SECE's View on Manitoba Teacher Regulation

SECE would like to wholeheartedly acknowledge and thank the Government of Manitoba for engaging us in its consultation process aimed at developing a stronger Teacher Regulation Framework, which is essential for effective sexual abuse prevention and ensuring student protection against potential threats.  

SECE applauds the following proposed changes in the new teacher regulation framework. We believe these changes will better protect students from teachers who intend to harm them:  

Allow the general public to make complaints directly to the Independent Commissioner. This initiative will facilitate better access and transparency in reporting problematic teachers, providing victims a safer place to report their experiences of abuse.  

Hold public hearings and make consent resolutions and related reasons public.  

Create a public registry where teacher misconduct decisions will be recorded indefinitely.  

Institute mandatory sexual abuse awareness training for teachers.  

However, SECE is concerned that several proposed changes do not create a fully independent body and process as recommended in our 2022 Report.  

The Independent Commissioner will be appointed by the government of the day and will serve at their pleasure. Our view is that the Commissioner should be appointed by a vote in the legislature and only be dismissed by a legislative vote, which would enhance the independence of the Commissioner to act without fear of reprisal.  

While we are pleased that the staff supporting the Commissioner will be full-time public servants appointed on the basis of merit, we worry that they will report to the Registrar instead of directly to the Commissioner. This structure means these public servants will ultimately report to the serving Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning, not to the Commissioner. Furthermore, the Commissioner will have to delegate authority to these employees for the Commission to function, creating conflicts of interest and confusion that could undermine the effectiveness of the Commission. For the Commissioner, it will be akin to flying a 747 with gear shifts disconnected from everything.  

SECE recommends that these employees report to, and be hired and managed by, the Commissioner, as they will exercise the Commissioner’s delegated authority.  

Additionally, while we welcome the inclusion of public members on the hearing panels, the proposed changes do not sufficiently guarantee that these adjudicative panels will make decisions free from conflicts of interest. The teachers’ unions, representing a third of roster members, owe a duty to their fee-paying members, while School Boards, whose representatives make up another third, may face civil suit liabilities to victims. SECE believes that both these groups hold conflicts of interest and face divided loyalties. Students harmed by their teachers would be more suitably served by a roster comprised of professional, trained adjudicators with no current affiliations to either teachers’ unions or school boards, appointed solely based on merit and qualifications.  

SECE asserts that the legislation requires schools to report cases to the Commissioner far too late in the process, often long after serious harm has been inflicted. This delay could lead to evidence contamination and underreporting to the Commissioner. While allowing the public to report cases directly to the Commission is a step forward, many instances will be uncovered or reported within the school itself. Currently, schools are mandated to report cases only after they have disciplined the teacher involved. Research shows that school principals and administrators are often unqualified to conduct sexual assault investigations and may inadvertently retraumatize victims and their families during interviews. Moreover, school personnel may struggle to remain objective due to preexisting relationships with those involved, and in some cases, staff may have been socially groomed by the predator teacher. SECE strongly believes that local schools and school boards should not undertake investigations into serious allegations of teacher misconduct. As such, when a school is notified of a serious allegation, cases should be immediately referred to the Commissioner, who is better positioned to conduct objective, professional, and arms-length investigations.  

SECE urges lawmakers to further consider how to implement a robust regime of prevention. While the mandatory training outlined in the new framework is a commendable start, it would be greatly improved by incorporating additional mechanisms for early intervention to prevent serious harm before it occurs. For instance, many children experience grooming behaviors before being sexually exploited by their teachers, including receiving gifts, being driven home, and spending time alone in classrooms or offices. When these high-risk behaviors are observed in a school environment, SECE recommends that they be reported immediately to the Commissioner. This proactive approach allows for timely intervention, including further teacher education, and prevents more severe harm from occurring. Moreover, this reporting will facilitate a better-documented history of problematic behaviors, which will aid investigations if abuse is subsequently reported.  

Without early intervention at the grooming stage, cases may only be reported after serious harm has been done. By requiring that bystanders, including teachers and school staff, report suspicious behavior to the Commissioner—and sanctioning those who fail to do so—schools can foster an environment of vigilance against sexual abuse. Furthermore, providing protection from retaliation for reporting and accepting anonymous complaints will enhance early detection and prevention efforts.  

SECE would be pleased to testify before the Manitoba Legislature as it considers these vital reforms.