Manitoba Hansard — 26 April 1996 (Sitting 24B, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-24b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 24B- 9 a.m., Friday, April 26, 1996

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charles wood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River I!aJ:t)' 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. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

1335 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, April26, 1996 The House met at 9 a.m. ORD ERS OF THE DA Y (Continued) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. D•�puty Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. �:he committee will be resuming consideration of the Esrimates of the Department of Education and Training. As I have said a few times, we are still on 1. (b) (1) on page 34. Shall the item pass? Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, I am delightt:d to see the- Mr.

Dtputy Cha irperson: Before we get started, the minister had been answering a question, and I was wondering if the minister would like to finish it. Hon . .James Downey (Deputy Premier): Most certain!\·. Ms. Friesen: I wanted to thank you for last time for being flexible on that time and that seemed to me very appropriate.

I am delighted to welcome the fifth Minister of Education that we have seen in this department, particularly glad since I was at the end of last time talking about rural Manitoba and reading into the record my summaries-and certainly they were selected sum maries-of the responses in rural Manitoba to the Boundaries Commission. I know that the cabinet is aware of these responses, but I was not convinced that rural Manitoba had heard their voices back, that they had not had, it seemed to me, a response to their concerns about the kind of maps and the kind of proposals that Mr. Norrie was drawing.

There were many meetings, many discussions, the whole sort of panoply of democracy in rural Man itoba-very, very active-which took the time to respond to the map that Mr. Norrie proposed, and it was my sense that overwhelming arguments were being made against amalgamation on a forced basis. There were certainly-and I included these in my remarks, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) should be aware of-there are certainly areas, and I specified them, where there were concerns or a desire to amalgamate.

There were areas where they thought they might be involved in pilot projects and I believe the Minister oflndustry, Trade and Tourism's own riding is one of those areas that suggested it might be involved in pilot projects, but the rural municipalities and the school trustees themselves, in the majority of areas, expressed themselves as opposed to the kind of forced amalgamation that is being suggested in the Norrie commission. I would say on many of the issues the old Scottish verdict of not proven is really what people would argue.

It is not proven to them that savings can be made and I was able under freedom of information to get two of the reports of the government that they commissioned for this and one of them based on rural Manitoba by Dr. Rounds is very clear that in fact there are not the cost savings there that the government had perhaps anticipated. Secondly, I think it is not proven that there are educational advantages. I do not think Mr. Norrie made the case adequately for anybody in rural Manitoba, including those who are already ready to amalgamate, where the educational improvements are to be made.

Where are the opportunities for improvement of professional development? Where are the improvements that are possible as a result of this supposed larger tax base? I think every division said, you have not shown us how this is going to make a difference in the classroom, and I know that is the minister's concern. I assume it is the concern generally of the government, and it is also our concern. I think the government has a much bigger case to make for those changes and improvements in the classroom. The minister spoke in her response of pilot projects that could be started. The member for Crescentwood (Mr.

Sale) has talked of best practices and how the government in fact should be the lighthouse for best

1336 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April26, 1996 practices. Other submissions to the Boundaries Commission talked about choice. They talked about transport problems, wondered how, in fact, the actual changing of boundaries was going to make a difference. One of the things that I noted of interest, and it is a theme that runs right through the submissions to the second Norrie commission, is the issue of amalgamating, or at least-justifYing, I guess would be the word-justifYing municipal boundaries with educational boundaries in rural Manitoba.

That was one of the principles that Norrie said he was going to abide by, and he continued in that in his second or final re:port. Many, many school divisions said this is not the way to go, that is not the right principle, so I am drawing it to the minister's attention as a particular principle There were many, many school divisions and rural municipalities that said, our community of interest, our community of transport, our social communities, our trading communities are not the municipal boundaries anymore, if indeed they ever were in parts of rural Manitoba.

So I think for Norrie to continue, or the minister to accept that principle in Norrie, I think is one that would be going against the grain of the changes that rural Manitoba would want to see. So I draw that to her attention as an underlying issue. I think the whole issue as well of forced change is one that people addressed in that second rourtd. I do not know, the minister may be familiar with I think it was Prime Minister Laurier in the Laurier-Greenway compromise.

He talked about his sunny ways and he had a little childhood story about the difference: between the power of the sun and the power of the wind, and it is the sun which persuades the man to take off his overcoat, not the wind. I think that is what rural Manitoba is talking about: Find us the best practices: find the right principles; support those who are ready to amalgamate; create the kind of pilot projects that will dt:monstrate to us, that will show us where the improvements are to be made. So think my question really is for the mini ster-$700,000 I think is approximately what was spent on this commission.

The minister I think feels that it perhaps posed questions to people that they would not otherwise have faced, and that may be true. But is the mini ster proposing as a result of this $700,000 another whole range of changes that are going to bt: forced upon people, that are going to be the wind rather than the sun, and which are going to bring about change on the wrong principles and which will force, as they said in many submissions, rural Manitobans to choose between community and school. Those, I think, are my concerns that arise from the presentations that I read. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: Before we go to the Minister of Education, I would like to recognize the honourable Deputy Premier, who is kind enough to sit in for a few minutes. *

(0910) Mr. Downey: Just a brief comment, and I know how disappointed the opposition members are that they cannot chew me up in this, but I will tell you the minister who is there now is very capable and will carry out the responsibilities. I would make one comment. if the minister would permit at this time, as it relates to the boundary review.

I acknowledge what the opposition member has said, but I do want to compliment our Minister of Education whom I believe has been verv sensitive to the comments that have been coming back, particularly from rural Manitoba and the whole issue of boundary review, that there has not been an aggressive-saying this is absolute, and has moved without being sensitive to all the discussion and particularly some of that that has been put on the record. We are aware of the Rounds report. So I just wanted to put that on the record, that I believe our Minister of Education (Mrs.

Mcintosh) truly is sensitive to the feedback that has been coming since the Norrie report has been put out.

I would also say, though, I think there is an acknowledgement out there that it is appropriate to assess where we currently are at, because the status quo sometimes, although we think it is working to the best interests of education and the movement of our students and the activities, there is a lot of activity going on, whether it is through distance education, whether it is shifting of populations, so I think it was an appropriate exercise to go through and I have all the confidence in the world that the Minister of Education is fully aware of all the concerns and will deal with it appropriately. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

April2(�) ,�19� 9�6�------� L=E�G=I= SL=A�T� I�VE�A�S�S=E=M= B�L�Y�O� F�M=AN�IT� O�B�A� _________________ l3_3 __ 7 Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, I thank the Deputy Premier for his comments and, as well, I thank the Deputy Premie1 for sitting in for the first few moments in Estimates for me this morning. I very much appreciate his doing that for me and for the committee.

I, like the Deputy Premier, indicate that we have heard these indications of concern through representation to me as mini�:ter and to the local MLAs from rural Manitoba, and I appreciate the Deputy Premier's comments about the number of people I have been talking to and listening to across Manitoba on this issue and I wish at the same time to compliment local MLAs for the diligence with which they have put forward their constituents' views and opinions and ideas on this whole issue of boundary review and of indeed the many recommendations contained in the Norrie report because, as members know, the Norrie report was not just about boundaries.

There were 43 recommendations in the Norrie report, and the vast majority of those have already been accepted by government and are being acted upon, one being schools of choice, very obviously being acted upon in the field. So of all of the recommendations put forward by Norrie, 1 believe only some eight actually apply to where lines were drawn as boundaries around divisions. Those eight have been examined in depth.

I believe it is one of the most thorough and in-depth examinations that I have been through in terms of the quality and quantity of feedbacl;, and local MLAs have been key communicators in that feedback being made available to the minister. I have met, as I indicated the other day, with almost every board in Manitoba at this point and with innumerable parent groups and taxpayer groups, too many for me to count or retrace, but they have all been very forthright and thorough in their comments. They normally come accompanied by their local MLA.

I think the research and the communications provided to this minister by local MLAs is very deeply appreciated, because they have helped me gain a very much in-depth, much broader understanding of this issue than would have been possibk without their representation. Ms. Fri,esen: Mr. Chair, I am delighted to hear that the go vernment is not going to be aggressive, that it is not going to be absolute, and I am quoting the Deputy Premier on this, in its pursuit of the changes that Norrie had suggested in rural Manitoba.

So I want to ask the minister about the manner and the nature of the changes that she wants to see or is considering, I should say at this point, is for the city of Winnipeg. I read into the record the concerns of rural Manitoba. I had read them in the submissions to the second Norrie report. Similarly, the city of Winnipeg in its numerous divisions made many of the same kinds of arguments. Obviously there are not the same issues on municipal bounda ries, although in the case of the north end of Winnipeg that is certainly an issue.

What I think comes through in the city of Winnipeg presentations is, again, the sense of community, and I think that has been conveyed to the minister by a number of my colleagues here, from the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) who spoke about the Fort Rouge School; the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), who each of them came to speak about different aspects of boundaries. The member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), I believe, has already talked to the minister at length about the St.

James' responses to this particular commission and also about some of the concerns, the very serious concerns, that Winnipeg 1 has in the kind of proposed fragmentation of its programs and its history, and a very strong and proud history in education as an educational leader that Winnipeg 1 has had. I do not think any government would want to lose that.

I do not think any government would want to lose the kind of programs, such as the minister, I think, was very proud to show to the Prince of Wales yesterday, the Children of the Earth School, Niji Mahkwa, the treme ndous impact that Winnipeg 1 has had on aboriginal education across the province because it is one of the two divisions which, in fact, does do an enormous amount in aboriginal education. That involves a great deal of work and an enormous amount of resources that have been put into early childhood education as well.

So I think what the minister has heard from Winnipeg divisions is a great sense of pride, a sense of community, a sense of history, and a concern that fragm entation and div ision are going to change that. I want to add to that some of the considerations of Mr. Nicholl, a former deputy minister who was commissioned by the Norrie commission to do a research report for the commission on the proposed changes in the city of Winnipeg.

1338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 199 6 One of the concerns that he has, and it is put in perhaps cryptic terms, shall we say-he puts his points in point form

whereas Richa rd Rounds wrote in sentences-one of his concerns about the changes in Winnipeg is the creation of an elite school division. Now that is his terminology, not mine, but I think when you look at the map, what I see as a historian is a map that is very much a recreation of the old lines of 1919 , using the rivers as boundaries. In fact, Mr. Norrie enunciates a principle of trying to keep the rivers as boundaries, which is something he has always favoured in city politics, but he goes against that in his own report.

To create this elite division-this is what it looks like on paper-in order to create an elite division of St. James, Fort Garry, River Heights, Tuxedo, Charleswood, in fact, he ignores one of the main principles that he sets out at the beginning. I think that is one of the things that has led to a great deal of puzzlement and a lot of concern about the social implications for Winnipeg, not just for changes in school divisions. So I want to draw that to the minister's attention as something that obviously people are very concerned about.

At the very obvious level, what you see as a result of this, and Norrie is very clear about it, is an increase in taxes in Brooklands and in Transcona, the poorer areas of Winnipeg, in some cases, and you see, of course, a decrease in taxes in what is clearly one of the upper income areas of Winnipeg, River Heights, and you have that area taken out of Winnipeg 1 and placed into what now appears according to Mr. Nicholl to be an elite school division. *

(0920) So my concerns are for the social divisions in Winnipeg and for the abandonment of a principle that Norrie had expressed in his report. What I want to ask the minister is how she intends to proceed on this. I know that she has met with a lot of peopk. I know she has heard a lot of these concerns. I do not think any of this is new. Many people are concerned that the: changes to boundaries can be done very quickly by regulation. What is the next stage? Is there a process for those people who have made the same kinds of concerns known to the minister as I have tried to put on the record today?

Is there going to be a process where they will know that their voices have been heard, their concerns have been addressed and that there will be a public process for the next stage? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman; there were several points raised in that question. I will attempt to respond and I hope that I do not overlook any one. If I do, then I ask the member to refresh my memory. I acknowledge that change of the magnitude of amalgamations \\ith divisions the size of those within the city of Winnipeg is not something that can occur overnight.

We have said all along that any changes that might occur because of amalgamation or because of changes to boundary lines would be changes that would be made with the time made available for school divisions to adjust. We have also indicated, as Norrie recommended, if amalgamation does proceed in either the form that Norrie presents or some other, that implementation committ ees and people whose duty would be to assist di'isions with amalgamation would be put in place to help with some of the many intricacies that would be involved in an amalgamation process.

We realize it is not something that could be done overnight. It would be a multiyear process because of the magnitude of the changes. We do know, as the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) indicated in her comm ents, that the merging of policy manuals is not a task that could be lightly done, and we are aware of the comments that were made the other day about trustees having difficulty deciding which programs to retain and which to not retain in the backroom deals that get made between trustees, and I will support your item if you support my item, or vice versa.

We see that, as has been indicated at city council, kind ofbackroom dealing, and we are aware of the types of problems that occurred when Unicity was created. We are aware of those things. We have seen those as red flags that do need to be watched. In implementing any plan that might come forward, we look at the Norrie commission report on page 156 when he talks about the implementation committee.

I would invite the member to look at that again to see that he recommends a small group of permanent staff throughout the implementation period that would be supplemented by appropriate departmental staff that would be a multidisciplinary

April26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1339 committee and that would work with school divisions involved in the amalgamation process. They would, of course, have to be working with the four education associations. Norrie suggests that they be invited to be full participants in fact on the implem�ntation committee, that is being MAST, MASS, MASBO and MTS. As well, they know that they will be needed to deal with any union or nonunion school division staff who may be involved in such a process.

There will be decisions to be made surrounding those that we recognize will require a lot of energy and a lot of time, and th{:refore we would not be looking at this as an overnight process but one that would take a couple of years to complete and would require strong support systems from the Department of Education, both in terms of people and time. We would expect that a lot of depar trr.ental time would be devoted to ensuring that any implementation was not done, you know, by the snap of a regulation but that was carefully thought out.

I acknowledge something that the member indicated at the beginning of her comment that the issues for city divisions are just as real and just as heartfelt as those in rural or northern areas of the province. I also indicate that the possibilities for co-operation and collaboration and the forming of partnerships are just as real in the city, maybe in some cases more easily achieved because of proximity and the concentration of population. So that double-sided coin that exists in rural Manitoba I acknowledge exists as well within the city of Winnipeg.

As W>as discussed the other day, you can flip the coin back and forth in terms of comments that have been made about mral Manitoba wh ere you have the two opinions being brought forward, depending upon who it is to whom you are talking. You will have one person say, well, do amalgamate in rural Manitoba because they have small numbers of students in their divisions, relatively speaking, compared to the city of Winnipeg and they could benefit from larger consolidated schools.

The other side of the coin or the flip side of the coin is that, well, yes, they have a smaller number of students but they have greater geographical distance. The converse, of course, we know to be true in the city, that people will say, amalgamate in the city because you have too many divisions in a small geographical area. The other side of that coin is, yes, the geography may be proximate but the numbers of people in each division are quite large and they have differing program thrusts. *

(0930) So the case for and against, I know the debate that is going on back and forth with the case for and against. I appreciate the member's perspective and the comments that she has made. If I have neglected to answer any part of the question she put forward, perhaps she could refresh my memory and I will attempt to come back. Ms. Friesen : Mr. Chair, I think the minister has covered most of it. I did ask I think about pilot projects and about the possibility of expanding some of the suggestions for co-operation across boundaries for service agreements.

For example, I know that is the way that Saskatchewan is going. I think probably they started at the first step, which is those kinds of service agr eements, and they ar e having some success in voluntarily bringing people together on a co-operative basis. So I think my criticism of this whole issue has been, first of all, one of process. That $700,000 was spent on an extensive review which certainly led to a lot of very, very concerned citizens feeling that they were going to be pushed into something that was not proven to them, for which they had no evidence that there were savings.

In fact, they had evidence to the contrary. So the minister's acknowledgement of this, that she is going to proceed slowly, that nobody is going to be dealt with, I think it was the Deputy Premier's (Mr. Downey) word, "aggressively" on this, I think is very welcome and that sense of that there will be a longer public process is also welcome. But again, I want to underline for the minister that I do not believe there is consent either in rural Manitoba or urban Manitoba to the kind of final proposals that we saw from Mr.

Norrie, and I think the government has a considerable distance to go in many areas of Manitoba to gain that consent. Method is one of them; pilot projects is another; the enhancement of voluntary movement, I think, is another one. I also wanted to put on the record one of the city of Winnipeg concerns which I think is in a sense a very

1340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April26, 1996 typical one, but it is the kind of neighbourhood which has very strong neighbourhood ties and which has been able to come together and to make very clear statements on it, and I know that they have made them to the minister. That is the district of Elmwood. Elmwood has long been part of Winnipeg, a very important part of Winnipeg's educational community, and the Norrie commission, at the same time as it removed River Heights from Winnipeg No. I, at the other side of the river, it also removed Elmwood.

Elmwood is very concerned-the parents of Elmwood, the parent advisory committee. I know the minister is very committed to listening to parents, and it is the Parent Advisory Council of the Elmwood schools which has led, I think, the protest in the city of Winnipeg in organizing rallies and speaking to the minister and trying to get that point of view across that the kinds of ch<mges that are available to people in terms of school choice-Elmwood is in an area where there is transportation certainly fur high school students and others.

There seems to be no educational benefit to the kinds of changes that Elmwood is faced with. At the same time, what Elmwood is saying on the record over and over again is that there is consid erable community loss; that they will lose something that is very, very important to them. They see no benefit. So it is again in the public process that needs to happen.

The minister will have a long way to go in a number of communities across Manitoba to establish the evidence that there are savings to be made in the long run, that there are educational benefits to children in the clas sroom and that there will be no weakening of communities, whether in the city or in rural areas of Manitoba. The minister may want to respond to that, but I also wanted to move on to some final questions on Enhancing Accountability and that is to look again at process, and to ask the minister what is the next step in that?

The minister has said that there will be, and I am not quoting exactly, but if all things come together, if things can be put together in time, there will be legislation in this session. I am asking the minister at this time, how extensive that range oflegislation will be? We do have a very short time period.

It is one of the criticisms that people have made over and over again, from superintendents, to trustees, to teachers, that the process for Enhancing Accountability was very brief and it was dealing with some very, very fundamental issues, from teacher educa tion, teacher remuneration, to the role of trustees.

The minister has emphasized this in her comments, a system which has been in place for 40 years, and yet, in a whole range of areas was purporting to be changed in less than six months, and to be changed in an atmosphere where there was not perhaps the best kind of communication going on, where all the partners were not at the same table, as they had been over the past-certainly 40 years ago they were when these changes were introduced. So, again, my concern is process. How fast is the minister going to move? What will be the range of that legislation?

Does it intend to cover all the questions which were raised in that paper, or is the minister proposing to focus on a narrower range of topics for the legislation? Mrs. Mcintosh: There are two components to the question put forward. The fust component being the questions on boundaries, and the second component being the concern about the arbitration Enhancing Accountability document. I would just like to indicate that the member refers to the Saskatchewan model, or to pilots in terms of boundary changes.

Certainly I think it is well known that this option has been put before government on many occasions in the past few months. Certainly, we have, as the member knows, some areas of the province that have indicated they are ready to go, so to speak, and would have offered to serve as a pilot. I think that is known. I indicated to the opposition members and observers at the last sitting that all the ideas that have been put before us are ideas that we are examining.

It is one of the things that has taken so much of our time because I think there is no other issue that has had such a degree of response and valuable feedback from people who live in this province. So we are looking at those. I indicate, just to make sure that I have not inad vertently misled, that when I say that the implementation of any amalgamation that might occur would take a very long time, that it would probably take a couple of years, that we need to give divisions a lot of

A2_ril :�6, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1341 lead time for that. In talking about that, I was talking about an implementation period. An implementation period, of course, normally comes after a decision to do some th.ing has been made. So when you see implenentation committees being set up, unless they are being set up to deal at somebody's request, to deal with how would it look if we did this, which we are also quite willing to consider, if we had a division, for example, saying-the member will forgive me, I have a slight head cold. So ifl am coughing and sneezing and sniffing. I apologize.

The request has been made by some to say, you know, we are looking at it, we are not certain. We would not mind having somebody come and work with us to see what we would look like if we got together. That kind of request has come forward on a couple of occasions.

So, if we went with that kind of request then, of course, it might be that an implementation committee would go and work with the group even though no decision to am algamate had been made as an exploration, like oil exploration, and so the full-fledged introduction of an imple :nentation committee as suggested by Norrie or some modification of that type of committee would be developed once knowledge of whether or not amalgamation would occur or exist.

So you would start with a statement of intent as to where amalgamation might occur and then have the implementation committee work with the divisions to assist. * (09"·0) So I just wanted that type of process to be understood. I feel the consultation process has been, as the member indicated, fairly lengthy. A lot of people have been talked to. I think we have a fairly good sense of what the people are feeling, and we are exploring all options.

We come back again to our cen tral concerns of taxation, equity and quality, communities of interest and the need to address certain items that are for the benefit of students. The member indicated the cost of the Norrie commission and indicated something to the effect that it was a lot of money and it has got a lot of people upset. I am paraphrasing because I do not recall the exact wording. I have indicated before this, and I would like to emphasize again that the recommendations as to where boundaries are are only eight of the recommendations in the Norrie commission report out of 43.

Many of the others were recommendations that had great worth and did not upset people. I again use the example that is the obvious one, which I used earlier, which was schools of choice. Norrie talked about that and people liked that. The government has already indicated it is going to do that so there is one recommendation, piece of advice, that can be examined as something that did not upset and that has met acceptance. There are others, of course, in the Norrie report.

The other value that comes from the Norrie report is that it has divisions and division personnel and the people who live in the divisions talking in ways that I have never heard them talk before. It has been absolutely amazing to witness the creative thinking and the degree to which divisions have begun to co-operate, not reluctantly, but eagerly with each other.

While we have always had some divisions that have worked together and done joint purchasing, or put joint initiatives together, such as South Winnipeg Technical Centre which is another obvious example that I have mentioned before, we now see and hear them talking about a wide measure of partnership arrangements. I believe absolutely that a number of those conversations and explorations and discussions of partnership have come about as a direct result of the stimulus that the Norrie commission report provided.

I find it a very enlightening and pleasing offset or effect to the type of criticism that the member indicates is out there for Norrie. Yes, anybody who has been listening to the issue knows there is a lot of criticism, but at the same time there is this increased and renewed co-operation in partne rshipping that I think is very important. We do know that decisions made by boards, whether they be the current boards or new amalgamated boards, will still rest with trustees. I agree that it is difficult to predict what trustees might decide to do.

One can make assumptions and one can pass laws and one can encourage or inspire or mandate, but the way in which any new amalgamated divisions would ultimately govern themselves in terms of programs they choose or what items they would delete or add is as yet unknown. I think this can be said true. We talked about the loss of schools and small schools possibly being closed because

1342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April26, 1996 of amalgamation and that too could happen. It does happen today that where the boundary line is drawn has not changed, for example, in my home division, the need for that local division to close schools if they are not viable. So I think that school boards will ultimately wish to please the people who are in their constituencies by making good decisions and not want to see towns closed because a school is small, and we have, as I said, many things in the funding formula to support the continued existence of small schools. If I may, Mr.

Chairman, yesterday there was a little bit of extra time allowed the member. If I could take that now to respond to the second part of her question, and I will do it briefly. The member had asked about the Enhancing Accountability document and is interested in knowing, as I appreciate she would be, whe:re do we go from here and what is going to happen now that the hearings are finished.

We have indicated that if we are able to bring forward some legislation this June to correct some of the problems in the field around this issue, we would attempt to give as much lead time as possible so that people would have ability to influence and shape the final shape of proposed legislation, and we had indicated this before the panel hearings.

We cannot indicate that the legislation will be this way or that way if and when it comes forward because we are still working with not just the trustees but also the teachers, and we are soon to receive the sununative report and attach suggestions, if any, from the small group that went and solicited feedback for me in the province. I received papers and listened to the explanations and rationale for those papers from Manitobans. Legislation in this particular area, depending upon its final intent, need not necessarily be complicated legislation.

It is what the legislation sets out to achieve that can have an effect that could be small, moderate or extensive depending upon its intent. So it need not be complicated legislation, but in some way would need to address the concerns that one of the parties to the bargaining process feels.

I think the continued dialogue that is being carried on with teachers and trustees is a very good dialogue that occurs and hopefully, if the best of all worlds could be achieved, one could find those two bodies coming to some agreement with eac:h other, and the best of all worlds is not always achieved in this very real place in which we live. *

(0950) I guess what I am indicating to the member is that it is difficult for me at this point to indicate the exact nature of potential legislation or even to confirm that legislation would be coming forward, although it is our desire to correct this imbalance as quickly as possible. Introducing legislation this spring for hearings and passage in the fall would be my personal preference as minister.

I think the expressed urgency proclaimed by the trustees would also assist in the field, because implementing legislative change on arbitration would take a full year after the passage of such change so, when we have trustees feeling an urgency, I think that moving quickly but wisely is better than delaying and repeating over and over concerns that are unchanging. I think we need to see, it is not enough just to hear the same things repeated over and over. We need to see some solutions coming out of discussions and presentations and thinking presented to government. Mr.

Deputy Chai rperson: Okay, I think that we did a little bit of, like yesterday-! would hope that the committee would allow me to do that once in a while if I see that somebody is trying to, as yesterday, read a sununation that they had into the record, I will try to do that, if that is okay, and I will show that leniency as much as I can but not to encourage you to go over the 10 minutes. So I will try to make that ruling at the time. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, yes, I think that is appropriate and obviously you are being very even-handed about this and that is what we appreciate. I wanted to ask one last question.

That is almost a cliche around here. An Honour able Member: Just as long as you do not say, I will resign. An Honourable Member: Is your name Sheila? Ms. Friesen: No, it is not even my middle name. I wanted to ask the minister about something that she has raised and which obviously people are beginning to

�ril �:6, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1343 turn their attention to as a result of the Norrie commission, and that is the issue of schools of choice. We have talked about this last time, and I noticed by the way in looking over the Estimates for last time, we were suffering through 35 degrees, was it, in Estimates last time, and the minister says that she has a head cold. I am swprised we are not all sort oflaid up as I look out at the snow and the floods. Anyway, it is quite a difference from last year. I wa.nt to talk about schools of choice.

Obviously in the city of Winnipeg and I believe parts of Brandon as well, 1here has been school choice for a considerable length of time. The Norrie commission had some interesting tables that he prepared on school choice and on the number of students who used it and how the money flowed back and forth. I would think, in the vast majonty of cases, it has been well organized, well run . There are not the kinds of concerns that perhaps there were l 0 years ago in the administrative aspect of that. There are not overall in the province, and he does actually take his numbers right through the province.

There are overall relatively few numbers of students who are movirg back and forth across boundaries for whatever reason. Studies, I think, from other jurisdictions show that that is not likely to change at the elementary school level. High school level might be something different, and that is where I want to address my concerns to the minister-! have raised this in the House with her-and concerns, I think, as they are being expressed, particularly in rural Manitaba and in those urban suburban school divisions where there is a ch anging population.

In some areas it is growing, in some areas it is declining, and those are the areas and parts of rural Manitoba, particularly the Interlake and southwestern Manitoba where people are very c:mcerned about the loss of small schools.

The prospect for having a school-and this would be I woulc. think schools from K to 12 as well as high school s-the prospect of having one or two families withdraw from a school one year going through all the right motions, putting things in at the right time but taking two or three children, maybe two or three families do thi�, they move to another division, and it is enough to close down the schooL It is enough to make their existing home sch ool not viable.

If they are not happy, if they are not satisfied, iftransport routes change, if they find that the transport issues are too much, if there is a change in family circumstances and those families then might need to go back to their home school, but it will no longer exist, that is my concern for all the opportunities that choice may involve. (Mrs.

Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson, m the Chair) I think we have to be very careful about the guidelines, the democratic participation that there will be and should be in those kinds of decisions, in the length of time that schools are allowed to be given that kind of flexibility before there are decisions which have to be made, and what kind of financial support is the minister considering for schools who may find themselves in those kinds of precarious situations as a result of a provincial decision to encourage and to enhance choice in this way. The Acting Chairperson (Mrs.

Render): Up here one minute and I am sneezing. Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Chairman, it is dangerous sitting next to me, you know. You will all start to sneeze. I have to indicate the chuckle I got out of the member's comment when she said, I just have one last question and maybe she will get a similar chuckle if I say that I shall try to be brief because we do have these sorts of statements that always raise eyebrows. I know yesterday-this is for the member for The Maples (Mr.

Kowalski), we might as well get all parties in on this one-I was talking to one of the federal MPs and we were discussing the very weather conditions the member for Wolseley just referred to and he said, well, this is happening in Manitoba, we will have to do somet hing. We will complain to the provincial government, and I pointed out that Environment Canada was responsible for doing things about weather. It was a federal issue, so we can start passing things back and forth.

We both immediately looked around for the city council lor, who was not there, and figured that is who should receive the phone calls on it. *

(1000) At any rate, I thank the member for her question. It is a good question. Whenever you put together an idea that

1344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April26, 1996 has really strong advantages for people, there are always peripheral issues that need to be addressed. I think it is important that we enable the choice that Norrie has recommended, that the government accepts, and it is something the government has long talked about with or without Norrie in terms of what could we do to provide more choice for people. So I hear what th(: member is saying as a caution, that as we proceed we be conscious of the peripheral issues that could have some negative side effects, good medicine with some potential side effects. (Mr.

Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) We have said we want to enable chmce but not unf ettered in the sense that it is a loose cannon kind of choice. We have put three conditions. One is that a parent can choose any school of his or her choice. It does not have to be within their O\vn school division, any public school, and presumably it would b�;: a division close by, because logic would dictate that they would not want to live in Churchill and attend a school in Winnipeg because of families wanting to be together and so on.

But if they choose a school, the school that they choose must have room to accommodate the student who is being sent, and that is a statement of principle. One could then discuss the details of, well, what does that mean? What does having room mean'� Does it mean if they put on a portable classroom and could accommodate them because there is space in the schoolyard, is that room?

So there are a variety of questions around that, but the principle is that the school should not have to alter its configuration or dramatically alter its way of delivering because of extra students in the school to accommodate students who are making a schools of choice decision. So there must be space in the receiving school. The second condition or principle is that there should not be any new program or policy changes required by the rec eiving school to accommodate the student. In order words, you choose a school because of the way it is, not because of the way you would like to see it changed to be.

It is kind of like getting married. It is the old dictum, I will marry him or I will marry her and chang(: him or her to suit me after we get there. [interjection] The deputy has made some comments and we will not put them on the record. What I am trying to say is that you choose something because you like it the way it is and, therefore, you should accept it the way it is and not get there and say, now that I am here I am going to change it to be something that was not the thing I had chose.

So they should not have to put in new programs or change school division policies to accommodate the student who has chosen. They need to apply by a certain date so that proper notice is given so that schools in both the receiving and sending divisions have a good count on their student population and can plan their staffing and timetabling appropriately. The other thing that we have indicated is that if there are to be incurred expenses in transportation that would be beyond the norm for a school division to provide that the parents would be asked to accommodate that themselves.

I think those kinds of restrictions, particularly the latter, where parents would have to pause and consider, is the program and milieu offered by the school I wish to send my child to worth my going to any degree of trouble to get there, is one that would force a clear commitment and not a frivolous, oh, what the heck, let us just go there because Johnny is going there kind of decision making. So I think those kinds of things will still provide the choice.but not unfettered choice, and be thoughtful, rational planning around that choice.

There may be others, as well, and as we go through this issue, I appreciate the member's comments because they have validity and merit. As we go through this process, if the member spots anything else in this that we should be conscious of, we would appreciate knowing because we want it to work, and as with anything new, close examination sometimes can reveal things that you thought you had noticed but had not. So I just leave that answer, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Gary Kowalski (The Maples): First of all, to follow up on the discussion that was just occurring, I was not going to ask questions in regard to it but it just raises a question in my mind. In every change, there are always benefits and there are also some detriments. There is the possibility of some inequities with this schools of choice. I will give you an example. In the Seven Oaks School Division, there is no int ernational baccalaureate program. In River East School Division, Miles Mac Collegiate, there is one. So under this schools-of-choice situation, if I wanted my daughter to go to Miles Mac and there was

�ril 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1345 space there and they would not have to change their polici·�s and there was room, she could go. I would then have to pay for the transportation, whether I sent her by cab cr whether she took the bus or she bought a car or what(:ver. In the Maples, we have some public housing. A student from that public housing who could not maybe afford that cab, could not afford the extra transportation, there is the possibility of an inequity.

I will grant you that, if it is that important, that student could possibly take a bus, get up at five o'clock in the morning or whatever, if that was necessary. But in some families, even a bus pass for a month for a child would be a hardship. So has the dep artment looked at the possibility of tha.t inequity in schools of choice? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, we believe, first of all, that a simplified system of residual fees will be the ultimate equalizer in terms of providing opportunity that is not there right now.

I appreciate what the member is saying, and the full, total, equal access that would occur if the taxi fare or the busing or whatever costs were covered is one scenario that, if offered, would lead more quickly to the scenario described by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). So you weigh one against the other *

(1010) Th·� opportunity for schools of choice without having to pay a residence fee enables far more students to access a particular program. It may not be available for every student if the member is describing a situation where pennies are really tight and transportation costs are genuinely a problem, and while I think that would not happen too often, I acknowledge that the possibility exists.

But as with so many decisions made, you try to maximize the opportunity for as many as you can, and certainly schools of choice opens up opportunities for vast numbers of people who hitherto had no such opportunities made available to them. You cast the net as wide as you can and recognize that it may not capture everybody, but it certainly addresses majority need.

It does not necessarily negate student need either because, depending upon the school division busing polic:ies or transportation policies, there sometimes are and there certainly is the ability for arrangements to be made for impoverished students in a wide variety of venues. They have not always been done in the past because in the past the distances to be travelled may not have been as far as they might be under this particular model.

I can recall as a trustee, and the member may or may not have had similar experiences where, with French Immersion, for example, we would have occasional requ ests made to the board because of a family's particular financial stress, either temporary or permanent, and the need to access transportation to a school within the division that was beyond walking distance. Trustees can make decisions to assist or to have a policy that would allow assistance for those individuals that occasionally find themselves in dire straits like that.

I still believe that we do have to have some parameters and criteria around choice for it to be structured and workable. I hope that is a satisfactory answer for the member. Mr. Kowalski: When this policy is implemented, the schools of choice, possibly the Minister of Education could communicate with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson) to give direction that there is funding for those on social assistance for special needs, that this may be coming forward a number of applications or a number of requests for special needs funding for students to have bus passes so that they would be enabled to take advantage of schools of choice and possibly that could be part of the implementation of that policy. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, that is a suggestion that is a good one to consider. I will pass that on to the Minister of Family Services.

It may be something that, again, when we look at the relationship that is being built between the two departments, the Child and Youth Secretariat might be interested in those kinds of suggestions that overlap jurisdictions. I just wanted to add, Mr. Chairman, while I am in control of the microphone, just a follow-up comment to what the member for W olseley (Ms. Friesen) had asked earlier. I have been thinking as we were talking here, the member for The Maples has sparked some thoughts in my mind about this whole issue of schools of choice.

The member for Wolseley had indicated concern, would this lead to school closure? I had indicated the parameters.

13 46 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 19 96 The member for The Maples then said, those parameters may be too tight in terms of full and complete access. The way the argument goes back and fo rth is very instructive because the dow nsides and upsides get examined this way. I did want to indicate that we are attempting as dili gently as we possibly can to preserve that balance between ensuring choice and at the same time ensuring the sustainability of small schools in commu nities. It is a tricky balance, and we are work ing hard to make sure that we can keep that balance good.

We still give fmancial preference in our funding fo rmula to small schools and that will continue and we also reco gnize that in the end it is only boards and school boards that can, in a case-by-case basis, close schoo ls. They have to abide by school closure guidelines. We are placing faith in the accountab ility of school trustees to be cautious and careful, particularly in small comm unities, to make decisio ns as to school closures or the examination of school closures with care, knowi ng that they wish to see their constituents advantaged as opposed to disadvantaged.

So I just wanted to indicate that we are aware of the balance between the two points raised very clearly by both opposition parties, both valid points, each displaying one side of the coin that is opposite from the other and both of those perspectives are ones that we are highly conscious of and very sensitive to and are wor king hard to achieve the balance. So I thank them both for those questio ns. Mr. Kowalski: Just moving to another area. Dr. Round s' report, we had talked to Dr. Rounds and asked him for a copy of his report and he indicated that it was not appropriate for him to release it at the time.

I understand now that the NDP Education critic has received a copy of the report as a response to a Freedom of Inform ation request. I am wondering if it is possible to request a copy of it from the minister without going through Freedom of Inform ation. Mrs. Mcintosh: I think what we could do, if it is of assistance, would be to table that here in Estimates this afternoon. Just checking with staff, I believe that we could have a copy up here fo r after the lunch break, and then that could be made available. Mr. Kowalski: Okay.

Just a coup le of further questions in regard to the Enhancing Accountab ility: Ensuring Quality document. Many of the questions that I had have already been asked. I have not been in the committee room at all times, so if any questions I am about to ask have already been asked, I do not want to waste valuable time in these Estimates. Let me know, and I will read the parts of Hansard that I missed. * (1 020) The Manitoba Teachers' Society put out a document entitled How to Make a Herring Red that had some criticisms of the document .

I would like to put some of those points fo rward to get the minister's response to them. First of all, in regard to the table on page 7 of the document, in regard to Canadian teachers' salaries, one of the criticisms from the Manitoba Teachers' Society was that the Manitoba salary figures fo r '93-94 and '94-95 do not show the impact on teachers' salaries of the Bill 22 days on that table. Can you respond to that criticism of that table in the doc wnen t, if it has not already been done in Estimates? Mrs. Mcintosh: It is a new question, so I will be pleased to try to provide an answer.

The salaries that you indicate there are the base salaries. They do not include either Bill 22 days from Manitoba, which some divisions but not all took, and they do not include the rollbacks that occurred in other provin ces. They are the base salaries agreed upon and not any subsequent divisions made in whole or in part to teaching groups in various provinces acro ss the country . Bill 22 days were not taken by half of the divisions in Manitoba so it is something that was not picked up by school trustees as a cost-saving measure by half of the province .

It could not be applied equally in the first instance since so many people did not receive Bill 22 days. Secondly, the rollback of teachers' wages that occurred in other provinces were not applied to their base rates. What was kept was the base rate, the base rate being the fo undation that stays in place because even with those divisions that took Bill 22 days, their base rate did not change. They did not have a rollback per se that would change their fo undation base. They were still earning $50,000 a year, if you like to put it that way, but they just were not work ing some of the da ys.

�ril 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1347 It was not like them coming back the following year with th.eir base rate only being 48. They come back the follo"ing year, their salary base has not changed. In fact, that was the complaint that some trustees put forward when hey said, we are not going to bother taking Bill 22 days because it does not get at the heart of the problem for us as a school board. It does not get at the base rate. It just enables us not to pay them for some days we give them ,Jff but next year we will have to pay them for that plus a11y raise, and we are not any further ahead.

It is just a temporary one- year relief. So school boards said, we do not need a temporary one-year relief, we need a long-term solution to the problem, and we are not taking Bill 22 days. 1 do not know if that provides the answer the member is seeking but that is the reason they used base rates and not any subsequent adjustments by Manitoba or any other provmce. Mr. Kowalski: I think it just shows that possibly we are comparing apples and oranges. I do not think we need to get into that debate any further because as the minister has indicated, in other provinces there were rollbacks.

We do not know if they were less or more than Manitoba. It is an average. It is not the reality of what maybe the major[ty of teachers received in Manitoba or the minority of teac hers. So I guess we go back to Mark Twain's quote about statis tics: There are lies; daillln lies and then there are statistics, and they are always open to int erpretation, comparison and that. So I think we can move on from there. The next criticism found in that document that I refern�d to, How to Make a Herring Red, is the table on page 9 that indicates the number of students versus the number of teachers.

What the Manitoba teachers know- [interjection] Someone at the table says that a nu mber of educators know-this table is entitled: The nu mber of students versus the number of teachers. The Manitoba Teachers' Society have on their document used data :'Tom the FRAME fmal budget reports and from profess ional school personnel database analyzed by the MTS research office. Their indication is that combined full-time equivalency of certified personnel since 19 96 has decreased by 4.2 percent and actual number of perso1s has decreased by 2.8 percent.

Can the minister respond to the differences between the goYenunent's document and what is in this paper put out by tht: Manitoba Teachers' Society? Mrs. Mcintosh: I harken back to what the member said about the Mark Twain quote, which I cannot quite recall, but it was a humorous quote that applies to the red herring document very well. Let us keep flipping this thing back and forth, because the red-herring document could be referred to as, how to build a mountain on a plateau or on a prairie.

I am not talking about making mountains out of mole hills, I am talking about building mountains on flat land that has no mole hill even to begin with. Because a lot of the things that are in that document, the red-herring document, are deep crimson in colour and could be the granddaddy of all red herrings. However, what the teachers have done for their own purposes, and I am not questioning what their purposes are, but they have chosen the year 1990, when teachers numbers were at their peak in Manitoba. I cannot imagine why they would have done that for their start as they are starting their countdown.

I can tell you what we have done. We have started with the year 198 8-89, which is the year that we came into office and, as the member knows and is probably sick to death of hearing this side of the House say whenever we stand up, when we came to office in 19 88, things were this way, since 19 88, when we came in office, things are now another way. So 198 8-89 is a benchmark year for this goverrunent, and it is frequently, maybe not in every instance, but frequently used as the starting date for comparisons between things that happened before and things that happened since.

So we started with the year we came to goverrunent, and we show a 2. 5 percent increase in the number of teachers, and that is correct. Those are full-time or full time equivalent teaching positions, signed to a Form 2 contract in the schools in Manitoba. That is up 2.5 percent, and that is correct. The teachers started from the peak ; they started from 1990 when teachers were at their peak numbers and the teachers have only counted classroom teachers.

They have not talked about the other Form 2 teachers that might be in schools such as resource teachers or teacher/librarians who teach full-time but do not register a class. They have not counted vice pri ncipals, all of those people who are educators and signed to a Form 2 contract who have a teacher's salary cost applied to them by the school division. I am not talking about secretaries or custodians or staff units, I am

1348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1996 talking about teachers and only teachers sign Form 2 contracts with school divisions. *

(1030) The teachers in their red-herring document threw out their own red herring and counted only classroom teachers, as if resource teachers and clinicians have no value in a school in terms of the education of the students and as if clinicians and resource teachers havt: no im pact in the classroom. While they may not register a class, they have absolute im pact on a classroom.

Just ask any school that does not have a resource teacher or that for some reason cannot get a clinician on the day they want them what it is like f or a classroom teacher not to have those other teachers in the school, eYen if they do not register a class. Yes, statistics lie-whatever it was that Mark Twain said. The sword cuts both ways. The red herrings i n the red-herring document turn the ocean a bright, bright hue of red. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I wonder at this point if it is the will of the committee to take a 1 0-minute recess An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Ten minutes.

The committee recessed at 10 :33 a.m. Af ter Recess The committee resumed at 10 :45 a. m. Mr. Deputy Cha irperson: Order, please. Mr. Kowalski: Just to get some clarification. I am looking at the MTS document and on their table for 19- An Honourable Member: Gary, can you pull your mike closer. Mr. Kowalski: Yes, I am sorry. I keep doing that. I apologize to Hansard and the committee for domg that. In the MTS document, they show that in the 1990-91 school year, they show ll ,889 full-time equivalency of instructional teaching personnel assigned.

They show another 160 full-time equivalency of clinical personnel assigned. They show 655 full-time equivalency of principals and vice-principals assigned for a combined ful l-time equivalency of these certified personnel of 12,705. The government's document shows the number of teachers as 12,703, a difference of two. Now, if the minister is saying their methodology was wrong, how do they account that their 1991 figure is within two people? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I indicated the MTS figures were wrong, but I am saying that the figures do not compare apples to apples.

It is like the old half -full. half-empty argument. Their figures are not \Hong, but they are based upon a different year and different types of teachers. So when we say we are starting with the year that we took office and we are including for our calculations all those people employed in a school who are assigned to a Form 2 contract, which is the contract giyen to teachers, we are counting in terms of cost then, the true cost to the school division to employ teachers.

Some of those teachers may not actually register a class but are in the schools to provide support to the classroom teacher and specialized services to the students in the school. They are, nonetheless, real teachers truly employed, truly paid, truly in the schools providing serYices to students and teachers and, theref ore, their existence cannot be denied.

To not count them is to dismiss them as being irrel eYant and of no consequence unless, of course, you are wanting to do a study on classrooms only, like the structure of an indiYidual classroom only, without counting the whole service proYided to the student body. So if you were using only instructional staff and you left out the clinicians. et cetera, then you will arrive at one figure which will be correct if identified, as the MTS document does, as only being the teachers who regist er a class.

If you include all the actual teachers in the building who work with and for teachers and students, then you will get another also correct figure. One refl ects only the classroom photograph; the other reflects the school photograph. One reflects only partial true cost to the divisiOn for those employed by a Form 2 contract; the

�ril 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1349 other reveals actual true cost to the school division for those employed on Form 2 contracts. So d1e figures in either case are not incorrect, but they are n•Jt comparing apples to apples and they are not talking about the true cost of hiring educators for schools in the teachers' document. They are in the accountability documen t, and that I think is part of the trustees' concerns.

The member has been a trustee and probably understands the fact that the cost of Form 2 contracts is not a wst that can be toned down because some of those holding Form 2 contracts do not register a class. * (1 050 ) So, I guess with a lot of these things where you have equally valid statistics being used to prove a point, that we could argue back and forth over the stats used by the teacher, which exclude numbers of Form 2 contracts, and the s: ats used by the accountability document, which includes all Form 2 documents, are differing statistics.

But I am wondering, if when we do that, we are enter:.ng into the red-herring area that the teachers are work eng hard to create, and I am wondering if then, that draw�; the focus deliberately or unconsciously away from the issue at hand. I might be interested to know if the member acknowledges or agrees with the difficulties stated by MAST. I have not heard from either opposition party as to whether or not they acknowledge that trustees may have a difliculty with trying to contain escalating costs. We know, for example, that this year we are beginning to finally see some zero settlements.

Many of those zero settlements this year will be offset by the fact that a lot of teachers will still be getting an arumal increment anyhow and are offset in some cases by the fact that it is a multi year agreement, which sees a raise coming in the subs(:quent year. If the member could indicate to me in his next commentary whether or not he acknowledges that whatever statistics are used, the cost to division for teachers' salaries rises, and that trustees' complaint that sometimes their ability to control that cost of escalation is taken away from them, is a valid concern or not.

Are we looking to address something here that really is no problem? Mr. Kowalski: At the beginning of the last answer, the minister indicated that maybe I was not recognizing the fact of the years being taken into account. I d o acknowledge in the government's docu ment-they started in '88-89, and in the MTS document, they started '90- 91-there is no question that there is a difference. But when I look at the year 1990, where they start, the nun1ber of teachers in the government document is 12,703 and the number of teachers in the MTS document is 12,705, so there is onl y a difference of two teachers.

Now, what I understand from what the minister is responding to that, when you go to 1995 where the government document shows 12,643, and the MTS document shows 12,354, the extra 289, she is indicating to me, are not classroom teachers. So that means between 1990-91 and 1996, there have been 289 nonclassroom teachers added into the education system. This is what she is telling me that the MTS document does not account for. Is that what the minister is saying? Mrs. Mcintosh: That can be the only conclusion that can be drawn from the difference in the figures.

The figures that we have drawn from come from the actual contracts signed by MAST, like signed and verified through the Manitoba Association of School Trustees . They are the employers. They know which contracts they have signed. They also are figures that are available from our school finance branch. I have been assured that both of those sources are reli able. They are the funding and governing bodies of teachers in Manitoba.

So the difference has to be then that there are more clinicians, resource teachers, those kinds of people in the schools which would reflect in some cases the entrance into the school of special needs students of differing types and would also perhaps reflect the number of people required to offset increased prep time in schools and so on. Our inclusion of tables on pupil-educator ratio, teachers' salaries, number of employees were put in the accountability docu ment to provide information to describe the majo r component of school board costs.

If we used Manitoba Teachers' Society figures, the essential matter is still the same; board costs for employment costs attributed to teachers is still around 65 percent. I am rounding off to give just a vision. That employment cost is real, verifiable and there. So, however you wish to descri be it, and our figures are sourced from reliable sources, are confirmed to be accurate, do use different

1350 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 19 96 years and diff ering groups, then the Manitoba Teachers' Society's very selective statistics do. Ours are encomp assing statistics. But the matter still is the same. Boards are indicating they need some better control over their costs fo r future decision making. I am wondering if the member fe els that is a legitimate concern that government needs to examine or if government should not be examining that particular issue. Mr.

Kowalski: On the next page, page 6 of the red herring document, there is a comparison made of Manitoba teachers' salaries percentage change in comparison to Manitoba average weekly earnings . The point that MTS brings fo rward is that it is comparing apples and oranges in the fa ct that it, fo r the teachers' sala ries included in that percentage, is increments fo r expe rience. They are indicating that the government 's figures fo r Manitoba average weekly earnings do not include that. It is on base salaries. Mrs. Mcintos h: What page? Mr. Kowalski: Page 6 of the MTS red-herring documen t.

What you compare is page 9 of the Manitoba government paper. And can the minister indicate the diff erences in how this is presented? Mrs. Mcintosh: I am somewhat hampered. I do not have the red-herring document in front of me. Maybe if we could kind of trade documents fo r a moment . I have got the Rounds report here now which we had indicated to the member we would try to table. If I could just pause fo r a moment, I have three copies, so there is one fo r each group here at the table, and I will provide that if it is possible just to get a quick look at the page the member is ref erring to.

The three documents. Mr. Chairman. Need one more? Here. * (1 10 0) I thank the member for sharing the document with us for that particular page. Indeed, it is true that in the average teachers' salaries that the annual automatic raise is included. The ann ual increment is included because that is real money that is given to teachers automatically on an annual basis because they have been in the classroom another year. It is a very true cost.

The other costs that are shown with the average Ma nitoba weekly earnings is also the true amount of money that people take home, and you cannot compare-if you are going to make a comparison, you have to say, if this year you took home $11 0 and last year you took home $1 09, then you have actually taken home more money in your pay cheque than you did bef ore. Your nei ghbour, who may be in a diff erent occupation or a different field of endeavour, last year mayb e took hyear, but the diff erence between last year and this year for him may not be as great as fo r teachers.

Obviously, looking at these figures, it would appea r to bear out that the average Manitoba weekly earnings have not had as high a pe rcentage change as the average Manitoba teacher's salary percentage change. To say that the annual increment does not count because it is given automatically fo r experience is to deny that there is any extra money given. School boards writing the cheque know the money they are writing on the cheque is real money that has to come from someplace.

The inherent assumption in the member's question is that all those who do not teach receive raises every year automatically on an incremental basis. That is simply not true. There may be some sectors of society that do, but I can assure you many people. and I think the member may know many people as \vcll, are employed with various occupations or industries where there is no such thing as an annual increment, that wages reflect the profitability of the firms fo r whom they work, or wages reflect the employer's ability to pay, or wages reflect the quality of service given.

Commissi oned salespeople. for example, do not receive an automatic raise because they have been working in the sales field a year longer. In fa ct. if they arc not producing they receive lesser money because their eff orts have not been able to produce enough to generate the commission that mi ght have been received the year bef ore. I am not fo r a minute suggesting that commi ssioned salesmen and teachers be recompensed in the same way , because that would be absolutely impossible.

But I am just using that to indicate that, yes, the annual increment is included, and yes, it is absolutely proper and important to include it, because it does reflect real money and it is a valid comparison than apples to apples, with the

April26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 135 1 average teacher's salary and the average weekly earnings earned by Manitobans who may not be fortunate enough to receive a raise because they have been in their jobs an extra year. As the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) pointed out so eloquently on behalf of the ND P the other day, one more year's experience could be a very bad year of experience, could be a year in which bad habits are reinforced and make the teacher absolutely worse than before.

The member for Burrows, the NDP critic that day, put that on the record as the NDP position: that a year of experience does not necessarily make a person a better teacher. A year of experience could, in fact, reinforce bad habits. That is the NDP position, and we acknowledge that many trustees concur and are worried about that question. I believe the vast majority of people, and I think that the NDP also would agree, that the vast majority of people, as they gain experience, do improve and become better, because of that experience.

But the point made by the member for Burrows is a point that trustees have asked, for some cases, for, I hope, exceptions and anomalies, not the rule. But still and all, in most cases, with very, very few exceptions, the annual increment is an automatic increment given regardless of performance, but simply because another year of experience has taken place. Mr. Kowalski: Just a brief comment on the value of a year's experience in many professions, and I will refer to my profession on police work, how many times the old senior cop has been around for 20 years.

Maybe he has never been promoted, but he remembers a similar crime that happened 20 years ago and he has something of value. Yes, sometimes, it is a bad year's experience in any profession, but, in the most part, experience does add some value and knowledge. So I will just make that general comment about a year's experience. It is a common practice in many professions and occupations. I believe right here in the government service that if we look at our caucus staff, if we look at our civil service with experience, they get automatic increases. * (111 0) Mrs.

Mcintosh: Just a quick correction, first of all, I indicate I do agree. I believe that in nine cases out of 10 experience does add value and knowledge. Particularly in police work, which is the member's background, you will see those whose years of experience are bad very quickly weeded out. The police force is one area where people who have successive years of bad experience do not traditionally remain, because the police force is pretty stringent about applying those.

I just want to indicate though that in the civil service there is a provision for a merit increment, an automatic increment as the member indicates, but it is not automatic. It has to be provided and I know because they come across my desk. Before anybody can receive their annual increment, the supervisor has to submit a signed approval form indicating that the performance has been evaluated and has been deemed to be meritorious and worthy of an increment. I believe the member may have received a copy of that so that it is not automatic by any stretch of the imagination,

whereas in school divisions it is given unless somebody intercedes to say, hey, do not give that which, if you check the record, very seldom happens, very seldom happens in education. Mr. Kowalski: On that same page, I do think that the teachers make a good point in that form. The teachers in my community or my neighbours and the ones I know through different committees that I have been on are always taking courses, are always continually improving their knowledge of the field and that, more so probably than any other occupation I know of.

Professional development is part of the culture in education, and that is a culture they try to pass on to their students. I do think they make that point very well in that when you are comparing percentage increases in pay, one of the reasons is that teachers do make the effort to continually upgrade their skills more so probably than many other professions. I do think they made that point very well on page 6 of their red-herring document. That is just more of a comment than a question.

The last area in that document that I would like to give the minis ter a chance to respond to on record here is in regard to the comparison of starting salaries, university graduates, where they show a teacher with four years university, $32,860, and then they compare that with someone with a masters degree making average $32,5 00. In their document, MTS notes that the engineers, for example, a survey report in 1994, the starting salary for engineers in Manitoba was $33, 600. What they are

1352 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1996 saying is that amongst professionals, many professionals, that figure that teachers have as a starting salary is not out of line. Does the minister want to comment on the MTS document? Mrs. Mcintos h: Mr. Chairman, the member had two points and I will addre ss the last one first bt:cause it is fresh in my memory, but I would like to go back and talk about the professio nal development and the train ing and so on because I think he has raised an important point that warrants discussion.

The point that he has just raised regarding the comparison of starting salaries, I find it interesting, and the member should note, that the MTS document, their red -herring document, they have used the same KPMG survey study that we did. So in that sense we are star ting-we both sourced a document that is identical. They cherry-picked the occupation they chose to highlight. I think the member knows the implic ations of that. We chose not to cherry-pick.

We took the average sala ry of all disciplines in a bachelor's degree and, according to the same study that the MTS document also sourced, we said-if you went to university and took a bachelo r's degree in any of the disciplines availa ble: a bachelor 's degree in music, a bachelor 's degre:e in law, a bachelor 's degree in engineering, a bachelor 's degree in science, a bachelo r's degree in arts, a bachelor 's degree in education, a bachelor 's degree in psychology, a bachelor 's degree in social work, a bachelor 's degree in human ecology, a bache lor's degree in you name it, all of the disciplines-what is the average starting sala ry for all disciplines with a bachelor 's degree, and the: answer is $27,200.

That is the average. All of those people have been to university for the same number of years, studied, we would presume, fairly simila rly to each other in terms of the degree of difficulty of task, and then went into the same world, Manitoba, to seek employment, and the average start ing salary for them all was $27,200. The average salary for those who got mast er' s degrees in all of those discip lines-psychology, human ecology, arch itecture, engineering, science, arts, education, biology, chemistry, pharmacy, all of those with master 's degrees-the average starting salary is $32,500. That is a fact.

It is from the same study that the teachers used. Teachers, in their bachelor degree-average starting sa lary, $32,860. Now we did pull teachers out and identified them specifically, because this whole document is about teache rs' salaries and how the teaching profess ion is compensated and the costs to boards. The Manitoba Teachers ' Society, by pulling out one discipline only, civil engineering, have cherry-picked an occupation. One could ask themselves why and one may be able to conclude an answer --because the starting salary for engineers is higher than the starti ng salary for teachers by about $800.

So engineers start about $800 a year more than teache rs. We are not going to get into arguments about whether or not it is harder to be an eng ineer because you have to take 11 courses a year inst ead of five which you have to take in education and all of those things that people can argue about. Is it harder to obtain a degree in engineering than a degree in education? Engineers would probably say yes. Teachers would probably say no. It is one of those things. But, they chose one out of all.

We chose all and we did not choose to cherry-pick and look around to see if we could find a discipline that had a lower starting salary than teachers . We are not going to. We are not going to look to cherry-pick. We are saying the average of all disciplines is this and the reality is factually known that the teachers start some several thousand dollars higher, except maybe engineers, who earn $800 a year more in their starting salai)·.

So that is one aspect and I do not apolo gize for refusing to cherry-pick occupatio ns. * (1 12 0) By taking the avera ge, I think you get the real place that-1 would compare my sala ry against the average MLA's salai)· across the country. I do not like to, actually, because it ranks ninth out of 10, but that is neither here nor there. I would not compare it just to one province. If I wanted to get a real indication of where I stood as an MLA, to compare it simply to one province does not give me that true, valid comparison. To compare it against all does and that is what we have done here.

You had indicated about education and training and we absolutely agree that professional development is a very important part of the culture, and it must be ongoing. We know other occupations know this. Chartered accountant s, for examp le, can actually lose their licence if they do not continue to upgrade themselves. Nobody

April 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1353 pays them to upgrade themselves. Nobody gives them the money to upgrade themselves. Nobody gives them extra credit for having upgraded themselves, but they are able to keep their licence and continue practising if they do. Doctors regularly upgrade themselves at their own expense and then write exams to upgrade themselves, and some of the exams cost $150 each to write. I have a good friend who is a physician who, in upgrading himself, had to fly to Toronto at his own expense to write an exam that cost him $150 to write at his own expense, and they must do that.

So we say this is also good. Teachers must also be relevant and upgraded and we applaud those who do use their summ ers to take courses relevant to education that will help them in their classes. We say this is a good way to spend the summer holiday. I say holiday, I maybe should take that back. I am told it is not a holiday, it is a period of unemployment. It used to be that teachers were paid on a 12-month basis and then they were given a 1 0-month basis.

I know in one division absolutely, because I was there when it happened, the teachers demanded the 1 0-month pay period as opposed to 12 months because, quote, unquote, it was really awkward driving in from the lake to pick up that August cheque. However, they asked for and received a 1 0-month pay period in some divisions so they are now paid their annual salary over 10 months. I understand that the two months in the summer is now referred to as a period of unemployment. That then has led some to say that the hourly rate for teachers has risen accordingly because they are only paid for 1 0 months of the year.

We can quibble about that. I do not want to. I am saying, I applaud them, many of them, for using the summer unemployment period to upgrade themselves and earn extra degrees and so on. We believe that is important. The question then comes, though, what benefits accrue to school divisions? In many cases they are dramatic. People who take certain courses and credits at university make a dramatic improvement in their ability to come into the classroom. Others will take courses that bear no relevance to what they are teaching in the classroom and could also receive compensation.

The question asked is, is there sufficient benefit in all the courses that are taken or in some and should any course taken, if it is in a course unrelated to teaching, be granted credit and extra money as applied to the classroom? That is a question we do not have an answer for. It is a question we have asked and the member may have some views on which we would be pleased to hear from the opposition. Mr. Kowalski: This will be my last question or comment, depending on the answer, of course. So I do not know how much longer I will ramble on. But I thank the minister for her response to this document.

I do not find that much value in debating the different points unless I have a real expectation of being able to change the minister's mind on some of these arguments and, other than that, I do not want to use up Estimates time other than to get information and get the minister on record. In that light, the minister has asked me to put some things on the record. The minister has asked, do I think trustees, if I could paraphrase the question, if l remember it accurately, are concerned about rising salary cost and it is a need that needs to be addressed?

I think that was the minister's question, that school trustees in Manitoba are concerned about salary costs. I would say, yes, they are concerned about salary costs, but they are also just as concerned about funding of education in Manitoba, they are just as concerned about teacher morale, because all of us have stated here at the table how important it is for teachers to feel valued because of their importance in the classroom. We have all said it, that the most important element in the success of a student in education is the quality of teacher.

I will not repeat what I said early in these Estimates about this document about, what is wrong with asking the question? I have already talked about that. But I know, my niece, Shelley Kowalski, is graduating from the faculty of education next month. Out of her class of 40, not one of them anticipates having a job in education in Manitoba. Whether that was the government's intent or whether some other people tried to create the impression that this document was attacking teachers, many teachers feel that way, and that has been passed on to students.

I asked the question in the House that the first minister res ponded to yesterday about, what future do teachers have in Manitoba as a career? As a result of decisions

1354 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA April 26, 19 96 made at the Winnipeg 1 School Division, as a result of their funding from the province, they have indicated that 27 first-year teachers may be fa cing layoff s. They will be added to the 600 graduates from the diff erent fa culties of education that will be looking for work in education. This document has made many teachers, many people considering teaching as a prof ession wonder, question whether teachers and educators are valued in this pr ovince and whether teaching education is still a good career to be in.

That was my main concern about this document that-you know, we have all read the history of how teachers retreated in small towns in early Manitoba, that quite often if they fa iled a school trustee's child they were out of a job, that their working conditions were poor and that they had to band together to be treated fairly. This document has made many teachers fee l that they are under attack, whether that is correct or not. I remember at the hearings in St.

Bonif ace. there was one Grade 12 student who had come fo rward and said that she had changed her mind from entering teaching as a career after this document was put out. I wil!l not repeat what I said earlier, but I am concerned on what this has done to the morale of teachers in Manitoba, how teachers fe el they are respected by society, by the gon:rnment, by the public, that teaching is a good prof ession, a respected prof ession, and it is a good career to be in. Depending on the answer, that will be my last comment on this line in the budget. Mrs.

Mcintosh: I do not know if the member was in the Health Estimates this morning, or here, when the member fo r Wolseley (Mrs. Friesen) said that it would be her last question, and I responded that I would be brief. So here we go again at any rate. The member raises several points that are worthy of discussion. I first want to say that the member indicated he would put some comments on the record if he thought he could pe rsuade me to change my mind.

I have been sitting here fo r many days saying that my mind is not made up on these issues, and I am seeking fe edback and opinion from people out there in the opposition. It is all right then to put your opinion on the record because it would be seen as helpful . * (1 130 ) I also had asked if the member could indicate to me if he fe lt that trustees' concerns were valid in terms of escalating costs. The member replied that he acknow ledged that trustees had concerns. We know trustees have concerns. We are painfully and absolutely aware that trustees have concern s. That is what sparked this whole process.

I think the whole world knows that trustees have conce rns. My question to the member was though, did he fe el trustees' concerns were valid? Everybody knows trustees have concerns. I am interested to know if the oppos ition fe els that the trustees' concerns are valid. Are they right to be concerned about rising costs? Are they correct in their repeated statements that the current process takes away their ability to make decisions in some areas that they fe el they require the right to make decisions in?

I did not hear the answer to that, so if you want , when I am finished, come back and indicate that, I would be pleased because sometimes I think in criticizing the process or in criticizing the fa ct that trustees have asked fo r strike, the opposi tion seems to be implying that the trustees' concerns are not legitimate and that there should be no change to the syst em of binding arbitration or teachers' compensation packages . I know there have been many who have contacted me who have asked me why the opposition does not seem to recognize the problem.

I have said, I do not know it is that they do not seem to have recognized the problem, they have not said where they stand on the problem. They have identified problems of process in our quest fo r dis covery and fe edback. but they themseh·es have not come fo rward to indicate whether they agree that trustees have a legitimate concern. We can get arguing about the way in which the government has put fo rth the paper and held the hearings and so on to the point that the real issue is not discussed, and sometimes it is a fa vourite tactic of opposi tion parties to talk about the process rather than the issue.

I am not implying by any stretch of the imagination that the member for The Maples is doing that. It would be more the official opposition, I think in that category, that takes that tactic. [inteijection] The member is official, but in terms of the official oppos ition, the NDP has been notorious in not replying to the question as to whether or not there is a problem. They criticized the process, the fa ct that the panel had two government MLAs rather than two opposition MLAs, or the fa ct that there was only two

April2 6, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1355 meetings of the Carlyle committee, or the fact that this or that or the other thing, but have yet to put on the record whether or not they feel trustees' concerns have any legitimacy or relevance. Because I am open-minded on this issue in that I am open to suggestions as to solutions, I acknowledge absolutely as Minister of Education, as an individual MLA and as a member of government and as a representative of my constituency, that I believe trustees do have a valid concern about the process of dispute resolution mechanism.

I have yet to hear any member of the opposition tell me whether they feel that concern is legitimate or whether they feel that the status quo is the preference.

I think it is critical for the purposes of this debate that the opposition have the courage to come forward and indicate where they stand on this issue because it is beginning to appear from a wide variety of observers that at least the official opposition does not have the courage to indicate whether or not the trustees' concern is legitimate, and that they can rather, by attacking the process of discovery and search for solutions, be seen to be walking both sides of the fence, pleasing the MTS by criticizing the process we are going through without offending the trustees by stating that the trustees do not have a concern.

So I think it will be imperative, and I will be pressing in the next few days to find out where the NDP stands and if the Liberals have a position, as well. An Honourable Member: Of course, we do. Mrs. Mcintosh: Okay, then the member can give us that position, and I encourage the NDP to give the position later in the day because this process requires absolutely in terms of accountability and responsibility that the opposition put its views as to the legitimacy of trustee concerns on the record. They have to be accountable as official opposition.

When the governm ent has stated they are developing a position, it is part of their responsibility as official opposition to state yes or no to the question, do the trustees of Manitoba have a legitimate concern? Yes or no. The opposition must state that to be truly accountable when the government has said it is looking for an indication of how to address this issue. To do otherwise is to abject their duties, to abdicate their responsibility, to fall short of their obligation as official opposition in terms of offering constructive criticism and opinion.

Straddling the fence and wading through the issues and trying to pretend they are on everybody's side is something that happens in opposition- An Honourable Member: That is the Liberals. Mrs. Mcintosh: Well, no, but the Liberals really believe that. The Liberals really could fall either way off the fence. The NDP usually is more strident in its position than that. So there is an obligation to come clean, to be honest, to put your position on the record. Do trustees of Manitoba have a legitimate concern, yes or no?

The official opposition can no longer duck the question, and must be responsible opposition members and provide that. However, the member for The Maples asked about the concern about how the Winnipeg School Division was concerned because they are having to lay off first-year teachers. They have to lay off first-year teachers, why? Because the collective agreements will say last hired, first fired. Why is the collective agreement in place? Because we have a bargaining system that runs a certain way. Why is this Winnipeg School Division laying off instead of retaining teachers?

Because their salary costs have risen; their funding revenues are down. Their funding revenues are down because we have a variety of circumstances that have impacted on school divisions that are real and cannot be avoided. School divisions would willingly pay less to their employees in order to retain full staff and are unable to. I in dicated yesterday that school boards had said to us that unless they can get a handle on the problem of dispute resolution mechanism and binding arbitration, they will have to resort to two things: raise taxes or begin to lay off hundreds of teachers.

They would probably resort to a combination of both because they absolutely refuse to raise taxes beyond a certain level, and we applaud them for that because we have taken the same stand. So they are left with one thing that they can do and that is to lay off teachers. I ask the member when he implies they are laying off teachers because of funding cuts-and I say to the member that the funding reductions that we have had to pass

1356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 26, 19 96 through are far less than our own revenue reductions would have imposed had we passed the whole cut that we received thr ough. I say to the member the:n, is there another factor maybe that might have influenced the layoffs? Could it be that teachers, by refusing to accept the lower settlement requested by boards, have had some small ability to influence whether or not there are layoffs in their division?

Could it be that having made the decision that a certain level of salary was mor�: important than a certain staff number in the division that the teachers themselves had some ability to influence who was laid off? I know that in industry that this holds true, that the employees will take a lower raise or a freeze or a cut in order to keep the full staff employed. * (1 14 0) Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James) : Mr.

Chairman, I would like to change the subject and move into what I believe is a pressing issue for families and children, and that is the pending pilot testing of the Grade 3 math exams coming up May 28 and 29. Many families and chi ldren-these are eight-year-olds that I an1 speaking of-are going to be facing a test provincial exam in preparation for next year and many of these young child ren are feeling a great deal of pressure, both by families and teachers as they wish to have the:ir students perform well.

Evidence that we have indicates that this may indeed hurt their performance in the future, and I wish to go through several questions in terms of the pending Grade 3 standardized math exam and the test that is coming up. A group of concerned parents have come together and they are called CAST, the Coalition Against Standardized Testing. I am going to go through their brief which I think is quite comprehensive and quite good, and I understand that the minist er has been forwarded a copy They raise several significant issues.

They have done what looks to be a fairly comprehensive review of research, and one of their No. 1 issues is that after reviewing the research and contacting the department, they state that they have found no sound pedological inf ormation to support standardized testing at the Grade 3 level. Can the minist er provide that empirical, statistical documentation to support standardized provincial-wide testing of Grade 3 children? Mrs. Mcintosh: I am getting some information here that will enable me to better respond to the member's question.

I do not know if it is coincidental or not, but I am intrigued that suddenly the topic and the subject got very swiftly changed the minute I asked the official opposition to put its opinion on the record as to whether or not the trustees had a valid concern. I thought I had made a rather strong, impassioned plea for the official opposition to come clean and be honest and answer the question with a yes or no; do you or do you not believe that trustees have a valid concern regarding the dispute resolution mechanism under which they are legally bound?

That request was made, and rather than give me the answer that I required to help me in my decision making, the member very quickly said, I am going to change the subject, which does not surprise me because they have been ducking that issue, straddling the fence, saying we do not like the wording in the document. We do not like that you are asking these questions. We do not like that teachers are worried.

But they have never said where they stand, and that is irresponsible as official opposition on an issue of this magnitude. and I am disheartened and dis couraged that they will not indicate whether or not they feel trustees have a valid concern. I would ask that some point be-particularly when this minister has indicated that her mind is open to receiving opinions and suggestions. So I would hope that at some point in the process the members opposite would have both the courtesy and the courage to answer the question trustees have. Are trustees credible in expressing their concern, or do they have no point?

Government needs to hear your position. The trustees need to know if you support them or not, and the public needs to know where you are coming from. They know full well you do not like the process that has been used, but are we going to keep deflecting attention away from the issue to discuss the wording that maybe could have been more user-friendly, and I acknowledge that, but the big issue here is not whether the wording could have been more user-friendly. The big issue is, what are the answers to the questions, and where do you stand on them.

So, here in Estimates, I realize that the opposition is never compelled to answer questions. I am here to

April 26, 19 96 LEGI SLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 1357 answer questions. The opposition can ask questions. The opposition has no obligation to answer questions, and therefore can duck issues, as they are doing on this one . So as the opposition continues to duck questions, refuses to reveal its position, will not identify where it stands, the opposition can claim that they do not have to reveal how they feel about these issues, or where they stand, or what decisions they make, because they are not here to answer questions. I quite agree.

They are not here to answer questions, and I have no right to ask them questions. It would not matter because every time I do ask them a question, they, as the member has ju st done in saying, I think I will change the subje ct because I do not want to talk about this anymore because, indirectly, the minister is putting questions on the record that: (

a) I cannot answer, (

b) I am unwilling to answer, (

c) I do not have the courtesy to answer, and (

d) I do not have the courage to answer. So at some point in this whole debate when we make our position clear, you could do the people of Manitoba a great service and let them know that you do have some answers, some solutions, some alternatives, some suggestions, that you are able to do more than to ju st say, no, no, no, or ask questions for which you yourself have no answers. It is important you ask questions. I believe part of your role is also to present some alternatives and you have not done it.

I jus t say that if you want to change the subje ct and avoid the question that I have asked-[interjection] An Honour able Member: Answer the question . . . development of children. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The question has been posed. The members sitting around the table on the opposition side and government side have the right to ask questions in the way that they choose, and the minister also has the right to answer those questions in the way she chooses.

As long as we are within this section, which applies to almost everything within the budget of Education and Training, that is how it has to be. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, I have been unfailingly courteous. Except for this particular question, the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) has not been in this Chamber over the last couple of days where I have been sitting here with great patience and courtesy and friendliness to answer questions put forward. I have been constructive dialoguing for days here. If the member had ever been here she would know it, and the member for Wolseley (Ms.

Friesen) can confirm the degree of detail and patience that I have shown in answering the questions. Finally today I say: Where do you stand? And I get: Change the subject. Fine, I will change the subje ct, but to imply that my role here is not, ftrst and primarily, for the beneftt of children is an implication that is wrong, and I do not accept that.

Just as I acknowledge that she does care about children, I expect that same acknowledgment back to me based upon my record and the way I have answered questions to date, until I came to your blocking on the issue of arbitration for teachers. * (1 150 ) I want to indicate that nowhere in that document are we attacking teachers. We value teachers. I do not want that to be left unsaid . For the beneftt of children, the member asked that I talk about what is of beneftt to children. I am answering her question. I value teachers. Teachers are essential, and they must be fairly treated.

If we do not retain good people then we will not be attracting good people to the profession, but we also have to have a fair and sustainable balance in the system between what we can afford and what we would like to be able to afford, and when a Ph.D. is achieved and it may be of great value, is it something that boards are willing to give up hiring a second teacher for to obtain in the classroom, and I think those questions are questions that are fair and reasonable to ask.

It is not meant at all in any way as an attack on any particular group of people, because we do value teachers ju st as we value other groups of society whose wages and remuneration are being questioned by the rat epayers and the taxpayers and those who employ them, in this case school boards. B oards feel they have lost some control over employer rights. I still would like to know if the opposition feels that boards are correct when they say they feel they have lost control over employer rights.

It gets right back to the heart of the issue, and I still feel it would be nice to know if the opposition feels boards indeed have lost some employer rights.

1358 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 19 96 Regarding the testing of Grade 3 children, these tests are not being counted for a final mark unless the division wishes. They are intended to be diagnostic in their presentation. They are to be able to provide a snapshot of a moment of learning on a wide comparative basis. It will be based upon the curriculum, so there should be no surprises to anybody. They are pilot tests. The results will not be published.

They are expected to be invaluable, based upon experiences in other jurisdictions and historically, into providing early insight into the progress of a child, so that diagnostically measures can be put in place to ensure maximum development and potential. There is not research on standardized testing regarding the value of early testing, and we are not talking standardized testing. We are talking standards tests. They are norm referenced.

They are standards tests, criterion referenced They are not standardized tests, and I believe the member knows the difference between standardized tests and testing for standards. Two very, very different things which I am going on the assumption she understands, given her background, but if she would like explanation I would be happy to provide it. Those will provide very helpful, useful information to inform parents and teachers and students about progress. They are designed to be helpful, and we believe they will be helpful not hurtful.

We have to assist parents, teachers and empower them with valid, reliable information early in a child's progress in the school system, but it is regrettable that the member and her supporters do not believe that standards testing will help or whether they believe they will be harmful . We do not bel ieve it is harmful to do early diagnosis, and without early diagnosis, you condemn some children and their parents to many years of schooling trouble before problems are identified. Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Chairman, I am particularly upset with the minister's 90 percent of her

preamble to getting to the answer of my question. I sincerely came for nine o'clock this morning to ask a series of questions in regard to the Grade 3 e xams . I do not appreciate her political rhetoric and her baiting the opposition. This is a very serious issue that affects children and families. She clearly used, I would say, nine of I 0 minutes on something that I did not come here to discuss, and I thought it was my mandate to ask the questions. So I take from that that her priorities are clearly not what mine are. I was not trying to avoid her baiting. Well, perhaps I was.

She chooses to spend the morning insinuating and attempting to rile up people, while my goal here was to try and get some facts and, hopefully, sound rethinking perhaps on the matter of provincial testing of eight-year olds. The minister is insulting, quite frankly, insulting those families that are concerned about this issue and insulting all of these parents who have indeed forwarded their concerns to the minister by her addressing a totally different subject-! find unbelievable.

This minister in the past has been co-operative to me as one member in the Chamber, and I am extremely disappointed that she did not take my question seriously and did not answer it, I think, in a comprehensive way that it deserves. I am disappointed because the member in a past life was a trustee, did deal with families, understands that eight year-aids who are facing-! am not talking about testing-there are all sorts of tests that occur all the way from the year that children enter schools, and she knows that.

The point is that they are going to be facing for the first time a standardized exam, provincially run , and this is the preparation for an event that is going to occur next year. The issue here-and my question was never answered. My question was to the minister: What empirical and statistical documentation is there to support standardized testing of Grade 3 children? A comprehensive review of the research indicates that by preparing one test method, or even three test methods, is not going to mean that those children will have a tool that can measure their capabilities.

In fact, that is why, one of the sound reasons why back in the '70s standardized exams were abandoned. It was not a comprehensive testing tool that worked. In filet, the minister and her government are now moving toward a program of testing that will involve compulsory testing of every child in Grade 3 except for those that are in a very specific category, I believe, that fall into a category of special needs, using a fairly specific testing instrument that may be wrong for that one student. The concerns about the psychological damage that this could cause to eight-year-olds is what my question was surrounding.

For the minister then to go on a tirade about a document that my colleague from the Liberal Party was

Apr il 26, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 1359 discussing with the minister seems to be-like I said earli er-a matter that tried to deflect and avoid answering the serious questions that are dealing with a situation that is going to aff ect every child in Manitoba who is eight years-old, and that is to take eff ect, if the program goes on as scheduled, next year.

Now, I hope more reason will fo llow, as I know the minister has said in the past that she has an open mind, and I ask her to review, to ask the department to review all of the research that is available in terms of this prog ram to see if we can look at a more comprehen sive fo rm of testing that is not administered centrally by the provmce . There is clearly the need fo r standards testing, and that can be done locally. Parents need clear outcomes and clear accountability.

The concern that I have is that there is going to be a test administered May 28 and 29 to most students in the province of Manitoba, and in this case I have heard horror stories of children who are already appreh ensive, are trying to prepare fo r the exam, teachers are teaching to the exam, and fa milies are, as the minister would know, preparing fo r a massive boycott of participating in the exam on May 28 and 29. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will be recessing fo r dinner. When we return, the member will have fo ur minutes remaining to pose comments and/or questions.

We are recessed fo r dinner until one o'clock. The House recessed at 12 noon. Af ter Recess The committee resumed at 1:0 4 p.m. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Peter Dyck): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration ofthe Estimates of the Department of Education. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item I. (b) (1) on page 34 of the Estimates book. The honourab le minister, to respond to the question that was asked bef ore . Mrs. Mcintos h: Mr. Chairman, the question had been put just bef ore the lunch break requesting some additional inf ormation about student asses sment. There had been a bit of debate going on about the arbitration paper, which was tidied up, and then on to this particular topic.

I note just in passing and a one-sentence observation that the member asking the question, the member fo r St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) had indicated that I spent a goodly portion of my answer addre ssing the previous question on accountability and she wanted to talk about asses sment and exams. I just note in passing, by interest when people check Hansard, in doing that she spent a goodly portion of her question addre ssing the same previous question bef ore getting down to the assessment question.

As I have indicated bef ore, a sword cuts both ways and standards that are to be applied to one should also be applied to the other. (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) Having said that, I will move off the arbitration paper because I know the opposition is reluctant to continue discus sing that. We will move on to the area of assessment which is extremely important and an area that this government has taken a position on that in this instance the opposition has also taken a position on.

We believe in asses sment and evaluation and regret that the opposition does not share our views in this regard, because we believe that asses sment and evaluation is an extremely important step in the ability of a student to progr ess in a reasonable and thoughtful way through the learning proce ss. We believe that it is important to know that a student has acquired prerequisite skills bef ore new areas oflearning are imposed upon that prerequi site.

We believe that the only way you can know if a student has acquired the required prerequisite knowledge is to check, to assess, to evaluate and to test to see if bef ore you begin the multiplication tables the concepts of addition are truly and genuinely absorbed by the student. We also believe that bef ore you begin the teaching of certain areas of literature that it is important to test fo r literacy so you know that when you assign these students to a higher skill task, the essential preliminary skills are known and understood. I think that most educators believe that as well.

Whether or not there have been fo rmal processes of evaluation and assessm ent put in place, the majority of good teachers have instinctively and automatically done that asses sment. What we are

1360 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 19 96 saying is that we believe it is important that it not just be done by accident but that it be done by design. I would indicate from New Directions that te:sting at all levels or grades stems from a foundation of common sense and as New Directions indicat es : Student assessment is a continuous systematic and comprehensive process designed to determine the extent to which student learning outcomes have been achieved. This assessment process involves careful planning, systematic implementation and comprehensive analysis,

interpretation and reporting of results. It is an integral part of teaching and learning. Assessm ent must be based on clear student learning outcomes and standards of achievement where applicable. Asses sment must reflect the breadth, depth and compl exity of the learning situation and the learning requirements of all students. Assessm ent must consider aspects such as cultural and gender bias as well as learning requirements such as the need for large print or Braille assessment tools or oral testing procedures.

Assessment must allow all students to demonstrate the progress they have made towards achieving their highest potential in relation to student learning outcomes and standards of achievement . Assessm ent must be clear, must be meaningful, must be honest to students, parents, teachers, employers, educational institutions and the public. It is es sential that students be allowed to demon strate the progress they have made because such knowledge can give a sense of progress and motivation. The member for St. James (Ms.

Mihychuk) had asked this morning that we be concerned that students were worried about the exams and that the exams would be hard on the students in terms of their egos and their comfort. I indicate to the member that there is no need, in my opinion, for students or parents to worry about the fact that the stud

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-24b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 24b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fcb31e09ea1552ace0ad51f48a0442d199ec3879

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