonable limitations on arbitrators in areas of management rights and requires arbitrators to consider the ability of school boards to pay in making awards.

Existing legislation balances this limitation by giving teachers the right to grieve school board decisions in areas precluded from arbitration. Ms. Carolyn Duhamel (Executive Director, Manitoba Association of School Trustees): The legislative amendments introduced in 1996's Bill 72 sought to rectify the deterioration that had become increasingly evident in the collective bargaining process, and the concurrent shift in the balance of power in favour of the teachers' union. One of the major components of Bill 72 was contained in

section 126(2). That

section listed items not referable for arbitration. These included the selection, appointment, assignment and transfer of teachers and principals; the method for evaluating the per formance of teachers and principals; the size of classes in schools; and the scheduling of recesses and the midday break. These items are often referred to collectively as management rights. Why are school boards so concerned with questions of management rights? These concerns are grounded in the nature of school boards' dual responsibility to students and to taxpayers.

School boards need the flexibility to manage human resources in the manner that best serves the interest of their students. In some instances, this may involve changing a teacher's classroom assignment, varying a teacher's workload or transferring a teacher to a different school. School boards have an obligation to ensure that teachers and principals that they employ are performing their duties in a capable manner. They do this through an evaluation process. Boards are responsible for the safety of students in their schools. In order to ensure that students are adequately supervised at all times, they need to

schedule recesses and other breaks appropriately. Premier Doer himself acknowledged the importance of management rights this past March when speaking about pending nego tiations with the Manitoba Government Employees Union. When asked about MGEU concerns about the use of casual employees, contracting out and general staffing levels, Premier Doer replied that decisions to be made on staffing levels are not going to be bargained away. Those are management rights that are not even on the table. We are responsible for those.

With regard to management rights, school boards are asking for no more and no less than what the Premier himself has declared essential for dealing with provincial employees. In introducing Bill 42, the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) stated that current collective bargaining provisions were designed to disadvantage teachers. To the contrary, current legislation balances the rights of employer and employee by requiring that school boards act fairly in administering their policies related to items not referable to arbitration.

Should a board not act fairly, the legislation gives teachers the right to launch a grievance under the collective agreement. While MAST is fundamentally opposed to the principles represented by Bill 42, we would also like to address a number of specific problematic clauses that will have far-reaching implications. We have limited ourselves to five substantial issues in this presentation, although other problematic issues will undoubtedly emerge if this hastily conceived legislation is implemented. * (20:00) First, on the question of fairness and equity.

The teachers' union has long claimed that there is a need for change to the collective bargaining provisions of The Public Schools Act to give teachers the same rights as other employees in this province. The most expedient and fairest way to do this would be to include teachers under The Labour Relations Act with the sole exception that binding arbitration rather than strike-lockout be the final dispute resolution

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 173 mechanism. Instead, along with this exception, Bill 42 identifies a number of explicit exceptions to the application of The Labour Relations Act to teachers and, rather than treating teachers like all other employees, Bill 42 ensures that teachers will be treated, indeed, like no other employee group in school divisions. In discussions with government about proposed changes to the collective bargaining provision of The Public Schools Act, MAST expressed a willingness to have teachers in cluded under provisions of The Labour Relations Act.

However, since those discussions, the Government has introduced Bill 44 , The Labour Relations Amendment Act. This proposes major changes to The Labour Relations Act, to the extent the impact on the public school system may not be in the best interests of Manitoba students. MAST will be enumerating its con cerns about Bill 44 in a separate presentation to the Law Amendments review committee. At this time, we would simply like to go on record as objecting to the application of certain provisions of the proposed Labour Relations Act to the teacher collective bargaining.

On the definition of "teacher," the definition of "teacher" contained in Bill 42 differs from that contained in current legislation in that the requirement for a teacher to hold an individual form of contract has been removed. All that is required under the new definition is that the individual be employed by a school board and hold a valid teacher's certificate or limited teaching certificate. This definition, then, would apply to substitute teachers, which means that the provisions of the collective agreement would be extended to this group.

Casual employees, such as substitute teachers, are seldom provided with access to collective agreement provisions such as seniority and lay-off. These are normally reserved for longer-term employees. Inclusion of principals in the bargaining unit- under Bill 42, principals and vice-principals are included as part of the bargaining unit through legislation. Inclusion of management personnel is more properly a matter for the Manitoba Labour Board to decide, as is the case with employers in unions under The Labour Relations Act.

School boards should have the same right and opportunity as other employers to have this matter addressed through this mechanism. Transitional clauses on class size and composition-we have already stated our opposition to the elimination of the provisions of

section 126(2), and one of these items, class size and composition, continues as an exclusion, albeit temporarily, in Bill 42. That temporary nature of that exclusion concerns us deeply. A transitional clause of Bill 42 calls for the appointment of a commission to consider whether a provincial policy concerning class size and composition should be established and speaks to the composition and reporting process for any such commission. This transitional clause concludes with the requirement that, six months after the tabling of the commission's report, this

section of The Public Schools Act that excludes class size and composition from arbitration will be repealed. By including a "sunset clause" in Bill 42, the legislation at best jeopardizes the ability of school boards and teachers' associations to deal with this issue in the near future. It also all but guarantees that any agreements to be reached will be one year in duration, as teachers' associations will be anticipating upcoming and favourable legislative amendments and will not want to be bound by any pre-existing agreement when those amendments are proclaimed.

This contrasts with the multiyear agreements that have become the norm in both the private and the public sectors, including education- Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Ms. Duhamel. We have reached the time limit for presen tations. Is it the will of the Committee to allow leave to continue? Mr. Leonard Derkacb (Russell): I would appeal to the Committee, because the Manitoba Association of School Trustees represents a significant body of people who manage our school boards, that we give consideration for leave to allow the Manitoba Association of School Trustees to complete their presentation.

I am sure we can indulge them for another I 0 minutes. Hon. BeJ:ky Barrett (Minister of Labour): We agreed, after discussion, prior to the beginning of the debates here this evening, that all

174 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 presentations would be 15 minutes in length. We did not talk about exclusions. Everyone should have the same equal right to make a presentation. The MAST presentation is in writing before us. We will be able to use it as we deliberate in clause by clause and in third reading. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): I think it is common practice, in fact I know it is common practice, to grant leave.

In view of the fact that MAST is an extremely large body in Manitoba, and we have granted leave on other occasions, I would request that the Chair grant leave so MAST can continue its presentation. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): The public record of the House stated by the First Minister of this province yesterday made a commitment to the people of Manitoba that all persons would have the time to be heard at committee.

Here we are discussing a particular point of which the First Minister has given this committee direction, and should any members decide that they want to go against the First Minister, I would like to hear that commentary here tonight, because I am certain that we are obligated to hear the people who have come here this evening to be heard. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Considering that this presentation is already on page 8 of 11 pages, I think, it would be petty of this committee to not let them proceed. They are an umbrella organization.

They represent not just a segment of the province but the whole province, and we should, in fact, let them proceed. I would suggest that we give them leave, and let us move on. Mr. Chair person: Is there leave to hear the rest of the brief? Some Honou rable Members: Leave. Some Honourable Members: No. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): I think it is extremely important to note and to let all those that are here making presentation know that this is just another example of this government's hell-bent desire to gag people and not provide for the proper democratic process.

I think it is important to put on the record that this government, time and time again, and through many pieces of legislation that they are bringing in this session are bringing in very anti-democratic legislation, and not allowing people the opportunity to be able to be heard. So I think it is important that that message is on the record, and all of those that are making presentation tonight understand exactly what the agenda of this government is. Mr. Derkach: Mr.

Chair, I thank you for allowing me a second opportunity to speak to this issue, because I feel very strongly about this, and it would not matter whether this was the Manitoba Teachers' Society or the Manitoba Association of School Trustees or any other umbrella which represents large numbers of people who have an interest in the education system, and indeed in this legislation. I think that it has been common practice, both in the House and in committees, to allow for leave in times when we have major presentations being given to us by Manitobans. This is certainly no exception. Mr.

Chair, I find it deplorable that we would try to cut off the presentation seeing that it is only three pages in length to conclude. I would, once again, appeal to the Minister of Labour, who perhaps has a vested interest in this to reconsider her position with regard to denying leave for the Manitoba Association of School Trustees to conclude their remarks. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave to hear the conclusion of this brief? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mrs. Smith: Mr.

Chair, in the time it has taken to discuss whether or not we should grant leave, we could have had the three pages finished. Let us get on with this and listen to the presentation that .is before us so we can have a thorough discussion of what is going on with Bi1142. Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been denied, so we will go to questions. Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you, Carolyn and Rey,

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 175 for the brief. I will read through the following three pages at my leisure later on this evening or early tomorrow morning, as the case may be. Thank you for your presentation. I do appreciate it. I do have a number of questions that I would like to ask. Are there any other issues in the past five years where the Manitoba Association of School Trustees has found it necessary to take out full page ads in opposition to government? Ms. Duhamel: No, quite frankly, this is probably one of the most serious issues before us in a very long time.

We are talking here about an expenditure for an ad of $60,000. There are 14 000 teachers in this province. The average teacher's salary and benefits is $60,000. A quick calculation would indicate that that is not an unusual or ridiculous amount. Furthermore, the cost of one arbitrated settlement in this province is currently running at an average of $60,000. So we think they were dollars well invested because we must be accountable, school boards must be accountable to their communities, and we need them to understand the issues and be well informed. * (20:10) Mr. Caldwell: Mr.

Toews, were full-page ads taken out when tens of millions of dollars were cut out of the public school system by the previous Conservative administration, tens of millions of dollars? Mr. Toews: No, they were not. Mr. Caldwell: Those cuts directly led to the 1990s explosion in property taxes in the province of Manitoba, sir. Why was MAST not so highly concerned when that tax explosion was underway? Mr. Toews: I would respond by saying that they were. MAST made many presentations and did much work to try to convince the Government of the day that what they were doing was indeed wrong. Mr.

Caldwell: That does illustrate something to me, Mr. Toews. Your submission appears to minimize the importance of adding $30 million to the public school system this year. What was the impact on the school divisions of the cuts and freezes to education funding during the 1990s? Mr. Toews: The implications of those freeze cuts. were what we experience, to some degree, today. Ms.

Duhamel: If I may add, with all due respect to the Minister, school boards did not like the funding cuts in the '90s either, and we protested against those very much, but I think the discussion here today is about a piece of legislation before us. It is not about the record of a previous government and their funding cuts [applause] Mr. Chairperson: I would like to remind the public that displays are not permitted. Mr. Caldwell: Mr.

Chair, as we are concerned here about the impacts on the public school system, how long do you think, as trustees, before the impact of the explosion or the cuts over the past decade will be mitigated? Mr. Toews: That question is a difficult one to answer. How would you determine how much money it takes to come to terms with some of the cuts that have happened in the past? As you are aware, costs have increased in the meantime. They increase as we speak.

Recognition that this government did make an attempt to alleviate the funding; however, may I remind this government that what that did was just basically allow the school boards to maintain status quo. Mr. Caldwell: One final point I guess. I just wanted to outline the degree of responsiveness to tens of millions of dollars of cuts versus hypotheticals, and I think that is a salient point.

Given that Bill 42 basically is a repeal of Bill 72, and we know the historical trajectories on both sides of 1996, what historical evidence do you have indeed that this bill will drive up costs vis a-vis the status quo situation that existed four years ago? What evidence do you have? Point of Order Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, point of order. First of all, the Minister in his questions is attacking the Manitoba Association of School Trustees for

176 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 their position and for a legitimate presentation that they have attempted to make before this body. This body represents both the Government and the Opposition. Indeed, our responsibility is to listen to it and indeed to ask questions as they relate to the Bill. Mr.

Chair, I believe that the Minister, if he wants to debate the issue of the track record of the former government, has the opportunity to do that in the Legislative Chamber with members of the Opposition, and not a body that does not represent any side of government but indeed represents the elected people who manage our school boards. So, therefore, I ask you to call the Minister to order, and to ask him to make his questions relevant. If he wants that information from the school trustees, allow them to finish their presentation. Mr. Chairperson: This is not a point of order.

This is a dispute over the facts. * * * Ms. Duham el: There are a number of costs embedded in working conditions, kinds of arrangements that the Teachers' Society has referred to. They have said and are on record as saying working conditions equal learning con ditions. We agree, but those working conditions always come with a price tag attached to them. Arbitration awards in the past have set precedent. For example, in 1988-89, in the Transcona-Springfield School Division there was a clause introduced with regard to a duty free lunch hour.

The initial cost to implement that clause was in the neighbourhood of $70,000. St. Boniface School Division had a similar kind of cost. That clause now is in 33 collective agreements across this province. There was a clause introduced in Transcona in '88-89 with regard to interest on retroactive pay. That clause now exists in 49 agreements across this province. The maternity leave top-up plan that was recently awarded in the Fort Garry School Division, by the Division's estimate, would have cost them $100,000 last year based on '99 statistics across the province.

The cost of that kind of provision for teachers across the province is $3.2 million. As our teaching force ages, we have retirements, a lot of younger teachers coming in, we can only expect that those kinds of costs will climb. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Time for questions has expired. The next presentation is No. 9, Len Schieman, on behalf of Rhineland School Division No. 18. Mr.

Faurschou: In regard to the particular questioning of the MAST presentation here this evening, I do believe that it would be appropriate for us on this side of the committee table to have the opportunity to at least ask one question. I ask for leave at this point in time for the presenters to be able to be asked questions. It has been stated at the outset that we would have only opportunity to read through the presentation, but again now to limit us to not asking questions, I believe that is way beyond scope of what is happening here this evening, and I protest. Mr.

Chairperson: Is there leave by the Committee to permit questions from the Opposition? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been denied. Please proceed, sir. Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West): Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could make a suggestion that any further presentations, the Member makes a good point, that we go question for question with all presentations from now on to make it fair where people can ask questions, in fact, as opposed to someone asking a multitude of questions. Mr.

Cha irperson: It has been suggested that we alternate questions, Government and Opposition. What is the will of the Committee? [Agreed] Please proceed, sir. Mr. Len Schieman (Chai rperson, Board of Trustees, Rhineland School Division): Good evening, Mr. Minister and members of the Committee. The Rhineland School Division appreciates the opportunity to put on record

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 177 some of our concerns with respect to Bill 42. We enthusiastically support the statements and the

preamble to Bill 42, about the importance and the benefits of the public school system. We also believe that democratically elected school boards play an important role in providing a public education system that is responsive to local needs and conditions. We also believe it is in the public's best interest to foster harmonious relationships between teachers and their em ployers through a bargaining process that is consistent with the principle that resources must be managed efficiently and effectively. * (20:20) In our own mission statement, we stress the importance of working with all partners in education.

Teachers are certainly one of our partners. In our effort to work, with this mission in mind, we have successfully used an interest based approach in our bargaining process. Through this process, we have arrived at a number of creative solutions. We have a few examples here: A committee of teachers that plans, delivers, and monitors all of our professional development activities. We have jointly developed provisional policies with respect to personal leaves, harassment and teacher evaluation.

We have joint study com mittees that are presently looking at job sharing and the allocation of administrative time and a general understanding that class size, particu larly in the elementary classes, shall not exceed 30 students, and less than 30 if students with special needs are involved. In our view, Bill 42 will not foster harmonious relationships. Rather it will result in a more confrontational bargaining process.

In our opinion, the proposed changes will not encourage an approach based on mutual respect and desire to come to an agreement that is acceptable to the board, to the teachers and to the taxpayer, and one which keeps the best interests of the students at the centre of negotiations. The removal of

section 126 from the PSA will inevitably lead to more arbitrations because unions generally focus on obtaining maximum benefits for their membership. Moreover, it is our understanding that conciliation and mediation are not part of the bargaining process. We feel that if these steps are not part of the proposed new process, there is little incentive to work toward interest-based solutions. In this way, Bill 42 makes arbitration a very desirable option for the union. It seems that seldom do arbitrators talk about the best interests of students in an arbitration award.

Most often, the arbitration board or the arbitrator will explain why they ruled in favour of the union or the board, but seldom are students mentioned. In a recent award, the arbitrator, in addressing the issue of financial impact of the award on the school division, stated, and I quote: In a strict or legal sense, the school division's ability to pay is only confined by its ability to raise taxes. If more money is needed and is not forthcoming from levels of government, the school divisions raise it by increasing the tax.

Bill 42 has the potential for many more rulings that will have an additional impact on divisional budgets and property taxes. How will school boards be able to manage their resources efficiently and effectively once their ability to manage the Division has been significantly diminished? This year, despite the announced increased support for public schools, the Rhineland School Division received an increase of $1,383 in funding from the Province. As a matter of fact, residents have had annual tax increases of 18 percent, 15 percent, and 7 percent over the last three years.

The Rhineland School Division is concerned that the proposed legislation hands much of the ultimate decision-making power with respect to management rights and taxation over to arbitrators. Arbitrators, who are not elected and who are not connected to our community, are in a position to make rulings that significantly impact division budgets and property taxes. In addition, the Rhineland School Division has some specific concerns with respect to various aspects of the proposed Bill 42. The definition of teacher, the proposed definition is confusing.

If teachers other than those under contract, in other words, substitute teachers are entitled to additional benefits in the collective agreement such as sick leave, divisions will

178 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 experience additional costs, which would be borne by the local taxpayer. The evaluation of teachers. As stated earlier, we believe that it is important to work with all our partners in education and foster lifelong learning, in the context of respected community values and traditions. As such, it is important to treat teachers fairly. However, the form and process of teacher evaluation should be excluded from the arbitration process. The issue of class size and composition and other factors impacting school budgets.

Again, we believe that it is in our best interest to have teachers work with students in manageable groups. We acknowledge and appreciate the fact that for the time being at least arbitrators cannot rule on class size. What concerns us deeply is the wording which suggests that at the end of the two-year period there will either be a provincial policy on class size or the issue will again be subject to arbitration. There seems to be no provision for the commission to recommend that the status quo with regard to class size and composition should continue.

This issue alone could potentially cost Manitoba taxpayers millions of dollars. If the provincial pupil-teacher ratio were to be decreased by just one, the cost to the taxpayers of this province would be a staggering $30 million. In our school division, the present student-teacher ratio is 19.4 to I. A change to 18. 4 to I would result in an increase of 4.1 4 teachers resulting in a cost implication of approximately $207,000 or 1.4 mills to the local taxpayer. If prep time for all teachers were increased by only 15 minutes, our division would see an increase of approximately $209,000 in costs.

Maternity benefits, that is, 90 percent of coverage over 17 weeks, would cost an additional $25,000. Every percentage point increase in a new wage settlement for teachers results in an increase of approximately $60,000. So we have added up some of these figures. If we look at the 2% wage increase plus increments, we are looking at $190,00� decreasing student-teacher ratio by one, $207,00�prep time, $209,00�maternity leave, $25,000.

The total impact of these four items alone, never mind the increased cost of fuel, buses and all those other costs that we have to face, would result in an increase of $631,000, representing a 4-mill increase to our taxpayers. For a residence with a proportioned assessment of $60,000, this means an increase of $250. For a farm, an 800-acre farm with a residence, this represents an estimated increase of $1,025. Even if we were to receive 3.8% funding from the Government, the potential impact to local taxpayers would still be approximately $400,000.

The Government has promised teachers new collective bargaining legislation. We respect this government's commitment to fulfil its promises in a timely fashion. However, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Education have stated on several occasions it is their hope that any new collective bargaining legislation for teachers stand the test of time. In our opinion, Bill 42 in its present state is a flawed piece of legislation. It is not sustainable. It will not stand the test of time.

We respectfully suggest that passage of Bill 42 be deferred, thereby giving government, trustees, teachers and other affected parties, time to study this bill. The object of this study would be to determine all the implications of Bill 42 in its present form. After a period of study-we would suggest at least six months-all parties would have the opportunity for informed input into new collective bargaining legislation. Legislation developed in this manner is much more likely to receive approval from all concerned parties.

In the meantime, boards and teachers' associations could bargain under existing legislation for 2000-2001. We ask that you give this suggestion careful consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, Mr. Schieman. Mr. Caldwell: Thank you very much. Hi, Len. Thanks for presenting today. I appreciate the discussions that I have had with yourself in the school division in Rhineland. I know that you do

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 179 tremendous good work in that region in Manitoba. I want to comment on a couple of points, just to help you out in terms of conciliation and mediation not being part of the bargaining process. The legislation provides for mediation and conciliation to occur under The Labour Relations Act, just so that you know that it is not being left out. With regard to the commission on class size, that is basically open-ended; the status quo may be, indeed, what is recommended by that committee. We will have to see what transpires. All avenues are open.

I want to Jay to rest a couple of fears. * (20:30) I just have one question which speaks to the ability-to-pay issue, which I think has become somewhat of a chimera in this regard. There has been a lot of mention about the recent Fort Garry arbitration settlement. I know the Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith) will appreciate this as my critic, because of the full text of that

section in the arbitrator's award. I think it is important because I have a question on this, to give the full text: In a strict legal sense, a school division's ability to pay is only confined by its ability to raise taxes. Regardless of this

section of the act, an interest arbitrator should always and obviously consider the employer's ability to pay, whether in the private or public sector. In the matter before us, that is the Fort Garry arbitration, the test of the financial effect may be distilled to the question of whether or not my award would have a reasonable impact on the taxpayers of Fort Garry.

I see it as my responsibility to ensure that my award does not have an unreasonable effect on the taxpayers of Fort Garry in the form of a significant rise in their school tax bill, and indeed all arbitrated settlements have a similar phrasing. arbitration awards, what the effect of that would be in the Rhineland School Division, and the numbers are staggering. Those are the numbers I have shared with you. Mr. Caldwell: Fair enough. Thank you. Mrs. Smith: My question to you, sir, every day in the House or practically every day we discuss taxes.

What I have heard about Bill 42 is the fear across the province is that taxes will be out of control. My fear is also for teachers who do have good relationships with their boards. I commend you for the protocol that you put forward in your school division. It is indeed a partnership there. My question to you, in your opinion, with your experience, would you believe that it is very likely or not likely at all for taxes to be raised in the event that Bill 42 went through as it is right now? Mr. Schieman: In my opinion, the chances are very good they would be.

Because, even as I said earlier, I listed some cost increases that we could have in our division. I did not list all the other cost increases that we have. The normal day to day fuel prices have risen by, what, 30 or 40 percent over the last year and a half. The increased cost of school buses, all those other things are-just to maintain the status quo on that takes a lot of money. Once you start getting other things piled on top of that, it just exacerbates the problem. So my answer would be, yes, school taxes I think will rise. Mr.

Caldwell: Further to the question that was just previously asked, how much of an increase in local property taxes did Rhineland experience in the 1990s, approximately, notionally? Mr. Schiem an: Total 1990s, I do not have those numbers with me, I am sorry. - Mr. Cha irperson: Sorry, I failed to recognize Does this not, sir, demonstrate that the you. Mr. Schieman? arbitrator took account of a division's ability to pay? Mr. Schieman: Well, I cannot speak for what the final money count was in Fort Garry. I think I gave you some figures on those kind of Mr. Schieman: Oh, sorry. Mr. Caldwell: Just notionally, Mr.

Schieman. You can even be within 25 percent, I will give you that.

180 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 Mr. Schiema n: Certainly they have more than doubled, but I could not give you the exact figure. I am sorry. Mr. Caldwell: No, that is fine. I just wanted a notional expression of it. Do you attribute that to teachers salary payments or education funding cuts? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Minister, the next question goes to Mr. Derkach. Mr. Derkach : Mr. Schieman, my question is with regard to impact of the proposed legislation on your school division. Now it appears that the impact would be, as you say, over $600,000.

What would be the end result within your school division? Would you raise that $630,000, or would you in fact have to start looking at teacher cuts, program cuts and impacts on students programming? Mr. Schiema n: I guess, as has been the case in the past when we have looked at rising costs or reduced revenues, we have done a combination of both. We have increased taxes; we have also tried to do some cutting of programs and that kind of thing. I do not think it has ever been just one or the other. We have tried to balance it out.. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, Mr. Schieman. The time for questions has expired.

Next is presenter No. 12, Fran Frederickson, Chair, Interlake School Division. Ms. Frederickson, please take the podium. Ms. Fran Frederickson (Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Interlake School Division): I would ask for permission, I have a co-presenter here with me this evening who is not named on the list here this evening. Her name is Val Weiss, W-E-1-S-S. Would that be permissible? Mr. Cha irperson: Is there leave of the Committee to also hear from Ms. Val Weiss? [Agreed] Ms. Frederickson: Val will be starting off the presentation this evening.

In a manner of trying to keep our presentation concise and within the IS- minute allotment, we will not be doing the whole presentation. We will be picking out the salient points. Ms. Val Weiss (Interlake School Division): Good evening. We are here representing the nine-member Board of Trustees of the Interlake School Division. We employ 242 full- and part time teachers. Any change to legislation that impacts on our relationship with these em ployees is of great interest to the board.

We have a history of good faith bargaining with our local teachers and have not had to resort to arbitration to settle a collective agreement. Mr. Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair Let me begin by expressing our sincere disappointment in the process which the Government has followed with respect to the changes to the legislation which affects the collective bargaining with our teachers. Although we applaud Mr.

Doer for fulfilling his election promise to repeal Bill 72, we question why this change is being made with limited consultation with the people directly involved with the collective bargaining, local teachers' associations and local boards. I suppose you could argue that the Government has consulted with the provincial organizations, MAST and MTS. However, teacher contracts have been and continue to be negotiated at the local level rather than the provincial level. Therefore, it would only seem logical for this government to take the time for local consultation.

Our board under stands the Government's need to honour its election promise to repeal Bill 72, but we would ask that you table this legislation until the next session so that all parties have time to read the new legislation and fully understand the impact of the changes being proposed. School boards have a responsibility to their students, their taxpayers and their employees.

Their mandate requires that they balance the responsibility to provide the best possible edu cation for their students with the responsibility to manage their resources effectively and efficiently and to recognize the impact of increased school taxes on their communities. We · strongly support a public schools act which provides for reasonable limitations on arbitrators in areas of management rights and requires arbitrators to consider the ability of school boards to pay in making awards. Legislation needs to balance a teacher's right to grieve a school board's decision with the

July 25, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 181 management rights of a board. Why are we so concerned with the question of management rights? These concerns are grounded in the nature of school boards' responsibility to students and taxpayers. Salaries and benefits are not the only parts of a collective agreement that have financial implications. Working conditions also have a significant impact. School boards need the flexibility to manage human resources in the manner that best serves the interests of their students.

In some instances, they may entail signing or transferring teachers to a different school as a result of increasing or declining enrolment, factors over which boards have no real control. School boards also have an obligation to ensure that the teachers and principals that they employ are performing their duties in a capable manner. They do this through an evaluation process. It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that regular and fair evaluation practices are in place for its employees.

These practices must be designed for local circumstances, not imposed by a third-party provincial standard. * (20:40) The 1996 amendments also included an important clause that explicitly required arbi trators to take into account a school divisio n's ability to pay when making an award. However, the arbitrators definition of ability to pay is startling. In a strict legal sense, a school division's ability to pay is only confined by its ability to raise taxes. If more money is needed and it is not forthcoming from other levels of government, then the school division raises it by increasing the tax rate.

One only has to look at the increase in the local taxes of the Interlake School Division to see that we have found it necessary to raise taxes to cover our increased costs. A 1% rise in teachers' salary costs results in a 1.5% increase in the local levy. It must be pointed out that we can no longer cut in the areas of program delivery or services to fund this increase. Our school division operates at or below provincial average cost per pupil according to the 1998-99 FRAME report.

To suggest that our school division can simply raise taxes to cover increased costs shows little understanding of the fast-rising local tax rate. This rise is wholly attributable to the decrease in provincial funding. One only has to look back a decade to see this discrepancy. In 1990, Interlake School Division received approximately 75 percent of its funding from the Province, yet in 1999 we received approximately 65 percent of our funding from the Province. This shift to local funding has resulted in a 57% increase in local taxes over the past 10 years.

The provincial formula for funding depends heavily on teachers' salaries for its calculation of revenue to school divisio ns. However, this formula lags behind in real time and real dollars. In the 2000 funding announcement, revenue is calculated at 91 percent of the cost of an average teacher's salary based from 1998. Any increase in teachers' salaries has a direct and costly impact on a school division's budget. Many new dollars would be needed to fund the types of changes that could result from arbitrators' decisions on the items currently excluded from arbitration.

Two examples from the classroom demonstrate just how large that impact could be. If the provincial average for pupil-teacher ratio were to be reduced by one, the cost to the education system province-wide would be $30 million. Likewise, if each teacher in the province were to be granted an additional 15 minutes per day of preparation time, the cost to hire the additional staff needed as a result of this change would be another $30 million. Those dollars would have to come from either a substantial increa�e in provincial funding for education, or failing that, substantially increased local property taxes. Ms.

Frederickson: I will deal with the specifics of Bill 42 under the fairness and equity. The Teachers' Society has long claimed that there is a need for change to the collective bargaining provisions of The Public Schools Act to give them the same rights as other employees in the province. The most expedient and fairest way to do this would be · to include teachers under The Labour Relations Act, with the sole exception that binding arbitration, rather than strike lockout be the final dispute resolution. We would support that change. Under definition of a teacher.

The Interlake School Division has some concerns regarding

182 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 2000 the definition of a teacher, and that was alluded to in the previous MAST presentation. However, we would like to point out that this definition of a teacher becomes problematic in administrating certain benefits such as sick leave. Inclusion of principals in the bargaining unit. Under Bill 42, principals and vice principals are included as a part of the bargaining unit through legislation. Inclusion of management personnel is more properly a matter for the Manitoba Labour Board to decide, as is the case with employers and unions under The Labour Relations Act.

School boards should have the same right and opportunity as other employers to have this matter addressed through this mechanism. Transitional clauses on class size and composition, we have already stated our opposition to the elimination of the provisions in

section 126(2) which lists items that may not be referred to arbitration. In fact, one

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-la8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf la8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f1590b714c1a213e0593b19afbb41de0673228a5

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