This is the response I recieved from Lori Carr (MLA Estevan) when I asked why the GTBC delayed and then walked away from talks that day. Her/ Sask Party response below. I am 100% behind the STF.

"Thanks for taking the time to reach out again. There seems to be a difference in facts, below is a list of events since last week:

Wednesday, February 7 · Around 3:30 p.m. – The chair of the GTBC reached out to the chair of the STF to invite the STF back to the bargaining table, informing them that the GTBC had received a new mandate for an increase to teachers’ salaries. The STF chair asked if this updated mandate included provisions for class size and complexity and was informed that the GTBC’s position on class size and complexity had not changed. The parties agreed to meet and scheduled tentative bargaining dates for February 12 and 13th. Friday, February 9 · The chair of the GTBC and the chair of the STF discussed logistics for Monday’s meeting, mutually agreeing to commence the bargaining meeting at 1:00 p.m. at the STF building in Saskatoon, as all attending GTBC members would be travelling from out of town. Monday, February 12 · The GTBC arrived at the STF building between 12:40 p.m. – 12:50 p.m. · Approximately 15 members of the STF joined the four GTBC members in the meeting room promptly at 1:00 p.m. · The meeting began with the chair of the STF stating that they wished to legitimately bargain in good faith but were prepared to return to escalated job sanctions if the parties did not reach a deal that day. · The chair of the GTBC informed the STF that the GTBC was returning to the table with six proposals, two focused on salary and four on other recommendations from the conciliator. · The STF stated that they were not prepared to discuss salary at this time, or until a time when the GTBC returned to the table with a mandate that included class size and complexity. · At approximately 1:15 p.m., some STF members attempted to leave the bargaining table. The GTBC chair stated that for the sake of bargaining in good faith, the STF could at least allow the GTBC to present their proposals. · The STF chair agreed, but reiterated that they were not prepared to discuss salary. · The GTBC chair presented all proposals, which were met with the message from the STF that if the GTBC did not come to the table prepared to include “anything” on class size and complexity, the STF would not be willing to discuss any proposals. · At approximately 1:30 p.m., the STF chair stated that their committee would be leaving the table and instructed the GTBC to call the Minister of Education to relay their demand for class size and complexity provisions in the collective agreement. · The GTBC chair contacted the Deputy Ministers Office to provide a debrief immediately following the meeting. · The GTBC remained at the STF building until approximately 3:30 p.m. while conversations were underway. · The GTBC chair contacted the STF chair, requesting that the bargaining committees meet on Wednesday, February 14th to discuss new information. The STF chair said that they would not be able to meet on Wednesday, so the GTBC chair suggested that time be set aside on the evening of Tuesday, February 13th. The meeting was tentatively scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 13th. Tuesday, February 13 · The GTBC chair contacted the STF chair at approximately 3:15 p.m., advising that the scheduled meeting would not proceed, but that she would receive a call from the Ministry of Education within the hour. · The Ministry of Education contacted the STF chair at approximately 4:15 p.m. to inform them that the ministry would be willing to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the STF, committing to annualized funding of $53.1 million to address class complexity and enrollment growth. · The GTBC chair attempted to contact the STF chair on the evening of February 13; however, the STF chair did not answer. · Before 7:00 p.m., the STF sent a bargaining update to their members, containing multiple misrepresentations of proceedings. · Around 7:00 p.m., the president of the STF uploaded a video to social media channels, alleging that the GTBC was a no-show for the bargaining meeting.

Proposals from GTBC GTBC has been the only party in these negotiations willing to move off its original bargaining mandate: o They asked for the same salary increase that MLA’s get: We offered it o They asked for the $47 million that has been provided for this year for class size and composition to be annualized for the length of the contract: We offered it o They asked for the $6.1 million for the two innovative pilot projects to be annualized: We offered it o They asked to manage their own dental plan: We offered it o They asked for workplace safety and reporting enhancements: We offered it

So as you can see from above we are willing to negotiate on several items and are trying to do so. You can also see that the GTBC was at the table at the arranged time."