Legislative Assembly of Ontario

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

CONTENTS

Monday 17 November 1997

Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, Mr David Johnson /

Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation,

projet de loi 160, M. David Johnson

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair / Président

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr John Tomlinson, senior counsel, legal services branch, MET

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

Monday 17 November 1997 Lundi 17 novembre 1997

The committee met at 1624 in committee room 228.

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.

The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. We are commencing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, pursuant to an order of the House passed Monday, October 6, 1997. I will not read the whole of the order, however, I will read the applicable part today:

"That the committee shall further be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after routine proceedings until 6 pm, and from 7 pm to 9:30 pm, on the first regularly scheduled meeting day of the committee following the tabling of the proposed amendments."

We are therefore sitting from now until 6, and then we will return from 7 to 9:30 am.

Interjection: It's pm.

The Chair: Sorry, pm. I'm getting ahead of myself; that might be Tuesday.

I should mention that I am still the Chair of the justice committee. I have received a new appointment; however, I have not been sworn in as parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General nor have I taken part in any briefings by the Attorney General. I will continue with the committee for today and tomorrow as the Chair.

I will now ask the standard question: Are there are comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill and, if so, to which section?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Chair, is it your intention to work through the amendments in the order they have been presented?

The Chair: Yes. We would start off with the next amendment. I thought there might be some general discussion, but we are working under time allocation.

Mrs McLeod: For exactly that reason, I'll certainly forgo any general comments. I'd like to get to the substance of the fairly significant amendments.

The Chair: Excellent. Thank you, Mrs McLeod. If there are no general comments we will proceed to an amendment. If I may, just for a matter of convenience, I'll refer to it as item 1, being a motion of the opposition to amend Bill 160.

Mrs McLeod: The motion is that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following. I'm sorry, I'm thrown off by the introduction of another amendment in my binder.

"The Education Act is amended by the following section:

"Purpose

"0.1 The purpose of this act to achieve quality and excellence in education in Ontario" --

The Chair: Excuse me, that is not the item 1 I have.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, my ordering is quite different.

The Chair: There are compiled copies down there so that we're all speaking from the same hymn book, so to speak. If members do not have them, I would suggest you get them.

Mrs McLeod: Just so that I'm clear, are we dealing with them in the order in which they've been tabled as opposed to the order in which they deal with the bill? We're not working our way consistently through the bill?

The Chair: We are dealing in the order that they should appear in the bill, notwithstanding any time of filing, and that is a general one so I take it that's why the clerk exercised discretion in putting that first.

Mrs McLeod: I move that the provisions of the Education Act, as set out in the bill be amended by:

(a) striking out "board member," "member of a board" and "member of the board" wherever those expressions occur and substituting in each case "trustee";

(b) striking out "board members," "members of a board" and "members of the board" wherever those expressions occur and substituting in each case "trustees";

(c) striking out "members for the Protestant separate school board" wherever that expression occurs and substituting in each case "trustees for the Protestant separate school board."

We've presented this motion with some concern about what the government's intention is in moving away from the term "trustee," which has traditionally described elected members of a school board, and using the term "board member." It may seem like a small point. I won't speak to it at length, but it does raise concern about the government's belief in the role of school trustees. Those who have been school trustees believe that they are indeed entrusted with the education of the students in their community and the term "trustee" is valued by them because it does define their role. At a time when the government is seriously limiting the role of the school trustee, it seems to further that agenda by substituting the traditional term "trustee" with "board member," and that's why we've proposed this amendment.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I just wanted to speak very briefly in support of Mrs McLeod's amendment. The reason the word "trustee" is important is because it signifies that the education of our children is entrusted to these people who are elected to deal with education. I think it's important that it be reinserted into this legislation because it would indicate that, unlike the Premier, the members of this committee trust the members of school boards to care about the quality of education and the needs of our children. We do not subscribe to the philosophy that the Premier expressed when he said that trustees and teachers could not be trusted to properly manage the education system and care for the needs of our children. For those reasons I support the amendment of Mrs McLeod.

1630

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this particular motion. Certainly there is some validity to the viewpoint that Mrs McLeod has raised. It is our experience that "board member" and "trustee" have typically been interchanged throughout the act. The objective within Bill 160 is to bring some consistency to the application of that term. For that reason the government will not be supporting this Liberal motion. There is nothing precluding the continued use of "trustee" as indicated by the Catholic trustee association, which very clearly indicated the historical relevance of that particular term. The government will not be supporting this particular motion.

The Chair: Is there further discussion regarding the amendment proposed by Mrs McLeod? If not, all those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment fails.

Mr Wildman, there is some real doubt as to the order of item 2. You might first of all want to deal with the procedural --

Mr Wildman: Perhaps I could move the motion and then we could deal with the question as to whether or not it's in order.

The Chair: Fine, thank you.

Mr Wildman: I move that the committee recommend that the bill be split into three pieces of legislation, thereby giving the government time to thoroughly consider the ramifications of the legislation and respond to the needs raised by the public. I'm just looking for the exact wording here and I don't seem to have it. Does the clerk have it? Thank you.

I move that Bill 160 be divided into three separate bills as follows:

1. The first bill shall contain sections 1 to 79, 128 to 140 of part I of Bill 160, and parts II and III of Bill 160.

2. The second bill shall contain sections 80 to 112 and sections 114 to 127 of part I of Bill 160.

3. The third bill shall contain section 113 of Bill 160.

If you want to deal with the question of whether it's in order, I'd like to speak to the motion, Chair, if I could.

The Chair: Please proceed, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: As I said, the purpose of this motion is to split the bill into three pieces of legislation to give the government to thoroughly consider the ramifications of its legislation and the views of the public and to deal with those concerns. We believe the bill should not be moved hastily through the Legislature. This is shown by the significant number of government amendments that have been put. Obviously this is a poorly drafted bill, or it wouldn't need so many amendments. This would give the government time to reconsider the legislation that is not proceeded with immediately.

What we're proposing to do is that the changes related to the amalgamation of school boards and the transitional issues that must be dealt with according to the government before January 1 in order to fully implement Bill 104 on the establishment of district boards could go forward. That would be the first piece of legislation.

The second, matters related to collective bargaining, could be allowed to be dealt with later after more discussion with teachers, teachers' federations, parents, trustees and others, so that we could properly respond to the collective bargaining concerns in a more rationale way.

The third bill would deal with the educational finance issues, which frankly should be held off until we have the funding formula. It doesn't make sense that we would proceed on these matters without knowing what the funding formula is.

This is put forward, I hope the government members understand, in a spirit of goodwill, assistance and compromise to assist the government to deal with this in a rational manner. We will be able, if this is ruled in order and is accepted by the committee, to recommend to the Legislature that the government could proceed with the amalgamation of school boards, the establishment of the new boards by January; it could deal with the very contentious regulatory aspects of the bill, the matters related to collective bargaining through consultation over the winter and proceed then I suppose in the spring; and it could deal with the financing matters after everyone has seen the funding formula and we are able to have input into the funding that is allowed.

This is proposed in a very serious way of trying to respond to a very controversial number of issues that have been raised by Bill 160, which is really omnibus legislation, puts it together in digestible bites and allows us to proceed in a serious and responsible way. I commend the amendment to the members of the committee.

The Chair: Is there anyone who wishes to address whether or not this particular motion is in order, first? If not, I will deal with that after discussing the matter with the clerk.

Mrs McLeod: Then at what point is there further debate on the motion, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: There may not be any if my ruling is that it is out of order.

Mrs McLeod: Then given the fact that the presenter of the motion was able to speak on it, can we have some --

The Chair: He spoke, I believe, as to whether it was in order or not.

Mr Wildman: I was attempting to.

The Chair: There were some extraneous matters that I permitted. If you wish to address whether it is in order or not, please do so. I won't be restrictive in that discussion.

Mrs McLeod: I suspect that your ruling will be that it's not in order, but I suspect that it would also have been possible at any point in time to have this motion acted upon. In fact, the motion was presented to our committee on a number of occasions, could have been acted on by the committee, was defeated each time by the government members of the committee, as you will be aware. Even though we are very much aware that there are parts of this bill which the government needs in a given time line, quite clearly Mr Wildman's motion is to facilitate the progress on those parts of the bill which the government needs by January 1 and to allow for some further debate and discussion on the parts of the bill which are truly contentious. However, since similar motions were defeated regularly at committee when they were presented both by Mr Wildman and myself, I suspect you will be ruling that this is not in order, and I regret that fact.

The Chair: If I may make my ruling then, the motion proposed by the member for Algoma would have Bill 160 divided into three separate bills. Considering legitimacy of the proposal, the Chair must base the decision on the precedence of British parliamentary tradition.

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, states the following on page 483 under the heading "Admissible Instructions": "Division of bill. An instruction is required to enable a committee to divide a bill into two or more bills, but such instruction is in order only if the bill is drafted in two or more distinct parts, or otherwise lends itself to such division into parts."

Neither in the committee's time allocation order of Monday, October 6, 1997, nor in any subsequent order in the House, has this committee been given an instruction that would authorize the division of Bill 160 into separate bills. Failing such instruction from the House, I must rule the motion made by Mr Wildman out of order.

Item 2 is therefore out of order and we will move to an opposition motion dealing with a new section, being item 3.

Mrs McLeod: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"0.1 The Education Act is amended by adding the following section:

"Purpose

"0.1 The purpose of this act is to achieve quality and excellence in education in Ontario through a partnership between pupils, parents, teachers, boards and government with this as its goal and through the participation of members of the public in decisions affecting education."

There is a noticeable lack of a purpose clause in this bill. I thought it was interesting that when the Minister of Education was asked in the House today where the term "quality" appears anywhere in the bill, he referred only to the title of the bill, which I guess is the only place in which the minister could find any reference to quality at all. It's our belief that if a bill is supposedly to speak to the quality of education, then at the very least, even if the entire context of the bill is subversive of quality of education, there should be a statement of purpose which carries the title of the bill into the stated goals the bill is to achieve.

1640

We have worded a purpose clause in this amendment which reflects what we believe to be the purpose of an act, should be the purpose of an act which would be focused on achieving quality and excellence in education, and that makes the purpose the achievement of a true partnership between pupils, parents, teachers, boards and government and the participation of members of the public in decisions affecting education.

I'm not optimistic that my amendment will be supported, even though I think it is regrettable that the only reference to quality of education is in the title of this bill and nothing further in the context of the bill refers to or supports quality in any way. But I recognize the fact that if the government members were to accept my amendment, then they would have to make significant amendments in the bill because the bill, throughout almost every aspect of it, destroys any effective partnership between the participants and the system. So my purpose clause indeed would be at odds with the balance of the bill. I recognize that, but I think it's important that somebody at least talk about having some reference to quality of education in the context of this bill.

Mr Wildman: I guess it goes without saying that this bill, although entitled as a bill to deal with quality of education or to make improvements consistent with the government's agenda, which they say is an agenda for quality education, doesn't have anything in it that deals with quality of education.

My leader, in question period today, pointed out that in a scan of the bill, going through the bill, you cannot find the words "quality of education" anywhere in this legislation. You can find references to "money" and "finance" 69 times in the legislation, but nowhere do you find "quality education." When the minister was responding to my leader's question, he only referred to the title of the bill because that's the only place you can find the words "quality" and "education" together.

I support my friend from Fort William's amendment. I hope that the government members will support it, but I do so with the caveat that we're going to have to change a lot more about this bill than put a purpose motion in it, and I'm sure my friend from Fort William agrees with me. If it's really going to deal with quality of education, just putting the purpose clause in here is not going to change the transfer of power, the centralization, the lack of local accountability that goes part and parcel with the changes the government is proposing in this legislation.

So I support the amendment, I hope the members of the government will also, but I hope that is a precursor then, if they do, of the fact that they will agree to a lot more amendments put forward by my friend from Fort William and myself that will in fact direct this legislation to deal with what it purports to deal with, and that is the quality of education for students in Ontario.

Mr Smith: I must admit I do find the wording somewhat ambiguous, although I understand the direction that Mrs McLeod is attempting to pursue here. Certainly, it would be my viewpoint that the title of the bill already clearly states the purpose of Bill 160 and I think, unlike my opposition colleagues, that there is a more positive perspective on this in that Bill 160 does enable us to pursue renewed partnerships within the education community. From that perspective, I feel strongly that the bill clearly indicates the directions in which the government is intending to go, and for that reason we'll be voting in opposition to the Liberal motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on Mrs McLeod's motion?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, can I ask the parliamentary assistant exactly what parts of the act contribute to a fuller partnership between the participants in the system?

The Chair: It's a proper question.

Mr Smith: I think we've had on a number of occasions, Mr McLeod, the opportunity to debate this issue. We've clearly revisited the issues of roles and trustees. We've clearly revisited the issue of parental involvement in the school system, and certainly teaching professionals have to be part of that process. All of those individuals -- professionals, parents, students -- are addressed in the context of Bill 160. That's the nature for my comment with respect to the renewal of those partnerships and the opportunity to move ahead into the future.

Mrs McLeod: But in fact it's individuals who are participants. It does not create partnerships between them.

Mr Smith: That's simply your viewpoint.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the opposition motion to amend, creating a new section 0.1? If not, I'll call the vote. All those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment fails.

We're dealing with section 1 at present, item 4.

Mr Wildman: I move that the definition of "permanent improvement" in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(j) a child care facility on a school site and any addition, alteration or improvement to such a facility."

The government appears to be attempting to remove any possibility of developing child care facilities within school settings. This is a terrible step backwards. A government that introduced a bill today which purports to assist parents with child care should in fact be in favour of this amendment because this will make it possible and ensure that any child care facilities that are now part of schools will be included in the definition of "permanent improvement" in the Education Act, and will be maintained. If the members of the government party here are in support of the proposal that was put forward by the Minister of Labour today, I expect they will support this amendment because they are in favour of child care.

Mr Smith: The government will be speaking against this particular motion. It is not the position of the Minister of Education to force school boards to close or remove child care services from their schools. In fact, we are encouraging that partnerships with community organizations and other independent operators continue to be pursued. This is an issue where we feel education dollars are directed toward education, and from that perspective we'll not be supporting the NDP motion.

Mr Wildman: Could the parliamentary assistant, if it's in order, clarify why it is, if the government wants to encourage child care facilities in schools, they would be opposed to this amendment?

Mr Smith: I think I provided an overview of the government's position, Mr Wildman, with respect to this particular motion. The Education Act will continue to permit boards to have child care centres in their schools, leasing available space, as I indicated to you, to independent or community organizations; that would be made available. Once again, we're not forcing school boards to remove themselves from child care services in this particular case, but as I indicated, we will not be supporting the intention and direction of the motion.

Mrs McLeod: I'm already debating how much time it's worth spending on some of these. This is one of the aspects of an omnibus bill that presenters to the committee given 10 minutes to make their presentations had no opportunity to address; that is, the various provisions of this bill that will make it virtually impossible for school boards to get the capital allocation or the capital resources to provide for child care facilities in their school. The suggestion that the parliamentary assistant makes is that somehow there is going to be a continued partnership with independent providers of child care when the physical space will not be made available, or if it is, will only be made available at the expense of classroom space for kindergarten to grade 9 students. It just flies in the face of the balance of this bill because it is an omnibus bill. Even an issue as important as the provision of child care and the reversal of a policy which would have seen child care facilities provided for in every new school in the province can't be fully debated and the government is simply going to refuse to acknowledge the issue.

1650

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment by Mr Wildman? If not, I'll call the question: All those in favour? All those against? The amendment fails.

We are moving on. Item 5.

Mr Wildman: I move that subsection 1(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Occasional teacher

"(1.1) For the purposes of this act, "occasional teacher" means an occasional teacher as defined in subsection 1(1) the Education Act as it reads immediately before this section comes into force.

"Same

"(1.12) Subsection (1.1) is repealed on September 1, 2000."

The purpose of this is to revert to the old definition of an occasional teacher. What this government is attempting to do under this bill is to make it possible for a board to fill a temporarily vacant position with an occasional teacher for up to two years after the original teacher has vacated the position. That seems completely unacceptable in terms of treating people fairly. If a person is going to fill a position for up to two years, they should no longer be an occasional teacher. If you are teaching every day for two years, that's hardly occasional. So we want to revert to the old definition and ensure that people are treated fairly under the legislation.

Mr Smith: Once again, I'll be speaking in opposition to the NDP motion. Bill 160 does provide a revised definition for occasional teachers, which has been a long-standing issue raised by school boards. In some cases, it has been requested by boards to allow the same teacher to be used in the spring of one school year and the fall of the next, when a permanent teacher may be on, for example, maternity leave. We believe a government amendment provides that occasional teachers will be represented by teachers' affiliates at a later point in the deliberations of these matters, but certainly provided with a separate bargaining unit which would take effect in 1998. We feel it's important to move ahead and not retain the current definition as indicated in the NDP motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment. If not, I'll call the question: All those in favour? All those against? The motion fails.

We are proceeding to item 6.

Mr Smith: I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(4.1) Section 1 of the act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1992, chapter 16, section 1, 1993, chapter 11, section 8, 1993, chapter 23, section 67, 1996, chapter 12, section 64, 1996, chapter 32, section 70, 1997, chapter 3, section 2 and 1997, chapter 22, section 1, is further amended by adding the following subsection:

"4.1 Every authority given by this act, including but not limited to every authority to make a regulation, decision or order and every authority to issue a directive or guideline, shall be exercised in a manner consistent with and respectful of the rights and privileges guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Essentially, this proposed amendment protects the rights of separate schools and French-language schools to operate within the guaranteed rights and privileges provided to them and ensures that powers will be used in a way that respects section 93 of the Constitution and section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To some extent, it as well assists with respect to compliance to both of those particular items.

Mrs McLeod: I can't believe that the government feels that this clause somehow may relieve the government of constitutional challenges which are already going to be forthcoming if this act is passed. You've already had a judge comment on the constitutionality of the act. You know that the francophone trustees have made it very clear that this entire act, in their view, is a violation of their rights and privileges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You know that there are other constitutional challenges that are going to be launched. Surely you don't believe, Mr Smith, that this very ambiguous clause provides any legal protection for the government in bringing in an act which violates the constitutional rights of either individuals or groups.

I wonder, Mr Smith, if you feel that this is a sufficient answer from the government that you don't need to seek a court referral to determine whether the balance of your bill is indeed constitutional, so we're not forced as a Legislature into dealing with legislation which will not pass the constitutional test.

Mr Wildman: With all due respect, this is pathetic. Surely every piece of legislation that is administered by a government in Ontario will comply with the Constitution. We don't have to put that in legislation. I think the fact that we have an amendment before this committee in which the government is telling everybody that by putting it in legislation they're going to abide by the Constitution shows how far they've sunk. This bill has so little credibility that the vast majority or a significant portion of the population believes that it may in fact be unconstitutional and so the government comes along and says, "Oh well, these powers will be exercised in a manner consistent and respectful of the rights and privileges guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 and by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Surely that goes without saying.

The fact that you have to put it in here is an indication that there are serious problems with this legislation, that in fact it may violate the charter and it may violate the Constitution and it may in fact be found ultra vires in a court challenge. If that's the case, you should be amending the legislation so that it complies with section 23 of the charter and section 93 of the Constitution Act, not putting this little motherhood statement in here. This really is pathetic.

Applause.

The Chair: I would remind the audience that the rules of the House do not permit applause or demonstrations in the audience. If it continues, I will have to adjourn. I do not wish to do that because that would detract from the opposition's rights to place on the record their views and debate this bill. So I'd ask you to refrain.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Just very briefly, I would go one step further than the third party in saying that if you are concerned about the rights and privileges guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you could just simply withdraw the bill, I think would be the best move.

Applause.

The Chair: There will be a five-minute adjournment.

The committee recessed from 1658 to 1704.

The Chair: We shall reconvene. I'd remind the audience that unfortunately, because of the time allocation, my remedy of adjourning the matter only hurts the opposition and deprives them of their opportunity to present arguments against the bill, and I'm very reluctant to adjourn on that basis. However, if that is my remedy, I will exercise it very reluctantly.

We are now dealing with Mr Smith's motion. Mr Crozier, were you about to speak to it?

Mr Crozier: No, but I will if you want me to.

The Chair: No. Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Smith's motion? If not, all those in favour of the motion? All those against? The amendment is carried.

I'll now put the question. First of all, is there any discussion in regard to section 1, as amended? Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Against? It is carried.

I'm suggesting, unless there's an objection, that I group sections 2 to 5. Is there any objection from any member of the committee? If not, is there any discussions in regard to sections 2 to 5 inclusive? If not, shall sections 2 to 5, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? Against? They are carried.

We are now dealing with section 6, item 7.

Mr Smith: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(1.1) Subsection 8(1) of the act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1991, chapter 10, section 1, 1992, chapter 16, section 2, 1992, chapter 27, section 59, 1993, chapter 11, section 10, 1995, chapter 4, section 2, 1996, chapter 11, section 29, 1996, chapter 12, section 64, 1996, chapter 13, section 1 and 1997, chapter 16, section 5, is further amended by adding the following paragraphs:

"policies and guidelines: policies re pupil representatives

"3.5 establish policies and guidelines for the development and implementation of board policies dealing with the representation on boards of the interests of pupils and require boards to comply with the policies and guidelines;

"policies and guidelines: policies re electronic meetings

"3.6 establish policies and guidelines for the development and implementation of district school board policies dealing with the use of electronic means for the holding of meetings of a district school board and meetings of a committee of a district school board, including a committee of the whole board, and require district school boards to comply with the policies and guidelines."

Effectively, this particular motion adds minister's power to establish guidelines and policies so that school boards can then develop policies on pupil representatives in electronic meetings and in part relates to items 58 and 22 whereby there's a greater extent of local flexibility in terms of providing input with respect to the directions of the policies and guideline procedure.

1710

Mrs McLeod: This is one of the amendments that I think requires some further explanation from the parliamentary assistant on specifically what it does. The basic clause that was in the bill was to "establish policies and guidelines respecting the roles and responsibilities of board members, directors of education, supervisory officers, principals, superintendents and other officials."

Paragraph 3.5, the addition, and the way in which it's worded I find very difficult to interpret, so help me with this, Mr Smith. Are you saying that this additional power of the minister is to establish policies regarding pupil representatives on the board? That will be established by regulation and what you are requiring boards to comply with is the policies and procedures that set out the way in which students are going to be appointed to boards. Is that specifically what this clause deals with?

Mr Smith: As I indicated, it allows for the establishment of the policy and guidelines, but it is tied to the local flexibility where boards would be involved in that process as well through motions 58 and 22, which will be considered obviously at a later point.

Mrs McLeod: It's one of the problems again with dealing with omnibus legislation because this issue of student representation is an issue which we have been raising since Bill 104 and we still don't have specifics. We still don't know how it is that the government intends to deal with the issue of student representation on boards and we don't know what it is that boards are now going to be required to comply with. It makes you very nervous about simply extending powers of the minister when it's how many months later since we raised this issue under Bill 104 and we still have no specific directions from the government as to how they're going to do it.

I want to raise a further concern under 3.6, and that is establishing policies and guidelines for the development and implementation of district school board policies dealing with the use of electronic means, da-da da-da. It seems to me that this is another spinoff from Bill 104 and the amalgamation of school boards and the creation of boards that are geographically so large that it will be virtually impossible for school trustees to meet on a regular basis.

Therefore, if the government's creative suggestion was that rather than trustees actually meeting -- I guess they are board members now because we lost the amendment that would call them trustees. So rather than board members actually meeting physically together to discuss the issues of education and they can get together by some electronic means, Mr Smith, I continue to believe that those school board boundaries are too large to make sense, too large to allow for board members to effectively deal with the issues and would remind you that in the presentations to the committee hearing concerns on Bill 104, there were a number of boards, particularly in northern Ontario, which are going to be most affected by the geographic distance, that said: "Thank you very much, but the electronic means are not going to work for us. We are not going to be able to communicate in many areas of the province through the electronic means you're proposing."

I think the government has clearly failed in two areas of concern that were identified under Bill 104 to come up with anything other than vague powers being assigned to the minister to develop new regulations to deal with it and no specific answers to the problems at all.

Mr Wildman: Chair, you'll recall or perhaps you won't, but the parliamentary assistant will recall that when we debated 104, we raised the question regarding pupil representatives on boards. As my friend from Fort William has indicated, we still don't have the guidelines. I'm in favour, as I proposed when we debated Bill 104, of having pupil representation on boards, but I'm more than a little concerned about this because this is again an example of this bill where it gives the minister the power to set the policies and guidelines for representation, in this case, on boards. So much of this bill gives the minister the power to make policies and make changes on his own unilaterally. We want to know what these policies and guidelines will be.

I should point out just in passing there's another particular problem in some rural and northern parts of the province in that this government still hasn't come up with any guidelines for how first nations representatives will be appointed to school boards, who they will be and how they will be chosen. While I support bringing pupil representatives on to boards, I'm not happy with the fact that we still haven't been given the policies and guidelines.

Mr Crozier: I just want to point out that in the parliamentary assistant's description of this, I fail to see how giving the minister more power and broader powers regarding policies gives the boards any flexibility. The parliamentary assistant went on to say, "So that it can give the boards flexibility." If you want to give the boards flexibility, then what you do is limit the powers of the minister. I don't know whether it was intentional that the two issues were mixed. Do you really want to give boards more flexibility or do you want really want to give the minister more flexibility? I don't think an amendment such as 3.5 does that.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Shall the government amendment pass? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

We are now dealing with a third-party proposed amendment, item 8, at the top of the page.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I move that subsection 6(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "and paragraph 34, as enacted by 1991, chapter 10, section 1, of subsection 8(1) of the act, are" in the third, fourth and fifth lines and substituting "is."

As the bill is currently written, the minister will no longer have the power to make capital allocations for the construction of child care facilities on school sites. This motion restores that power. Removing child care from schools is shortsighted and goes against every recommendation of the royal commission, Premier's Council and other august bodies and learned individuals.

Mr Smith: My understanding of the proposed NDP motion is that it would retain power under paragraph 8(1)34 to prescribe by regulation the instalment payments of legislative grants. I'll be speaking in opposition to the motion because Bill 160 will continue to provide the payment schedule by memo from the ministry as under current practice under subsection 234(8), not through regulation. That's my understanding of the NDP motion, and given that payment schedule will continue, I have spoken in opposition to it.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Martin's motion to amend subsection 6(4)? If not, all those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.

Mr Martin, I believe item 9 is not in the matter of a motion, is it? Or is that just instructions?

Mr Martin: The New Democratic Party recommends that section 6 of the bill be struck out. This motion is to strike out section 6 completely. Besides removing the power to provide capital for child care, this section allows the minister to determine roles and responsibilities of trustees and senior board officials to set fees for correspondence courses to require boards to prepare any report the minister may request and determine the duties of auditors, and we believe it should be struck down.

The Chair: I do believe item 9 is not a motion, and if it were a motion, it would be out of order in that the proper remedy is to vote against section 6, not move that it be removed from the act.

Mr Martin: Our thoughts are on the record on that particular --

The Chair: Yes. I permitted you that opportunity, Mr Martin. I do believe that is not a motion or it's out of order and therefore we do not have to deal with it.

We are now dealing with section 6, as amended by the government amendment. Is there any discussion in regard to section 6, as amended? If there is not, shall section 6, as amended, carry? Against? Section 6 is carried.

W are now dealing with section 7, item 11, a government amendment.

Mr Smith: I move that subsections 11(5), (6) and (6.1) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 7(3) of the bill, be struck out.

The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to the government amendment made by Mr Smith? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

Mr Crozier, I believe you wish to deal with item 12.

Mr Crozier: I move that subsection 11(5), (6) and (6.1) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 7(3) of the bill, be struck out.

The Chair: This is, I believe, identical to the matter just dealt with, Mr Crozier, and is out of order and I so rule. Item 12 is out of order and will not be dealt with.

We will now proceed to Mr Smith and item 10.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 11(6) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 7(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(6) A regulation made under subsection (5) may authorize the principal of a school to make determinations, subject to any directions given by the appropriate supervisory officer, respecting the work to be done at the school during the working days referred to in that subsection."

This particular motion amendment would retain in regulation the provision for determining how days of work prior to the school year would be used. Certainly it's an alternative option, I guess, with respect to item 11 and one that the government will be voting against.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment of Mr Smith, item 10?

Mr Smith: Given the comments I've made, with your permission, Mr Chair, on behalf of the government, I'll just withdraw this particular motion.

The Chair: A motion made by Mr Smith is withdrawn and we are now proceeding to 13a and 13b.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 11(7) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 7(4) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"School year, terms, holidays, etc

"(7) Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may make regulations,

"(a) prescribing and governing the school year, school terms, school holidays and instructional days;

"(b) authorizing a board to vary one or more school terms, school holidays or instructional days as designated by the regulations;

"(c) permitting a board to designate, and to implement with the prior approval of the minister, a school year, school terms, school holidays or instructional days for one or more schools under its jurisdiction that are different from those prescribed by the regulations; and

"(d) respecting the preparation and implementation of school calendars by school boards."

"Same

"(7.1) A school calendar prepared under a regulation made under clause (7)(d) shall not provide for,

"(a) more than 10 examination days in any school year determined in respect of a school under the regulations made under subsection (7); or

"(b) more than four professional activity days in any school year determined in respect of a school under the regulations made under subsection (7)."

Mr Chair, I understand it's required that I re-read clause (d), which will read as follows: "respecting the preparation and implementation of school calendars by boards."

1720

Mr Crozier: I have a couple of comments. During the hearings, albeit that they were limited in their scope, the students did express some concern about the reduction or at least the limiting of examination days to 10. As some of us may be able to remember, examinations are a very stressful time. Depending on the course load that's being carried, they can be even more stressful, and taking away any kind of flexibility for examination days was of concern to the students, and on behalf of the students I wanted to reiterate that.

As for part (b), the professional activity days, and I know there's a great deal of discussion around professional development days and what's accomplished by them and so forth, but I refer at least -- and I think it was to the accountability and testing office with regard to grade 6. They even suggested that more professional development days were needed, as curriculum changes, as needs change in our education system and it has been ongoing.

I know my children, who are now grown and through the system and on past university, were required to take courses, I believe, that contained information at an earlier age certainly than in fact I was. I think in order to help teachers maintain their level of expertise, we have to be very careful if we are perhaps arbitrarily limiting professional activity days and the participation of teachers in that.

Mr Martin: This is another part of the bill that gives to the minister and cabinet powers unheard of in the evolution of school development in this province and probably across the country. As Mr Crozier has said, in the hearings and certainly in my community, we heard loud and clearly from everybody who came how opposed they are to this particular piece of work by the government.

Just by way of example of the argument that's made, it surprises me why a government that understands how quickly times are moving and how the economy is changing and the world is changing and the need in the business sector for a continual process of upgrading of professionals working in a particular industry -- why in education, which is probably one of the most important foundation pieces to the economy of any jurisdiction, you wouldn't want the people delivering the product in your own terminology to be continually exposed to new methods of doing that by way of professional development days is absolutely beyond me.

If you are at all interested in the evolution of education and that teachers be the best that they can possibly be, you will not support this draconian incursion into the way we do education in Ontario now and take away from boards the ability to respond to the needs of their professionals and the needs of the people in their particular area to deal with new information and challenges as they arrive. I will be opposing any attempt by this government, whether by amendment or the original document here, to change them.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It's interesting that they liken this to the business community, of trying to upgrade one's skills etc. Much of the business community does that on their own time.

That's not what I wanted to speak to. I wanted to speak to the 10 days of examinations. There are some boards, one of which is in the area I represent, who have gone from the 15 days of examination time down to 10 now, and I believe, in talking to many of the people in the community, it is working well. Granted there are those who still use the same rhetoric of how stressful it is, but if you talk to students and many of the teachers involved, certainly the students want to get on with those exams, they want to get them done. I understand from what I've been told that they're working very well in our community.

Mr Smith: Just very briefly, I think during the course of the public hearings we heard fairly regularly the concern expressed with respect to ministerial powers through regulation. This is but one example of where yes, in part, regulation-making powers have been continuing with respect to school year, terms and holidays, but certainly the move to place some of those government policy directions within statutes. This is very clearly one of the areas where we received some input and responds to the concerns concerning regulatory powers around the minister.

The Chair: Is there any further comment in regard to the government proposed amendment? If not, shall Mr Smith's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried and we are proceeding to item 14, an opposition amendment.

Mr Crozier: I move that subsection 7(4) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: That's a proper motion. Do you wish to speak to it, Mr Crozier?

Mr Crozier: Oh, I thought you were going to treat me the same way you did the last time and that you were going to rule it out of order.

The Chair: No, this is quite in order because you're dealing with a subsection rather than a complete section.

Mr Crozier: You certainly have caught me by surprise. No, I'm not going to speak to it because I may say something I shouldn't.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr Smith: I think it should be made clear that regulation-making powers for the school year are not new and have existed for some time through regulation 304. As we've previously indicated, the government amendment places the maximum number of PA days at four during the school year and exam days at 10 in the statutes and is reflective once again of the government's desire to move some of the regulatory powers that the minister previously had in the statute, and we'll be speaking in opposition to this particular motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Crozier's motion? If not, shall the proposed amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is lost.

I now put the question, if there's no further discussion, shall section 7, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.

There are no proposed amendments to sections 8 and 9. Is there any discussion or questions in regard to sections 8 and 9 of the bill? If not, shall sections 8 and 9 carry? All those in favour? All those against? The two sections are carried, sections 8 and 9.

We're now dealing with section 10, item 15, a government amendment.

Mr Smith: I move that subsections 19(3) and (5) of the act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out.

Effectively, this motion deletes reference to principals and vice-principals staying on duty during a strike. Certainly the amendment's placed given that principals and vice-principals are no longer proposed to be in the teachers' bargaining unit, it's no longer necessary to specify that they have to remain on duty during a teachers' strike.

1730

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favour of Mr Smith's proposed amendment? All those against? The amendment carries.

We're now dealing with section 10, as amended. Any discussion or questions? If not, shall section 10, as amended, carry? All those in favour? It is carried.

We're now dealing with sections 11, 12 and 13. There are no amendments proposed with regard to those sections. Is there any discussion or questions with regard to sections 11, 12 and 13? If not, I'll put the question. Shall sections 11, 12 and 13 carry? All those in favour? They are carried.

We're dealing with section 14.

Mr Martin: You don't give us an opportunity any more to vote against?

The Chair: Quite right, Mr Martin. I counted a majority but I should call the question. Against? Just for the record.

Thank you for pointing that out, Mr Martin. You quite properly did that.

We are now dealing with section 14. We have item 16, being a government amendment.

Mr Smith: I move that clause 33(2)(c) of the Education Act, as set out in section 14 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(c) the person's parent or guardian resides in the school section and,

"(i) is a supporter of the French-language public district school board, or

"(ii) is not in respect of that residence a supporter of any board."

This particular motion would provide the appropriate wording to allow children of supporters of a French-language public district school board to be qualified to be resident pupils of the board, both elementary and secondary, and allows access for French-language students to public French-language district school boards.

The Chair: Any questions or discussion with regard to the proposed government amendment? If not, I shall put the question with regard to the amendment, being item 16. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

Shall section 14, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 14, as amended, carries.

We do not have any proposed amendments to sections 15 and 16. Without objection, I'll deal with them together. Is there any discussion or questions with regard to sections 15 and 16 of the bill? If not, shall sections 15 and 16 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 15 and 16 carry.

We are now dealing with section 17 of the bill. Item 17 is a government amendment.

Mr Smith: I move that clause 36(2)(a) of the Education Act, as set out in section 17 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) the person is a French-speaking person, the person and the person's parent or guardian reside in the secondary school district and,

"(i) the person's parent or guardian is a supporter of the French-language public district school board, or

"(ii) the person's parent or guardian is not in respect of that residence a supporter of any board."

Once again, this particular motion would provide the appropriate amendment and wording to allow children of supporters of a French-language public district school board to be qualified to be resident pupils of the board, elementary and secondary, and again allows access for French-language students to public French-language district school boards.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion with regard to Mr Smith's motion amending clause 36(2)(a), item 17? If not, shall the amendment proposed by Mr Smith carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

Is there any discussion with regard to section 17, as amended? If not, shall section 17 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 17, as amended, carries.

There are no proposed amendments to sections 18 and 19. Is there any discussion with regard to sections 18 and 19 of the bill? If not, shall sections 18 and 19 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 18 and 19 carry.

We're dealing with section 20, and items 18A and 18B are proposed government amendments.

1740

Mr Smith: I move that section 42 of the Education Act, as set out in section 20 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Secondary school instruction: movement from French-language separate district school board to English-language public board

"(4.1) A person who is qualified to be a resident pupil of a French-language separate district school board and to receive instruction in a secondary school grade is entitled to receive instruction provided in a secondary school operated by an English-language public board if the area of jurisdiction of the French-language board is in whole or in part the same as the area of jurisdiction of the English-language board.

"Secondary school instruction: movement from English-language public board to French-language separate district school board

"(4.2) A French-speaking person who is qualified to be a resident pupil of an English-language public board and to receive instruction in a secondary school grade is entitled to receive instruction provided in a secondary school operated by a French-language separate district school board if the area of jurisdiction of the English-language board is in whole or in part the same as the area of jurisdiction of the French-language board.

"Secondary school instruction: movement from French-language public board to English-language separate district school board

"(4.3) A French-speaking person who is qualified to be a resident pupil of a French-language public board and to receive instruction in a secondary school grade is entitled to receive instruction provided in a secondary school operated by an English-language separate district school board if the area of jurisdiction of the French-language board is in whole or in part the same as the area of jurisdiction of the English-language board.

"Secondary school instruction: movement from English-language separate district school board to French-language public district school board

"(4.4) A French-speaking person who is qualified to be a resident pupil of an English-language separate district school board and to receive instruction in a secondary school grade is entitled to receive instruction provided in a secondary school operated by a French-language public district school board if the area of jurisdiction of the English-language board is in whole or in part the same as the area of jurisdiction of the French-language board."

This proposed amendment would effectively add new subsections enabling pupils to attend schools of another board at the secondary school level, thereby continuing with open access.

The Chair: Any further discussion with regard to the proposed amendment to section 20? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

Is there any discussion with regard to section 20, as amended? If not, shall section 20, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 20, as amended, carries.

We are now proceeding to item 19A. I would request that the committee note that it refers to section 22 at the top, and that should have read section 21. I consider that an administrative error, and it is corrected.

Mr Smith: I move that subsections 43.1(2) and (3) of the Education Act, as set out in section 21 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"General or particular

"(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) may be general or particular.

"Right to continue to attend in certain circumstances

"(3) A pupil who, on December 31, 1997, is enrolled in a school that he or she has a right to attend under clause 33(1)(b), 33(2)(b) or 40(1)(b) of this act, as it read on December 31, 1997 and who on January 1, 1998, because of the repeal of those clauses, no longer has the right to attend the school under any other provision of this part, has the right to continue to attend the school so long as the pupil, or the pupil's parent or guardian, continues to be the owner of the property or the owner or tenant of the business property in respect of which the pupil acquired the attendance right.

"Exception

"(4) A right under subsection (1) is extinguished if,

"(a) in connection with a transfer of a school under clause 58.1(2)(p), a school that was a French-language instructional unit becomes a school of an English-language district school board;

"(b) in connection with a transfer of a school under clause 58.1(2)(p), a school that was not a French-language instructional unit becomes a school of a French-language district school board; or

"(c) the school becomes another type of school within the meaning of subsection 37(2)."

Effectively this particular motion would allow for the continuation of the right of a non-resident to attend school where a pupil was enrolled on December 31, 1997, so long as the parent continues to own property through which a pupil acquired a tenant's right in the first place.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment to section 21 of the bill? Shall Mr Smith's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

Is there any discussion or questions in regard to section 21, as amended? If not, shall section 21, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 21, as amended, carries.

We are now dealing with section 22. Is there any discussion in regard to section 22? If not, shall section 22 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 22 carries.

We're now dealing with section 23. There is a government amendment, item 20.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 48.1(1) of the Education Act, as set out in section 23 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Right to continue attending a school: London-Middlesex Act, 1992

"48.1(1) If, on December 31, 1997, a pupil is enrolled in a school that he or she has a right to attend under the London-Middlesex Act, 1992, as that act and the regulations made under it read immediately before the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997 received royal assent, the pupil has the same right to continue to attend the school after January 1, 1998, as before January 1, 1998."

This proposed motion effectively provides clarification of the technical nature once again regarding the continuance of the right of a pupil to attend as per the London-Middlesex Act, 1992.

The Chair: Is there any discussion or question in regard to the amendment proposed by Mr Smith? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

We are now dealing with section 23, as amended. Is there any discussion in regard to section 23, as amended? If not, shall section 23, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 23 carries.

We have no proposed amendments by any of the parties in regard to sections 24 to 29, inclusive. Is there any discussion or questions in regard to sections 24 to 29, inclusive? If not, I'll put the question. Shall sections 24 to 29, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 24 to 29, inclusive, carry.

We're now dealing with section 30. We have a proposed amendment by the government, being item 21.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 55(1) of the Education Act, as set out in section 30 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Regulations: pupil representatives

"55(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for representation on boards, by peer election or by appointment, of the interests of pupils in the last two years of the intermediate division and in the senior division."

This effectively provides an amendment to provide powers that would provide for the representation of students on school boards in terms of developing policies in this area and to clarify that pupil representatives represent secondary school students.

1750

The Chair: Are there any questions or discussion in regard to the proposed government amendment?

Mrs McLeod: I just want to express my concern. I assume there's some expectation that when the new boards of education are established as of this January, which is about a month and a half from now, there is going to be student representation, because that was something that was agreed to in Bill 104. This is the second amendment you've brought forward that simply gives regulatory powers to the minister to decide how this is going to be provided for. Is there any sense on the part of the government right now how you're actually going to have student representation on boards?

Mr Smith: Effectively this amendment, as I indicated, related to a previous amendment we dealt with and the committee dealt with, and allows the minister to have school boards develop their own policies to determine if they wish to have more than one student representative and how to go about choosing that particular representative, and, in my opinion, provides some local flexibility in that regard.

Mrs McLeod: The previous amendment gave the minister virtually unfettered authority to make regulations setting out how people could be represented --

Mr Smith: Policies and guidelines.

Mrs McLeod: Right. My question is, all we have is regulatory power. We don't have any idea how this is actually going to work. Does the ministry have anything to offer on how it's going to work at this point?

Mr Smith: Mrs McLeod, I appreciate the point of view you're expressing and I can assure you that we continue to work to ensure that effective the new implementation date for the district school boards, there will be effective guidelines in place with respect to this issue.

Mrs McLeod: They've got a month and a half left.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment to section 30, being item 21? If not, all those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment is carried.

Item 22.

Mr Smith: I move that section 55 of the Education Act, as set out in section 30 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(3.1) In a regulation under this section the Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide for any matter by authorizing a board to develop and implement a policy with respect to the matter."

Again, this would provide an amendment to ensure powers with respect to the representation of pupils to allow the board to develop policies in this area and to clarify that pupil representatives represent secondary school students.

The Chair: Is there any question or discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favour of the proposed amendment? All those against? The amendment is carried.

We are now dealing with section 30, as amended by two government amendments. Is there any discussion in regard to section 30, as amended? If not, shall section 30, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 30, as amended, is carried.

We're now dealing with section 31. Do we have any questions or discussion in regard to section 31? If not, shall section 31 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 31 carries.

We're now dealing with section 32; a government amendment, items 23a and b.

Mr Smith: I move that clause 58.1(2)(q) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(q) such transitional matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable in connection with the school system reforms of 1997 and 1998, including but not limited to regulations providing for,

"(i) such matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable to prevent disruption in the education of pupils,

"(ii) the obligation of a district school board to exercise the powers and carry out the duties of another district school board for and on behalf of the other district school board,

"(iii) the obligation of a district school board to deal with assets, liabilities or employees, or classes of assets, liabilities or employees, that are identified in the regulation, for and on behalf of another district school board;

"(iv) the recovery of some or all of the costs incurred by a district school board in meeting any requirement under this clause;"

The Chair: Any questions or discussion in regard to the proposed amendment?

Mr Wildman: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could provide some clarification as to how this relates to the amendment on page 40 in the handwritten numbers on the pages.

Mr Smith: I probably should have provided some explanation of the proposal initially. This particular motion provides LGIC regulation on transitional matters to amend or add the power to oblige the district school board in the short term to look after assets and liabilities and employees that are identified as belonging to another district school board, usually in a newly formed minority language board. This amendment is in response to requests from areas where minority-language boards will be formed, and we'll assist them during the transition period.

Mr Wildman, if you'll bear with me as I get some clarification on item 40 -- item 40 is intentionally in place to make clear that we can't take away their right to strike.

Mr Wildman: So that relates to the concerns that have been raised about (q)(i) in motion 23A.

Mr Smith: That's correct.

Mr Wildman: So when you say, "such matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable to prevent disruption in the education of pupils," your view is that your motion 40 deals with the concerns raised that that might in fact include a strike.

Mr Smith: That's correct.

Mr Wildman: I guess we'll see if it does that when we get to it, if we get to it.

The Chair: On that note, the time being 6 o'clock, Ms McLeod will be either asking a question or raising a point in regard to the amendment. Section 32 will be amended a number of times, so it'll be a very important section. We will adjourn until 7 pm sharp. I remind committee members that the clerk has arranged for the dining room to serve you each a meal. So we'll see you at 7.

The committee recessed from 1759 to 1905.

The Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. We will proceed with consideration of Bill 160. We were dealing with section 32 when we adjourned for dinner. Mr Wildman had just spoken in regard to Mr Smith's amendment, item 23a of your compilation of amendments.

Mr Wildman: I had asked a question about how this amendment from the government fit in with number 40 and the legal counsel for the ministry has explained their thinking.

In their view, in the view of the government, there is provision in the amendment that is numbered 40 that the government is going to bring in when we get to it which says that neither the Lieutenant Governor in Council nor the Education Improvement Commission has any authority under subclause 58.1(2)(q)(i) to intervene in a strike or lockout. For that reason, they feel that this has dealt with the concern about (1)(q)(i) that has been raised where it says "such matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable to prevent disruption in the education of pupils."

Frankly, in my view, it does not meet the concerns that have been raised as well as the amendment that is being proposed, and which we support, by my friend from Fort William, which we will be dealing with next. For that reason, I would not support this amendment as opposed to the amendment that will be put by the opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I am also going to be anxious to see the government move and pass the further amendment that relates to our concern on this particular -- I'm assuming we are still on the amendment to 58.1(2)(q). You'll recall that this is an issue that our leader raised in the House, that this could potentially allow the government to intervene and limit the right to strike.

My understanding is that if the government does move and pass that further amendment, plus another amendment that they have, that concern will be alleviated. Even though at the time we were told we were silly to even raise it as a concern, obviously it was a concern or you would not have two subsequent amendments to clarify the situation. But I think I should be reasonably satisfied that if those future amendments go through, our concern around this clause is relieved.

Having said that, as Mr Wildman has just said, we continue to be concerned about the kinds of blanket regulatory powers being taken by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and we'll still be moving that this entire section be struck.

The Chair: Any further discussion in regard to Mr Smith's motion to amend clause 58.1(2)(q)? If not, I'll call the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

We are proceeding to the opposition and item 24.

Mrs McLeod: I move that subclause 58.1(2)(q)(i) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be struck out.

I think the discussion on this has already taken place. We will be consistently opposing broad regulatory powers being given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, including the powers given to do virtually anything the minister sees as advisable during the transitional period.

Mr Wildman: I won't reiterate the arguments we've just put. We agree with the member for Fort William that these matters should not be dealt with by giving the minister more regulatory powers and for that reason we will support the amendment.

Mr Smith: Just to be brief, I think very clearly this, in the government's opinion, relates to item 40. Certainly it's not the government's intention to override right to strike. It was an issue that was expressed by teachers during the public hearings and the leader of the official opposition raised it, as Mrs McLeod indicated. Item 40 will deal with it in terms of tightening up the language so that there's no concern around that. But given that comment, the government will be voting in opposition to this Liberal motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Shall the motion brought by Mrs McLeod carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is lost.

Moving to item 25, Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 58.1 of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"No affect on right to strike

"(2.1) Nothing in this section or in the regulations made under this section limits, abridges or otherwise interferes with the right of teachers to strike."

Clearly, in terms of timing, we had followed up on our concern about the basket clause we've just dealt with in the previous amendment and proposed that there be this very clear limitation. I think the government agrees with this, which is why they've proposed a similar amendment later on.

Mr Wildman: As you can see, item 26 is an NDP amendment which is very similar to this amendment. Essentially it is our view that there should not be any limitation or abridgement or interference with the right of a teacher as defined under section 277.1 to strike in accordance with the Labour Relations Act. So our amendment is very similar, and for that reason, if the government does not want to limit the right to strike or to have this section limit the right to strike, I hope the government will support it. If this amendment passes, then obviously it would not be necessary for us to deal with the NDP amendment.

Mr Smith: I will again be speaking in opposition to the motion. Certainly the government believes that item 40 of the text provides the direction that would effect to the same extent the proposal contained in the Liberal motion. We clearly intend to amend 58.2.1(4) in an effort to expressly provide that neither the LGIC nor the EIC has any authority under 58.1 to intervene in a strike or a lockout situation and we'll be voting against the motion.

The Chair: Any further questions or discussion in regard to the motion of Ms McLeod? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favour? All those against? The motion to amend is lost.

We're proceeding to Mr Wildman, item 26.

Mr Wildman: It's a very similar motion, so I won't prolong things. I would expect the same vote.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. I'm sorry, Mr Wildman, you have to move that and read it into the record.

Mr Wildman: All right. I move that section 58.1 of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Right to strike

"(2.1) A regulation made under subsection (2) shall not limit, abridge or otherwise interfere with the right of a part X.1 teacher, as defined in section 277.1, to strike in accordance with the Labour Relations Act, 1995."

As I said, I won't prolong the debate. Unfortunately I assume it'll be the same vote.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favour of the motion brought by Mr Wildman? All those against? The motion is lost.

Dealing with government item 27, Mr Smith.

Mr Smith: I move that section 58.1 of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(3.1) Subsection (3) applies only to the extent necessary to permit the next regular election after the regulation is made, or any by-election preceding that next regular election, to be held in a way that takes account of the provisions of the regulation."

This effectively adds provision with respect to regulation for electoral purposes to apply only to the extent necessary to permit the next regular board election or any by-election preceding the next regular election.

Mrs McLeod: Whatever that means. You don't want us to ask.

Mr Smith: -- consideration was left out in the event that a by-election would occur for trustees, so this provision adds the necessary requirement to recognize by-election requirements.

The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to the motion brought by Mr Smith?

Mr Wildman: I have a question. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could explain why anybody would want to run for trustee under this legislation.

Mr Smith: My only response to that is 1,200 people did run.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion or question? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment proposed by Mr Smith carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.

Item 28.

Mr Smith: I move that section 58.1 of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Purpose of clauses (2)(d), (e)

"(5.1) The purpose of clauses (2)(d) and (e) is to provide authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make changes in the jurisdiction of boards on a case-by-case basis.

"Limitation re clauses (2)(d), (e)

"(5.2)A regulation shall not be made under clause (2)(d) or (e) if an area that, immediately before the regulation takes effect, was within the area of jurisdiction of a board would, immediately after the regulation takes effect, not be within the area of jurisdiction of a board."

This particular motion effectively limits the regulation-making powers regarding the alteration in a territorial area or the dissolution of a district school board to make it clear that it cannot be used to remove areas from any school board jurisdiction. This specifically was an issue that was raised in some areas with respect to the new district school boards.

The Chair: Is there any discussion or questions in regard to the motion made by Mr Smith?

Mr Wildman: Is that limiting the regulatory power in your view? One of the main concerns that we have for this legislation is that so much discretion is given to the minister and to the cabinet. You're saying that this is going to limit that in regard to changes in jurisdiction of boards?

Mr Smith: That's the intention, Mr Wildman, to limit that with respect to territorial change or dissolution.

The Chair: Any further questions or discussion in regard to the proposed amendment made by Mr Smith? If not, I'll put the question, item 28. Shall the amendment carry? Against? The motion carries.

Item 29.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 58.1(8) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by striking out "55 or" in the fourth line.

Effectively, this motion strikes out the reference "or 55." The proposed section 55(4) makes it clear that a pupil representative is not a member of the board and could not count towards the total membership of the board. The unnecessary reference is therefore removed.

The Chair: Any questions of Mr Smith or further discussion? If not, shall the proposed amendment carry? All those in favour? Against? The amendment carries.

Item 30.

1920

Mr Smith: I move that section 58.1 of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Purpose of clause (2)(l)

"(10.1)The purpose of clause (2)(l) is to provide authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to resolve questions relating to assets, liabilities and employees that arise in connection with any changes in the jurisdiction of boards that may be made on a case-by- case basis.

"Limitation

"(10.2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council has no authority under clause (2)(l) to transfer employees of a public board to a Roman Catholic board or to transfer employees of a Roman Catholic board to a public board.

"Exception

"(10.3) The limitation provided in subsection (10.2) does not apply in relation to the transfer of an employee between two boards if,

"(a) both boards agree that the limitation should not apply in respect of the transfer; and

"(b) the minister approves the agreement referred to in clause (a)."

Effectively, this motion has been proposed to clarify that the purpose of the LGIC authority is to resolve questions relating to assets, liabilities and employees that arise in the future on a case-by-case basis. The LGIC cannot transfer public board employees to a Roman Catholic board or vice versa unless both boards agree and the minister approves the agreement.

Again, this was an issue that was raised during the committee hearings and this is an amendment that attempts to address that.

Mrs McLeod: If I recall correctly, this is an issue that was raised during committee hearings on Bill 104, not on Bill 160. That's one of the reasons it has been proposed repeatedly that this bill be divided into sections, one being the issues that resolve the problems that were created with Bill 104 and the other being all the brand-new issues that this government is introducing under the auspices of transition to the new amalgamated school boards.

But if I recall correctly, Mr Smith, going back to the committee hearings on Bill 104, there was considerable concern about the transfer of assets and also the transfer of employees. This, as I understand it, would make it clear that the Lieutenant Governor in Council, ie, cabinet -- let's be clear about who we're talking about here -- cannot transfer employees from a public board to a separate board, but they certainly can resolve issues that would effect employees being transferred from what is now their board jurisdiction to what is today a different board jurisdiction; in other words, transfer across geographic areas that are now part of the same amalgamated board as long as it's within a public board or within a separate board. What strikes me in this is that the cabinet, the central Queen's Park cabinet, is being given the authority to resolve these issues at a local level.

First of all, the power appals me but, second, the sheer unmanageability of having the cabinet resolve these issues of asset transfer and personnel transfer is absolutely amazing, which says to me that it isn't the cabinet that's going to do it at all. This is another one of those powers that's going to be turned over to the EIC, the non-elected body that is going to be having absolute and total control over the disposition of both assets and employees within the new amalgamated boards.

It's exactly the issue that was raised during Bill 104, with presenter after presenter expressing their concerns about these kinds of powers being given to the EIC. What you've done here, as I read it, is confirm that that's exactly what you're going to do.

Mr Wildman: I agree with Ms McLeod's comments. I want to raise a specific example that would be foreign to most urban parts of southern Ontario, but is a situation in many rural parts of the province and in the north.

Right now, there are many situations where the Catholic board only has an elementary school in the community and the students from the Catholic board and the public board both attend the public high school, secondary school. In those kinds of situations there are trustees elected by the Catholic ratepayers to serve on the public board to deal with matters that relate to secondary school education. It is going to be very difficult and very complicated to work out where these assets should go.

If you look at this amendment as it is proposed, what it says to me is that there will be possible transfers between new public boards but not between the public and separate, the public and Catholic. This is a particular concern as it relates to those situations in my part of the province where there is both a French school and an English school in the same building in the public system. The establishment of the new French boards will mean that the vast majority of the students probably will attend the new French Catholic board, while I read this to mean that the transfers will be public to public. So although a very small minority of the students will be going to the public French board, they are the ones who are going to get the transfers, and this is going to be very complicated.

I understand there is a pending court challenge on this matter, which I think is one of the many this government is going to face because of this legislation. This is going to be a major problem when we get further on here and we deal with assets as opposed to transfer of employees, but it's a question with regard to employees as well. I don't know how you're going to deal with this. How are you going to ensure that if we're going to have transfers from public to public -- and in regard to the French public boards, in many cases they're going to end up with far fewer students than the now non-existent French Catholic board, yet they're the ones who are going to need the staff and the assets. I don't think you can solve those problems here at Queen's Park. I think you have to deal with them locally.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? Questions? If not, we're dealing with item 30, Mr Smith's motion to amend. All those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment carries.

Item 31(a).

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 58.2(3) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Role of Education Improvement Commission

"(3) In a regulation under clause 58.1(2)(p) or (q), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide for any matter referred to in clause 58.1(2)(p) or (q), in subsection (1) or (2) of this section or in subsection 58.2.1(6) by assigning powers and duties to the Education Improvement Commission, including but not limited to powers and duties to,

"(a) issue directives to district school boards and other persons or bodies or classes of persons or bodies specified by the commission respecting criteria to be applied and processes to be followed in developing recommendations to the commission on any matter referred to in clause 58.1(2)(p) or (q), in subsection (1) or (2) of this section or in subsection 58.2.1(6);

"(b) issue directives respecting the participation of classes of persons or bodies specified by the commission in the development of recommendations referred to in clause (a) and respecting dispute resolution processes;

"(c) make determinations respecting the holding in trust, transfer and vesting of assets, including but not limited to real and personal property, the transfer of liabilities and the transfer of employees of old boards to and among district school boards;

"(d) issue orders that the commission considers necessary or advisable to give effect to the determinations made under clause (c) and impose terms and conditions on its orders; and

"(e) issue directives establishing deadlines for complying with any directive or order made by the commission under the regulations."

Effectively, this particular motion provides LGIC regulations on transitional matters in the role of the EIC, amends powers to refer, new subsection 58.2.1(6), to accommodate designated boards performing obligations of minority language school boards. A regulation would set out parameters for designated boards in managing these affairs.

1930

Mrs McLeod: I want the people in the audience to know that if they're having difficulty following this, they're not the only ones. We've got the material in front of us, and half the time we still don't know what the government is trying to do with this. I'm not sure that the parliamentary assistant's explanation helped me very much. I tried in the break to understand what was meant by the change of adding "or in subsection 58.2.1(6)." It seems to relate in some ways to expanded powers of the EIC to deal with geographic district and the numbers of trustees to be elected -- board members, sorry; we've lost "trustee" as a term.

We just had the elections, so I'm really puzzled as to why we are at this point bringing in amendments that increase the power of the commission to deal with issues related to members of the board or to geographic distribution. I'm assuming this is all about the next election and we're looking three years hence in order to be able to fix the mistakes which were obviously made by rushing through the amalgamation of the boards for this November and conducting the elections which just took place. Am I right, that this is a clause that allows you to fix the mistakes you made last month?

Mr Smith: What this amendment does, as do other amendments, is oblige district school boards in the short term to look after the assets and liabilities that are identified as belonging to another district school board. It's usually in the case of a newly formed minority language board, to assist them during the transition period. That's what this amendment does.

Mrs McLeod: I will just say that we are going to be opposing the expanded powers of the EIC in this and in every other respect, and in fact in the next amendment we'll be proposing to strike this entire section.

Mr Wildman: When we were debating Bill 104, we opposed this kind of amendment, and we'll oppose it here. We don't believe an appointed body like the Education Improvement Commission should be given these kinds of powers. We believe these matters should be dealt with locally.

In discussion of the previous amendment, I raised concerns around transfers of assets as well as people. They use the example of secondary schools as related to the new francophone boards, particularly the French Catholic boards.

It says here under (c) that the Education Improvement Commission will be assigned powers and duties that include but are not limited to making recommendations "respecting the holding in trust, transfer and vesting of assets, including but not limited to real and personal property, the transfer of liabilities and the transfer of employees of old boards to and among district school boards."

I have one other matter I want to raise, but I'd like to raise now the issue I raised a moment ago. If we're talking about transfer from public to public, how do we deal with this if we're talking about a situation where French students in the past attended a public secondary school but now, because of the establishment of a new francophone Catholic board, which is now non-existent in the area, how do they get the employees and assets they require, the properties they require, in order to be able to serve those students, at the same time preserving for the needs of the public francophone students? You're going to have far more students in the Catholic system in most of those communities than you have in the public system. I'd like to know how this does it.

Mr Smith: What I can respond to is the nature of the motion before us in the amendment we have. It's effectively an amendment that obliges larger district boards to assist, perhaps not abandon, the newly formed minority language boards during the transition period. That is the intent of this amendment and certainly the application it's intended to have.

Mr Wildman: I think I understand your intent. You're giving the power to the EIC to do this. But how does it relate to the one the committee just passed, where it said "public to public"?

Mr Smith: We'd like clarification. Mr Wildman, if I may ask for about a five-minute recess so I can get some direction from legal counsel.

Interjections.

Mr Smith: If that's what you're asking for, I assume you want the right answer.

Mr Wildman: I'm serious, I would like to have --

Mr Smith: Well, I'm not sure that you are serious, but I'm attempting to get that for you.

Mr Wildman: No, I am. I was just wondering if it's possible one of your staff could explain it.

Mr Smith: It's going to take a moment.

Mr Wildman: Oh, okay. We don't have a lot of time here. We have a lot of amendments and we're not going to get through them all. But there are issues that have to be dealt with. I would just make the other point on this amendment, and then however the committee wants to deal with it, fine.

I look at (d), for instance, where it says the EIC can "issue orders that the commission considers necessary or advisable to give effect to the determinations made under clause (c)" -- the one I've just raised -- "and impose terms and conditions on its orders; and

"(e) issue directives establishing deadlines for complying with any directive or order made by the commission under the regulations."

Even if you could answer my previous question, which I hope you will be able to, I believe this gives an unelected body, the Education Improvement Commission, far too many powers, far too wide-ranging, and it's not appropriate that an unelected body could exercise these kinds of powers, where they can just issue a directive and everybody has to comply. It would be far better if these matters could be resolved locally and then, if there are problems, have some sort of arbitration process.

Mr Smith: Mr Chair, with your permission, I'll ask ministry counsel to approach the mike and provide an explanation for Mr Wildman.

The Chair: Is that satisfactory, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: Sure.

The Chair: It might save us some time, that's all.

Mr John Tomlinson: My name is John Tomlinson. I'm legal counsel with the Ministry of Education. The previous motion referred to things done under clause (l). Clause (l) is to deal with future years, where you'd have to have, on a case-by-case basis, maybe a dissolution of a board in order to amalgamate it with another board and so on.

What we're talking about here is dealing with the present restructuring. Your clause (l) did talk about not being able to transfer employees across denominational lines. There's a similar provision that applies to this. The relationship between not being able to transfer employees across denominational lines would be a restriction on the provisions in this motion you've just read, such as "make determinations" for "transfer...of assets...liabilities...and employees...among district school boards." You would read in the limitation that is like the limitation from your previous motion, that you can't transfer employees across denomination lines; however, you can transfer assets. The regulation can provide for transferring assets across denominational lines.

Mr Wildman: So it's partially answered but not completely. If most of the students are going to end up in the other denominational board, to use your term, that is no longer existent, if the public English board says, "All right, we're going to transfer all of these assets to the public French board," but the public French board only has 100 students and the Catholic French board has 300 or 400 students and they end up without the assets but with the employees, there's going to be a problem.

Mr Tomlinson: You're saying they may have the assets but they may not get the employees unless some arrangement is made whereby boards agree to transfer, because that is the exception. If boards do agree to transfer employees across, that can happen.

Mr Wildman: That's the way I would prefer to do it all the time, rather than giving these arbitrary powers to the EIC.

The Chair: Does that answer your question, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: Yes, sort of.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the motion brought by Mr Smith? If not, we're dealing with item 31a, a motion to amend, by Mr Smith. I will call the question. All those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment is carried.

We are dealing now with item 32, a motion of the opposition.

1940

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsections 58.2(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be struck out.

As I've said, we are going to be consistently opposing increased transfer of powers to the Education Improvement Commission. We deplore the expanded regulatory power being given to cabinet in so many places in this bill, but for us there's one thing even worse than the regulatory power being taken by cabinet, and that's the ability given throughout this bill for cabinet to transfer that power to an unelected body, the Education Improvement Commission.

Even the clause just referred to by the legislative counsel, if my memory is correct, says that even where there is an agreement between local boards to transfer employees between public and Catholic boards, that can only be carried out with the agreement of the EIC. The powers being given to this handful of people appointed by the minister, with no electoral accountability, are absolutely awesome.

Therefore, we are going to move that this section be struck out. It's a series of sections which gives considerably expanded powers to the EIC at the minister's discretion, and we will be proposing further amendments that delete the power given to the EIC at every place where it appears.

Mr Smith: We'll be speaking in opposition to the motion. Effectively the amendment would prevent the EIC from determining the transfer of assets and liabilities and employees to the new district school boards. As Mrs McLeod will know, the EIC has issued guidelines with respect to this and will be consulting on this particular matter.

I recognize the comments she's made with respect to regulatory power, but there are a number of substantive amendments that in fact transfer that regulatory power into statute with respect to Bill 160. This is not one of those cases, but there are many other substantive areas where that has been done as a result of the public hearings.

Mr Wildman: I agree with my friend from Fort William. We are opposed to providing the EIC with so much power.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion or questions in regard to the motion to amend brought by Mrs McLeod, being item 32? If not, I'll put the question. All those in favour of Mrs McLeod's motion? All those against? The motion is lost.

We are proceeding to item 33.

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 58.2(7) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:

"Criteria re transfer of assets, liabilities, employees

"(7) In making regulations under clause 58.1 (2)(p) or (q), the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall,"

This takes the EIC out of the picture, and at least leaves an elected body accountable for making decisions about the transfer of assets, liabilities and employees.

Mr Smith: Similar to the comments made previously, my comments would apply. I would hope as a government member that if Mrs McLeod felt strongly about that, she would have changed the powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Education Relations Commission and the Environmental Assessment Board, which all have similar powers to the EIC. Seeing that that hasn't been done, certainly the powers that have been granted are consistent with those existing bodies.

Mr Wildman: I would just point out that we used to do most of these things by negotiation between boards and teachers or among boards. It's far preferable.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll put the question. The motion we're dealing with is item 33, a motion brought by Mrs McLeod. All those in favour of the motion? All those against? The motion is lost.

We are proceeding to item 34a.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 58.2(7) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Criteria re transfer of assets, liabilities, employees

"(7) In making regulations under clause 58.1(2)(p) or (q) and in making determinations and issuing directives or orders under this section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Education Improvement Commission, as the case may be, shall,

"(a) have regard to the needs of each district school board;

"(b) ensure that all assets, liabilities and employees of old boards are transferred to district school boards;

"(c) ensure that all employees of old public boards are transferred to public district school boards; and

"(d) ensure that all employees of old Roman Catholic boards are transferred to separate district school boards.

"Definition

"(7.1) In subsection (7),

"'old public board' means a board of education and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board within the meaning of this act as it read immediately before the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997 received royal assent;

"'old Roman Catholic board' means a county combined separate school board and a district combined separate school board within the meaning of this act as it read immediately before the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997 received royal assent.

"Exception

"(7.1.1) Where a district school board acquires an employee as a result of merger with an old board, clauses (7)(c) and (d) do not apply in respect of the transfer of the employee to another district school board if,

"(a) both district school boards agree that clause (7)(c) or (d), as the case may be, should not apply in respect of the transfer; and

"(b) the Education Improvement Commission approves the agreement referred to in clause (a).

"Limitation

"(7.2) Subject to subsection (7.3), clause 58.1(2)(p) does not authorize the transfer of any asset, liability or employee after August 31, 1998.

"Exception: ongoing disputes

"(7.3) Where on August 31, 1998, there is an ongoing dispute between district school boards as to the appropriate disposition of an asset, liability or employee, the asset, liability or employee may be transferred, by regulation or order, as the case may be, under clause 58.1(2)(p) at any time before January 1, 1999."

This motion provides criteria regarding the transfer of assets, liabilities and staff. It effectively limits the transfer of public school board employees to public school boards and Roman Catholic board employees to Roman Catholic boards, but allows for exception by agreement between both district school boards and the approval of the Education Improvement Commission.

Mrs McLeod: This is the clause I was referring to which I find really offensive. Mr Smith, in his earlier comments, referred to the fact that if we're objecting to the EIC's powers, we should object to powers held by bodies like the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The Ontario Labour Relations Board is in place to deal with disputes that arise in labour negotiations and it's something which is in place on an ongoing basis.

You've established, with the Education Improvement Commission, a body with enormous powers to dictate what happens in the process of an amalgamation to fix the chaos you're creating with the process of amalgamation. Mr Wildman quite rightly points out that when a previous Conservative government brought about amalgamation of school boards, we didn't need an EIC dictating the way in which local agreements were reached in order to deal with the realities of that amalgamation. This clause says that, even in a situation where school boards reach an agreement that fits under your exemption, they are not allowed to conclude that agreement without the approval of the EIC. I don't know what you're so worried about.

Mr Wildman: I won't repeat the arguments that have been made. I would just make the point that we oppose these matters being dealt with, first, at Queen's Park rather than locally and, second, by an unelected body. Having said that, though, I read this with some interest where it says, "in making determinations and issuing directives or orders under this section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- in other words cabinet -- "or the Education Improvement Commission, as the case may be, shall (a) have regard to the needs of each district school board."

If the parliamentary assistant could assure me that this means that any and all savings that are achieved through restructuring will be reinvested to meet the needs of the students in these district school boards, I might consider supporting it. If the government would make a commitment that they'll reinvest all of the savings and not take $700 million out of education, I might reconsider my position on this. If the parliamentary assistant can make that commitment, I might vote for this.

1950

Mr Smith: This is an amendment that, in the event that boards agree to employee transfer and the employees themselves may not agree, the EIC is in place to hear that particular issue. Albeit your concerns about the EIC, this particular mechanism has been established to provide some protection to those individuals who would find themselves in that conflict.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): What did you guys do with the $600 million you took out of the social contract?

The Chair: Excuse me, you wish the floor, Mr Guzzo?

Mr Guzzo: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Wildman isn't here to answer questions, I'm afraid.

Mr Wildman: I'd be happy to answer one.

The Chair: It's up to you.

Mr Wildman: The fact is that those were negotiated over six months; they weren't imposed by an unelected body without negotiations.

Mr Guzzo: I'll accept that. What did you do with the money? You took $600 million out of education in the social contract. What did you do with the money?

Mr Wildman: You made it a permanent cut and then you took an additional $800 million out and now you want to take another $700 million out.

Mr Guzzo: Guilty. What did you do with the money?

Mr Wildman: You said that you were going to ensure there wouldn't be any cuts to classroom education.

Mr Guzzo: We couldn't find it when we came to power. What did you do with the money?

Mrs McLeod: If you couldn't find it, how could you cut it again?

Mr Wildman: How on earth did you guys make those savings permanent if you didn't know where they were?

Interruption.

The Chair: I'd remind the audience that though the behaviour of members of the committee may not be to your liking, you are not permitted, as members of the audience, under the rules of this House to demonstrate, which would include yelling or even applause. I know it's difficult at times, but I really would like you to obey that standing order, which I did not make, that the House made. In the event you choose not to, I have the power to adjourn, and I don't wish to waste the time. As this is time-allocated, the time is very valuable to the opposition in this case, more so than to the government. If we can proceed, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Would you please remind the members of the committee that this time is very valuable. We're trying to go through a due process, as farcical as it may actually be, and we would appreciate being able to concentrate on the amendments in front of us.

Mr Wildman: I'll try not to be provocative.

The Chair: I didn't want him to ask you the question, Mr Wildman. In any event, if we may proceed then, is there any further discussion in regard to the motion made by Mr Smith to amend section 58.2(7)? If not, I'll call the question. Shall the motion moved by Mr Smith carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried.

We are moving to item 35, Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 58.2(8) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by striking out the portion before paragraph 1 and paragraph 1 and substituting the following:

"Employees

"(8) The following rules apply where an employee is transferred from an old board to a district school board under a regulation made under clause 58.1(2)(p):

"1. A person who is an employee of an old board on the day the regulation transferring the employee is made and who would, but for that regulation, still be an employee of the old board on the day the regulation is to take effect is an employee of the district school board referred to in the regulation on the day the regulation is to take effect."

I wish there was some way in which we could simply dispense with the reading of these intricately drafted amendments. It would save us a lot of time. I don't know if there's any way in which we can do that, but since we can't, I've gone through it quickly. Basically, it's once again taking the EIC out of the picture as we feel they should be taken out of the picture.

The Chair: Thank you. I'm advised by the clerk that we cannot take it as read, as we would do in many other cases, unfortunately.

Mr Wildman: Can't we just dispense?

The Chair: No.

Mr Crozier: Why?

The Chair: I understand that is the ruling.

Mr Crozier: Why?

Mr Wildman: Because in the House when you dispense, you've already read it once.

The Chair: It doesn't go into Hansard by dispensing. Everything we say is in Hansard. Is there any further discussion in regard to the motion brought by the opposition?

Mr Wildman: I won't prolong it; I'll just say I agree with it.

The Chair: I'll then call the question. We're dealing with item 35, Ms McLeod's motion. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Against? The motion is lost.

Moving on to item 36, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I believe that this motion is no longer in order. Had our previous amendment which would have taken the EIC's orders out of the legislation passed, then this amendment would have been in order and it would have not been necessary for orders and directives of the EIC under this section to be filed in the Ontario Court. But since those amendments were defeated, this motion is no longer in order.

The Chair: Thank you for withdrawing item 36. Item 37.

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 58.2(11) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by striking out "this section or" in the second and third lines.

I wanted to make it clear that section 11 states, "Orders and directives of the Education Improvement Commission under this section or a predecessor of this section are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned in any court." This is the issue that we have raised concerns about in Bill 104 and we raise the concerns again. We lost the issue in Bill 104 when the government was determined to give the EIC powers and to make those powers not challengeable in any court.

It's my understanding that we cannot alter those terms and conditions in Bill 104; therefore, our motion speaks only to those renewed powers of the EIC given in this bill and the fact that their decisions and orders will not be reviewable in any court. We're proposing that that be struck. I wish we could take out that clause in Bill 104, but since we can't, we can at least propose that orders made by the Education Improvement Commission under this bill be subject to review in a court of law.

Mr Wildman: Before I make my argument, I would like to ask a question on a point of order. You will note, Chair, that the next amendment, the NDP amendment that is proposed that I would be putting on the floor, would strike the whole section. In other words, the purpose of our amendment is similar, but goes a little farther in that it would delete the clause similar to the one in Bill 104 which says that EIC orders and directives are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by any court. My point of order is, is it your view that these are the same amendment or are they substantively different? If so, if this one does not carry, then would it be in order for me to put my motion or is there any problem with that?

The Chair: They are different.

Mr Wildman: All right. Then I would just say that I agree with this, but I would actually like to go further and strike the whole thing, because in our view it is completely unacceptable, whether it's the Labour Relations Board, the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Municipal Board or any other board, for their decisions not to be testable in court. I find this detestable.

It seems to me there are many questions about this legislation and its constitutionality, as was intimated by the judge in the case when the government attempted to get an injunction against the teachers. It is completely unacceptable in our system of government for a government to pass legislation saying an agency of that government can make orders and directives that cannot be taken to court. Surely any matter can be tested with regard to its constitutionality under the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I find this completely objectionable.

While I support my friend's amendment, I would like to go further and strike the whole thing and not allow anybody to suggest that decisions and directives of an agency of the government are not testable in court.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to determine whether Mr Wildman's motion, which is similar but goes further, will be ruled in order. If it is in order, I would be happy to withdraw our motion in favour of his. We were advised by legal counsel that it would not be ruled in order to strike the entire clause because it affects a predecessor bill.

The Chair: I don't believe we're doing an entire clause.

Mrs McLeod: In Mr Wildman's motion?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: Will Mr Wildman's motion of the striking of subsection 58.2(11) affect predecessor legislation, take away rights that were granted in Bill 104? We were informed that it would not be considered in order, but if it is in order, if we can vote on Mr Wildman's motion, I'd be happy to withdraw ours in favour of his.

2000

The Chair: It seems to be okay, item 38, brought by Mr Wildman.

Mrs McLeod: If I may still withdraw, I'd be happy to proceed to Mr Wildman's motion.

The Chair: Item 37 is withdrawn by Ms McLeod. We're turning to item 38.

Mr Wildman: I move that subsection 58.2(11) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be struck out.

We've made the arguments. I appreciate Ms McLeod's position. I think she's in agreement with mine and I with hers. These are arbitrary powers that have no place in a constitutional democracy. For that reason, we would like to see them struck. I may have read too much into what you said, Chair, when you said this is all right. I think you were just ruling it in order; you weren't making a substantive statement about my amendment.

The Chair: I hope I never make substantive statements in this chair.

Mr Wildman: I would hope other members, who have some understanding and appreciation of the democratic process and the role of the courts in our system, would support this amendment.

Mr Crozier: Just to reiterate what it is we're speaking about, that is, "Orders and directives of the Education Improvement Commission...shall not be reviewed or questioned in any court." To have a clause like this in a piece of legislation, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but to a layperson, to me is so totally undemocratic that it's little wonder we are under the distinct impression that there will be challenges to this piece of legislation, because when any legislative body, and even worse, an unelected body, is put above the law, I think it goes to the very heart of what this piece of legislation is all about and it should be challenged right through the courts to the hilt if for no other reason than those kinds of clauses. I think it should be withdrawn.

Mr Smith: Obviously Mr Wildman made reference to other administrative tribunals. I would simply offer this suggestion, which as I know as my learned colleague will know, that a non-reviewable provision is not uncommon in legislation with respect to administrative tribunals. Certainly there's nothing in this bill that would prevent a reviewable item before the courts in the event the EIC acted outside of its statute or the parameters provided to it. Recognizing the opposition you have to that, it's important to realize that those powers do exist in other administrative tribunals and that any inappropriate activity is reviewable by court.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? We are dealing with item 38, moved by Mr Wildman. If not, I'll call the question. Shall the amendment, proposed by Mr Wildman, carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost. We're moving to item 39.

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 58.2(15) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by striking out "or as a result of an order made under such a regulation" in the fourth, fifth and sixth lines.

Just to be consistent, that would be an order made by the EIC and we're opposing any further extension of powers to the EIC.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr Wildman: I don't want to prolong this, but this is really crucial. In this case it relates to the EIC and to the matters we've just been debating, but it also relates to a lot of this legislation in that it gives arbitrary powers, in this case, to the EIC; in other parts of the legislation it gives such powers to the minister and to the cabinet or the Lieutenant Governor in Council. There are many, many provisions giving regulatory power here that mean decisions can be made without reference to the Legislature or to the public.

It goes to the core of this legislation and the objections that have been raised about whether this is anti-democratic legislation. That's what's really concerning in this law that's being proposed here. For those reasons I support the amendment. I understand the administrative arguments being made by the parliamentary assistant, but I don't think they answer the philosophical questions about the democratic process that we are raising and that many people in the public are raising.

Mr Smith: In essence, this is a complimentary motion previously made by the Liberal Party with respect to the powers of the EIC. As I've indicated previously, the government believes it's appropriate for the Education Improvement Commission to have a role with respect to the transfer of assets, liabilities and employees' issues. For that reason, I will not be supporting the Liberal motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the motion brought by Ms McLeod to amend the Education Act, subsection 58.2(15)? If not, I'll call the question. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost. We're moving to item 40a.

Mr Smith: I move that Part II.2 of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:

"Purpose of authority under clauses 58.1(2)(p), (q), section 58.2.

"58.2.1(1) The purpose of clauses 58.1(2)(p) and (q) is to provide authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and, where the Lieutenant Governor in Council exercises authority under section 58.2 to assign powers and duties to the Education Improvement Commission to address transitional matters that arise in connection with the school system reforms of 1997 and 1998.

"Same

"(2) In particular, the purpose of subclauses 58.1(2)(q)(ii) and (iii) is to provide authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and, where the Lieutenant Governor in Council exercises authority under section 58.2 to assign powers and duties to the Education Improvement Commission, to give certain district school boards time, where necessary, to prepare for the assumption of full administrative and operational responsibility for assets, liabilities and employees.

"Limitation: clauses 58.1(2)(p), (q), section 58.2

"(3) Neither the Lieutenant Governor in Council nor the Education Improvement Commission has any authority under clause 58.1(2)(p) or (q) or section 58.2 to address matters that, in the reasonable opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Education Improvement Commission, as the case may be, are unrelated to the school system reforms of 1997 and 1998.

"Limitation: subclause 58.1(2)(q)(i)

"(4) Neither the Lieutenant Governor in Council nor the Education Improvement Commission has any authority under subclause 58.1(2)(q)(i) to intervene in a strike or lock-out.

"Limitation: subclause 58.1(2)(q)(ii)

"(5) Neither the Lieutenant Governor in Council nor the Education Improvement Commission has any authority under subclause 58.1(2)(q)(ii) or (iii) to oblige a district school board to do anything after August 31, 1998.

"Same

"(5.1) Despite subsection (5), where subsection 58.2(7.3) applies, authority under subclauses 58.1(2)(q)(ii) and (iii) may be exercised to impose obligations on district school boards until January 1, 1999.

"One district school board to follow directions of another

"(6) Where authority is exercised under subclause 58.1(2)(q) (ii) or (iii), the district school board acting for and on behalf of another district school board shall follow the directions of the other district school board in order to ensure that the governance role of each district school board, as described in subclause 58.1(2)(a)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv), is respected.

"Same

"(7) The authority to make regulations under subclause 58.1(2)(q)(ii) or (iii) includes the authority to make regulations respecting how the requirements of subsection (6) are to be met."

2010

Mrs McLeod: It seems to me that if a government has to have this many clauses limiting its own power, it should look at the power it gave to itself in the first place with that total basket clause we dealt with earlier. There is at least some improvement over what is currently in the legislation by providing the limitation and particularly the limitation on ability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the EIC to intervene in any strike or lockout.

I recall very well our leader being told that he was simply silly in suggesting this could be a possibility under the legislation the way it was drafted. I am glad to see the government has at least recognised that the leader was right, that this was definitely a possibility and that they've acted to limit it in some way. If the parliamentary assistant is being advised that the minister said there was still a possibility to have a strike under this, I would certainly appreciate knowing that so we can address the issue now.

Mr Smith: Quite frankly, as I indicated with the previous motions dealing with this particular item, this is to place a limitation on authority and to make very clear that neither the EIC nor the LGIC can use this regulation-making power to deal with a strike or lockout. That's the intention of this amendment, and to strengthen the wording around that.

Mrs McLeod: It's still not as strong as I think it should be, but at least it's better than what currently exists with no limitations on the power of the cabinet or the EIC.

Mr Wildman: Am I to understand that in this clause the government is minding its Ps and Qs? I would like some clarification, seriously, on the second page where it says, first on limitation, "Neither the Lieutenant Governor in Council nor the Education Improvement Commission has any authority under clause 58.1(2)(q)(ii) or (iii) to oblige a district school board to do anything after August 31, 1998." Then, under (5.1), "Despite subsection (5), where subsection 58.2(7.3) applies, authority under subclauses 58.1(2)(q)(ii) and (iii) may be exercised to impose obligations on district school boards until January 1, 1999." Could you just clarify that for me; I'm not sure I know what that means.

Mr Smith: My understanding is that those provisions have been included in an effort to place parameters on time and scope.

Mr Wildman: Yes, I know. Just clarify what subsection 58.2(7.3) is and how it relates to the two different dates. One says it can't be done after August 31, 1998, and then it says despite that it could be done until January 1, 1999.

Mr Smith: It's a clause that's been included with respect to obliging obligations with respect to this item.

Mrs McLeod: But the two clauses are mutually contradictory.

Mr Wildman: They seem to be contradictory. I'm sure there must be some explanation for this or perhaps you weren't minding your Ps and Qs. I'd just like clarification; they seem to be contradictions.

Mr Smith: Perhaps I could ask ministry counsel to provide clarification then, if I'm not doing it appropriately.

Mr Tomlinson: The first subsection, (5), is basically saying all transfers of assets, liabilities and employees have to be completed by August 31, 1998. What the second subsection does is it says that despite that, if there are any particular assets, for example, that are under a dispute where boards have not agreed who should get them, then on those you can continue on until the end of the year, but by then you have to solve the dispute and transfer the assets.

Mr Wildman: Thank you. This is somewhat of an improvement, as my friend from Fort William said, because it attempts to limit the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Education Improvement Commission. In that sense it's an improvement, but as she said, perhaps the need to limit power should lead you to consider whether you should be granting these powers in the first place.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Smith: I think counsel has responded to Mr Wildman.

The Chair: We are dealing with a government amendment brought by Mr Smith. If there are no further questions, all those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 58.3(1) of the Education Act, as set out in section 32 of the bill, be amended by striking out "and a directive or order issued under section 58.2" in the second and third lines.

Again, this is taking the EIC out by not allowing them to make orders under this section.

Mr Wildman: I agree.

Mr Smith: Just briefly, this is a complimentary amendment to many others the Liberal members have proposed. The government believes the Education Improvement Commission should be empowered to make specific orders and directives as it applies to assets and liabilities and employees and is voting against this particular motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion or questions in regard to the amendment brought by Ms McLeod? All those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment is lost.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 58.3(3) of the act, an set out in section 32 of the bill, be struck out.

This particular motion relates to an amendment that addresses the infamous Henry VIII clause that the committee heard a considerable amount of input and opposition to during the public hearings on Bill 160. The amendment effectively eliminates, in its entirety, the Henry VIII clause that was previously contained in the original drafting of the bill.

Mrs McLeod: We have an exactly identical amendment as well. Clearly we will be supporting this amendment. However, I do have a question, because this is one of those interesting amendments that has a note. I know you didn't want the notes to be made available; it was an accident that you tabled the wrong set of amendments and that your notes continued to be made available to us.

Mr Wildman: And I might say, very helpful.

Mrs McLeod: Very helpful. But it raises some very real questions. The note on this particular one is that the constitutional law branch advises this clause be dropped; wise advice given the fact that it was quite clear from two court decisions that it was going to be challengeable in the courts. But the next statement is: "MET" -- the Ministry of Education and Training -- "legal branch is concerned that it might be needed. Please advise whether to include this motion." I'm glad to see that you've decided to include the motion. I think it would have been constitutionally very difficult for you not to. But I would be interested in knowing why the MET legal branch felt this sweeping clause abrogating the government from following any of its acts or regulations, and giving the government power by regulation to override any other act of the government, might be needed?

Mr Smith: If you want the explanation, I trust legal counsel will provide that to you. Very clearly, the government, notwithstanding the position of legal branch, heard from the people of this province that they have genuine concerns with respect to this particular clause and have moved to strike it from the bill. That's clearly in direct response to the public criticism that was raised concerning power centring around regulation. That was the decision that the minister and the government made with respect to this, and the item in the note I accept as advice from legal counsel within the ministry.

Mrs McLeod: Therefore, you're not going to answer my question as to why this clause was there in the first place and why it was felt that it might be needed. This clause did not appear by magic in the original legislation. It was put there very deliberately.

I continue to be particularly incensed that this clause appeared because it was clearly there to give greater powers under the basket clause which would have allowed the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make any regulations he deemed to be advisable in order to prevent disruption to students. We argued, as you know, that that could include the removal of the right to strike. We were told no, it can't because of the existence of the Labour Relations Act, only to find that this clause existed which would have allowed cabinet to overrule the Labour Relations Act or any other act.

We're very suspicious. I'm glad it's gone, but I'm still suspicious about the government's agenda and I wish that there was some way that we could ask that the question be answered as to what other possible uses the government might have made of that clause.

2020

Mr Wildman: As you'll know, Chair, the NDP has exactly the same amendment, striking the Henry VIII clause, and we're proud to support the government as it finally recognized the error of its ways in this particular case because this was the most infamous and anti-democratic of all of the portions of this bill.

I am intrigued by the note. I want to thank the staff in the minister's office for being so kind as to include the notes by legal advisers. It is most helpful to the opposition and it is, I hope, a precedent that will be followed in the future when governments submit amendments to their legislation.

I understand, however, that in fact this is in here because it was the wrong amendment that was tabled, the wrong draft. I understand that there were discussions going on between the Ministry of Education and Training legal branch and the constitutional law branch and that in fact what they intended to submit was a later draft which would have not struck this section but would have amended it so that there would still have been some residual powers.

I'm glad that you goofed and that you have decided to stick with these amendments, thanks to your time allocation motion under which you wouldn't extend the deadline for the amendments, because in this case the public, the people of Ontario, will benefit from your mess up.

Mrs McLeod: Hoist on their own petard.

Mr Wildman: Yes, you've been hoist on your own petard, as it were. I would be happy to hoist you even higher by supporting it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. I'm amazed that we have unanimous agreement and yet we take so long. But in any event, is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Smith's motion to amend? If not, all those in favour? It's unanimous.

Mr Wildman and Ms McLeod, in regard to items 43 and 44, I would --

Interjection.

The Chair: They are withdrawn? Thank you very much. That ends all amendments to section 32. We are now dealing with section 32, as amended, aforesaid. Is there any further discussion or questions in regard to section 32, as amended? If not, shall section 32, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion passing section 32, as amended, carries.

We are now dealing with sections -- and I won't hurry this, but I'm trying to group some of them -- 33 to 41, inclusive, which have no amendments. Are there any questions or discussion in regard to sections 33 to 41, inclusive? If there are no matters that wish to be raised in that regard, shall section 33 to section 41, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? The sections are carried.

We are now dealing with section 42, item 45.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 42(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) Subsection 68(5) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"Fee payable by non-resident

"(5) Where a pupil attends a school that is operated by a board appointed under this section in a children's treatment centre and the pupil is not a resident pupil of the board, the board of which the pupil is a resident pupil or is qualified to be a resident pupil shall pay to the board that operates the school the fee, if any, payable for the purpose under the regulations.

"Same

"(5.1) Where the pupil is not a resident pupil or qualified to be a resident pupil of a board and the pupil's cost of education is not payable by the minister under the regulations the pupil's parent or guardian shall pay to the board that operates the school a fee fixed by such board.

"Same

"(5.2) A fee fixed under subsection (5.1) shall not be greater than the fee, if any, payable for the purpose under the regulations."

Effectively, this proposed amendment replaces reference to "the centre for the treatment of cerebral palsy, crippled children's treatment centre, a hospital or a sanatorium," with "children's treatment centre," effectively removing outdated references and more appropriately using common terminology with respect to these areas of interest.

Mr Wildman: Again, we have the consideration by the government in giving us their note and I'd like to have an explanation of the note. It says, "The term 'children's treatment centre' may be too narrow since it could result in the exclusion of general hospitals." Please, can you give us some explanation here?

Mr Smith: It's my understanding, Mr Wildman, that that was raised as a concern, but it has been determined that the items identified under that note are not relevant and that the proposed amendment captures the concerns considered in that underlying note.

The Chair: Any further discussion or questions? If not, shall the motion, an amendment proposed by Mr Smith, carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion carries.

Is there any discussion of section 42, as amended? If not, shall section 42, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 42, as amended, is carried.

I'm subject to the committee's advice, but there are no amendments in regard to sections 43 to 79, inclusive. That's an awful pile of sections and perhaps you could peruse them to see if there are matters you wish to raise. Yes, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: Because of the time allocation motion and the fact that we have 217 amendments to this bill, which runs in itself to about 220 pages, it is really, as you indicate, an inappropriate way to deal with things, to deal with all of those clauses without going through them one by one, but in terms of practicality I think that we have to deal with the amendments.

There are two ways we could deal with it. We could simply pass all of these sections without discussion, which I think is unfortunate, or we could stand them down and deal with the amendments as far as possible and then at 5 o'clock tomorrow, if we haven't dealt with all the clauses, then we have to deal just by voting as per the time allocation motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. If I may, though, that's going to really get complicated because we're going to be dealing with this problem throughout the bill where there are no amendments. But in any event, Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I like Mr Wildman's suggestion. I don't think it would be that complicated. I think it would be fairly easy for the clerk of the committee to identify the sections which have not been voted on as whole sections. I don't think they have an impact on the future sections. However, I feel that what we should be concentrating on is the amendments.

I will express my very real concern that we move so quickly through so many major sections of the act and there has been an amendment on one part of the sections that you're about to lump together, but it was defeated early on in the process because it was our amendment relating to the change in name of school trustees to board members throughout the bill and it was dealt with in one amendment at the very outset.

I just again express concern about the way in which this government has chosen to present omnibus legislation, beginning with Bill 26, in a way which was quite unprecedented at that time but has become standard practice for the government. It used to be that omnibus legislation dealt only with essentially housekeeping issues. Now the government has chosen to use omnibus legislation to ram through extensive changes in policy and governance without there being an opportunity for full discussion or consideration of the individual sections of those bills.

We've chosen not to make amendments to these particular sections because we want to concentrate on the most draconian parts of the bill and, with that, I can't speak to whether or not this is good, bad or indifferent in every part, but I would be prepared to move on to the substantive amendments that have already been tabled.

2030

The Chair: We must move on in numerical order. It would take unanimous consent, I take it, to stand it down. Is that what you're suggesting? Mr Wildman has moved and requested unanimous consent that sections 43 to 79, inclusive, be stood down until the --

Interjection.

The Chair: The last amendment would be --

Mr Wildman: Or until we reach 5 pm tomorrow afternoon.

The Chair: Five o'clock is no good, Mr Wildman, because then you won't have a chance to debate them in any event.

Mr Wildman: No, that's what I meant. As for the time allocation motion, if we get to 5 o'clock, it's moved anyway. We just have to vote on all of the sections and amendments that we haven't yet dealt with, so we'd just be voting after that anyway. Unless of course you want to recommend to the House that we extend this process so that we can deal with it properly.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I can deal with them individually. I'm really trying to do it in the fastest method possible.

Mr Wildman: No, we don't want to end up in a long procedural discussion, so if you want to deal with them all as a group and forget about my request for unanimous consent, then let's do it so we can go on.

The Chair: It certainly would be faster. We wouldn't waste any more time.

Mr Wildman: All right, fine. Why don't we do it that way?

The Chair: Is there any discussion or questions in regard to sections 43 to 79, inclusive? If not, shall section 43 to section 79, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Carried.

We are moving on to section 80, item 46.

Mr Smith: I move that paragraph 17.1 of subsection 170(1) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 80(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "advisory" in the first line.

This specifically addresses the removal or the dropping of the advisory aspect before "school council." As the committee will recall, Bill 104 requires the Education Improvement Commission to make recommendations on the role of a school council. This particular amendment provides to some extent more scope for the EIC study. The committee will know as well that school councils currently operate under memorandum 122, which outlines the advisory role of school councils, and certainly that policy memorandum would remain in force.

Mrs McLeod: I find this a truly frightening amendment and I am very sceptical as to why it is here. I would point out that the way the clause now reads is very innocuous, I suppose. It says, "We will establish a school council for each school operated by the board in accordance with the regulations," which basically means there is no role, advisory or otherwise, outlined for school councils.

Once again, this is an issue that has been raised by school councils since the hearings on Bill 104, saying we want a clear understanding of the role of school councils and the expectation of the government of these school councils. Taking out the word "advisory" simply adds more confusion to the question that school councils have been asking about what their role indeed will be.

Beyond that, and I know the parliamentary assistant's going to tell me the EIC is going to tell us what the role of the school councils will be eventually somewhere down the road, but the government had included the word "advisory" in its original legislation. In all the presentations that were made by existing school council representatives, they accepted the role of "advisory" being an advisory council. They made it absolutely clear in the hearings on Bill 160, as they did in the hearings on Bill 104, that they did not want to be given a role which would make them essentially the managers of their schools.

There was some measure of comfort for those school councils in the fact that the government was making it clear in law that the school councils would be advisory and that the EIC would develop their role within that context. The only groups that made representation to this committee opposing the advisory nature of school councils were those groups that wanted to see school boards abandoned totally and total management of schools turned over to school councils and who felt that this bill did not go far enough in that direction.

By taking the word "advisory" out, the government has not only confused the issue for existing school councils, but I think has opened the door to take those further steps in turning managerial responsibility for schools over to the school councils. That is clearly not what any existing representative of a local school council asked for.

Mr Wildman: I truly regret this amendment. Some of the most eloquent presentations that this committee heard on Bill 160 came from representatives of school councils across the province. I remember in particular two presentations in Thunder Bay. The first one was early in the morning by the chair of the public school board schools councils and the second one was late in the afternoon by the chair of the Catholic school boards schools council.

That woman received a standing ovation from a very large crowd, much larger than we have observing the committee this evening. I remember how she started off her presentation. She looked directly at the members of the committee, particularly the government members, and she said: "You mandated us. You created school councils. Now you better listen to us." Then she talked about her three children and went step by step through Bill 160 and said why it was bad legislation and how it would harm the future of her children.

I also recall that she said that they wanted to remain advisory, that they did not want to be trustees. They did not want to have the role of school board members, that if they wanted that role, they would have run for election and that they valued the relationship they had with their trustees.

The only body that appeared before this committee that claimed to represent parents that asked for this change was the so-called Ontario Parent Council, a group that is all handpicked appointees of the minister and chaired by a member of the Fraser Institute. They said they wanted this change. A couple of other groups appeared before the committee and said they wanted this change. They were groups that had names like Teachers for Excellence and Organization for Quality Education. All these groups use the same approach that this government uses in titling its legislation, but mostly these are groups hoping this government is moving towards charter schools. A couple of them were quite open about that, many were not so open, but that's what they're looking forward to.

Parents are interested in the education of their kids. They care about being involved in the schools, particularly these groups that are so active on school councils, but they don't want to administer the school, they don't want to run the school. They want to assist, they want to be listened to, they want to ensure that their input is useful and is influential, but they don't want to run the schools.

2040

I understand the parliamentary assistant's comments that the memorandum guidelines, which talk about "advisory," would remain in place, but we all know that it is much easier to change guidelines under a memorandum than it is to amend legislation. I think we need to have this word in the legislation so that, if at some point in the future there is to be a change, it means bringing it before the Legislature and before the public for a true public discussion of what the role of school councils should be.

I call on this government to do what the chair of the Thunder Bay Catholic schools council said this committee and this Legislature should do: Listen to the representatives of the school councils that appeared before this committee, respond to their concerns and their desires, not just in terms of this section but throughout the bill, because they eviscerated this legislation.

Mr Smith: I certainly agree with the member for Algoma that parents demonstrated a strong interest in education, and rightfully so, throughout the course of the public hearings. They also clearly indicated that there's a necessity for clarification with respect to their roles and responsibilities, and that makes appropriate in part the responsibilities given to the Education Improvement Commission to examine the future role of parent councils.

Clearly we've heard from some groups as well that if we were serious about parental involvement in the education system, the removal of the word "advisory" would go a long way to demonstrate that commitment. The government has responded to that recommendation and appropriately filed this particular amendment that would in fact remove the advisory aspect.

It does not, nor would I speculate or preclude any of the findings of the Education Improvement Commission we'll find with respect to their review, simply to suspect that they will receive the same type of input we heard in Thunder Bay from the group you referred to and give due consideration as well to those viewpoints and recommendations that were forthcoming at that time.

Mrs McLeod: The parliamentary assistant's comments confirm the worst fears that we have all had about this government's agenda and the worst fears of the parents who made representations to our committee that this government's ultimate agenda was to turn managerial responsibility for schools over to them.

Mr Smith, you said that this clause gives more scope to the EIC to define the role of school councils. They had full scope to define that role as an advisory school council. When you say that you changed this clause in order to respond to those groups who wanted something more, it is a clear response in support for those groups who came here saying: "This doesn't go far enough. It is time to do away with school boards altogether. It is time to turn responsibility for school management over to parent councils."

This is preparing the ground for the wholesale introduction of charter schools and the privatization of our educational system, and this is the worst fear of everybody who presented to the committee who was really concerned about the protection of public education.

Interruption.

The Chair: Any further discussion? We only have 15 minutes left, ladies and gentlemen in the audience. I'd be loath to adjourn at this stage.

Mr Crozier: Aren't we going to 9:30, Chair?

The Chair: You're quite right. We have 45 minutes. That makes me feel better. Good.

Is there any further discussion? We are presently dealing with item 46, an amendment proposed by Mr Smith. Any further discussion?

Mr Wildman: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Boushy, Guzzo, Rollins, Smith, Stewart.

Nays

Crozier, McLeod, Wildman.

The Chair: The motion carries.

We are moving on to item 47.

Mr Smith: I move that subsection 170(3) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 80(5) of the bill, be amended by striking out "advisory" in the second line.

Again, this proposed amendment is complementary to the previous with respect to removal of the word "advisory" in reference to school councils.

The Chair: Is there further discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour?

Mrs McLeod: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Boushy, Guzzo, Rollins, Smith, Stewart.

Nays

Crozier, McLeod, Wildman.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

We're now dealing with section 80, as amended by the two government amendments. Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Shall section 80, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 80, as amended, is carried.

We are now moving on to section 81, item 48.

Mr Wildman: I move that section 170.1 of the Education Act, as set out in section 81 of the bill, be amended by striking out clause (3)(e) and subsection (5).

If you refer to the legislation, clause (3)(e) is the one that allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations: "(e) designating positions that are not teaching positions and duties that are not teachers' duties and prescribing the minimum qualifications for a designated position or for performing designated duties."

Subsection (5) says, "It shall not be presumed that a person is required to be a teacher solely because he or she holds a position that is not designated under clause(3)(e) or performs duties that are not designated under that clause."

This is a central issue in this bill. Initially when the government brought forward these sections, the previous minister in particular, Mr Snobelen, made it clear that the government intended to use people who did not have certification to teach students; that was quite clear.

When it became obvious that the public was not prepared to accept this, the government's tune changed, and the new minister, Mr Johnson, and the Premier and others said, "oh no," they never intended that. They just intended that so-called experts -- I think Mr Boushy said Wayne Gretzky wanted to coach all the high school hockey players in Ontario; at any rate, that they could bring experts in to assist the teachers. Well, they already can do that. Teachers don't need any legislation to allow them to bring people in to assist them in instructing the students, people who have special expertise. But that's the story the government has now.

We have still before us the fact that there are sections in this bill that make it possible for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister in other words, to say that certain positions are not teaching positions. I suppose phys-ed teachers, librarians, student counsellors, early childhood educators, all those kinds of things could be designated as non-teaching positions and the duties they carry out non-teaching duties.

Then it goes on further to say in the other subsection that even if a person is doing other duties that are not covered in this one that designates non-teaching duties, we shouldn't presume that this person is a teacher. I can understand why the teaching profession is worried about such a clause and I certainly can understand why parents and students are worried about it. I think that we should just strike it, get rid of it. By getting rid of it, it doesn't prohibit teachers from bringing in experts to assist in instruction. That can already be done, and if that's the real intention of the government, they shouldn't have any objection to striking these subsections.

2050

Mrs McLeod: I certainly intend to support Mr Wildman's resolution. I believe in fact the government supports it as well because I think in the subsequent amendment, if I'm reading it correctly, they have deleted the clauses that give that power to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and have deleted even the non-presumption clause. I think we're also going to come back to it because the government introduces another amendment later on which still opens the door, I believe, to having non-qualified teachers. We will be voting against that amendment when it comes forward because, quite clearly, the government's intent under this clause was to provide for cheaper alternatives to certified teachers at the heads of our classrooms.

I am glad they have been persuaded that they cannot be quite so blatant about their intention to remove qualified teachers from the heads of our classes, but I'm still suspicious about what the further amendments do. We'll be voting against this entire section and all of these regulatory powers being taken unto the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr Smith: I certainly appreciate the comments of the member for Algoma, but the issue of moving items from regulation to statute was one, as he will know as well as Mrs McLeod, who spent the duration of their time with the committee, that was very contentious and one that the government has responded to with respect to class size and instructional and differentiated staffing issues.

We certainly have consulted with the College of Teachers with respect to the issue of use of differentiated staffing. It's not one of dollars, it's one of maximizing on opportunities for students in the classroom. That's what this objective is. Certainly it's a central issue, I would agree with Mr Wildman, to the motions that will follow this particular amendment that has been proposed by the NDP. I believe that those proposed amendments appropriately address not only the concerns the public raised with respect to regulatory powers but central issues to the quality agenda that the government's pursuing with respect to education reform. From that perspective, we'll be voting against the NDP motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment made by Mr Wildman? If not, shall Mr Wildman's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is lost.

We are proceeding to item 49.

Mr Smith: I move that section 81 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"81. The act is amended by adding the following sections:

"Class size

"170.1(1) Every board shall ensure that the average size of its elementary school classes, in the aggregate, does not exceed 25 pupils.

"Same, secondary schools

"(2) Every board shall ensure that the average size of its secondary school classes, in the aggregate, does not exceed 22 pupils.

"Exception

"(3) The average size of a board's classes, in the aggregate, may exceed the maximum average class size specified in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, to the extent that the minister, at the request of the board, may permit.

"Determination date

"(4) A board shall determine the average size of its classes, in the aggregate, as of October 31 each year.

"Regulations

"(5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation,

"(a) establish the method to be used by a board to determine the average size of its classes, in the aggregate;

"(b) exclude special education classes from the determination of average class size;

"(c) require boards to prepare reports (containing the information specified by the regulation) concerning the average size of its classes and to make the reports available to the public;

"(d) define terms used in this section for the purposes of a regulation made under this section.

"Review of maximum amount

"(6) Every three years, the minister shall review the amount of the maximum average class sizes specified in subsections (1) and (2).

"Teaching time

"170.2(1) In this section,

"'classroom teacher' means a teacher who is assigned in a regular timetable to provide instruction to pupils but does not include a principal or vice-principal.

"Minimum teaching time, elementary school

"(2) Every board shall ensure that, in the aggregate, its classroom teachers in elementary schools are assigned to provide instruction to pupils for an average of at least 1,300 minutes (during the instructional program) for each period of five instructional days during the school year.

"Minimum teaching time, secondary school

"(3) Every board shall ensure that, in the aggregate, its classroom teachers in secondary schools are assigned to provide instruction to pupils for an average of at least 1,250 minutes (during the instructional program) for each period of five instructional days during the school year.

"Allocation to schools

"(4) A board may allocate to each school a share of the board's aggregate minimum time for a school year for all of its classroom teachers (during which they must be assigned to provide instruction to pupils).

"Allocation by principal

"(5) The principal of a school, in his or her sole discretion, shall allocate among the classroom teachers in the school the school's share of the board's aggregate minimum time (as described in subsection (4)) for the school year.

"Same

"(6) The principal shall make the allocation in accordance with such policies as the board may establish.

"Effect on collective agreements

"(7) An allocation under subsection (4) or (5) may be made despite any applicable conditions or restrictions in a collective agreement.

"Calculation

"(8) The calculation of the amount of time that a board's classroom teachers are assigned as required by subsection (2) or (3) shall be based upon all of the board's classroom teachers and their assignments (on a regular timetable) on every instructional day during the school year.

"Part-time employees

"(9) For the purposes of subsection (2) or (3), the minimum time required in respect of each classroom teacher who is employed on a part-time basis by the board is correspondingly reduced.

"Teachers' assistants, etc

"170.3 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing duties and minimum qualifications of persons who are assigned to assist teachers or to complement instruction by teachers in elementary or secondary schools."

Effectively, this motion and proposed amendment amends the section on class size to specify a maximum average; as I indicated, an average of 25 at the elementary and 22 at the secondary. It puts into legislation the amount of time teachers should spend with students, 1,250 minutes per week on average for secondary and 1,300 minutes per week on average for elementary. The determination or allocation of instructional time will remain with the principal, in accordance with board policies. The proposed amendment amends provisions regarding teachers' assistants. To clarify, people are to assist or complement certified teachers consistent with the advice and opinions expressed by the College of Teachers.

Mrs McLeod: Where to begin? I suppose I should at least acknowledge that I would rather have these decisions set out in statute than under the regulatory power that existed under the act without this amendment. But I simply do not believe that these kinds of decisions about what is in the best interests of students in the classroom in each school jurisdiction can be effectively made by the Minister of Education sitting in Queen's Park. I believe very strongly that what this government is doing is destroying the partnerships that Mr Smith was saying earlier in the day were valued by the government, because having these kinds of decisions being made in this way by the government in Queen's Park shuts out all the other participants in the system from discussion as to whether these are good, bad or indifferent.

This amendment is a good example of why this is the wrong way to make decisions about what is in the educational interests of our students, because there can't be any discussion, there can't be any debate, there can't be any opportunity to look at what the impacts of these now statutory requirements will be on individual classrooms in individual jurisdictions. Nor is there any accompanying requirement for the government to be held accountable to provide the financial resources that would make effective implementation of these recommendations possible.

Let me be very specific about my concerns. The government's recommendations here on class size put into law the status quo in terms of average class size.

2100

Mr Wildman: I thought only the union bosses wanted the status quo.

Mrs McLeod: The parents and teachers who presented to our committee will tell you that the status quo does not prevent us from having classes of 40 and more. Given that fact, the government is now incorporating in law the status quo for average class size. We know that under current financial arrangements that status quo means that many students are in classes of 40 or more. The reason students are in those size classes and the average class size is lower is not because somehow the teachers have mysteriously disappeared, as the government's backgrounder suggested, but because class sizes in lower grades are kept smaller and therefore classes in the junior, intermediate and senior grades become larger in order to maintain lower class sizes, and because special education classes are kept smaller. There are a host of reasons why some classes must be smaller than the average. So preserving the status quo in legislation is not going to be a comfort to the parents who have raised concerns about class size.

Then take that fact and put it in the context of a government whose stated goal is to take another $700 million out of education, and you tell me how you can maintain even the status quo in class size and take another $700 million out of education. The Premier has said that all we have to do is get rid of waste. Well, we know what is already happening. We know the kind of gutting that is going on; we know the kinds of decisions that are being made by school boards just to maintain the current class sizes with the current dollars that are provided. We're seeing the loss of librarians, the loss of special education classes, the loss of adult education, the loss of junior kindergarten. It is going to go on and on. If this government tries to bring this statutory provision even maintaining the status quo on class size into place at the same time as they cut $700 million out of the education system, everything beyond this average class size will be gutted.

I believe it is absolutely irresponsible to mandate class size with no accompanying accountability for providing the financial resources to ensure that those class sizes can be maintained without gutting the rest of the system.

Preparation time and the issue of preparation time which the government is now incorporating: You have come up with some very specific numbers. The minister tells us that you haven't cut preparation time for secondary school teachers in half; you've maybe only cut it by a third.

This committee heard representation during the committee hearings that the government's numbers in the calculation of preparation time for secondary school teachers in Ontario compared to secondary school teachers in other provinces are completely inaccurate and that if accurate figures were used to calculate preparation time, if the portion of the preparation time of secondary school teachers in Ontario that is actually used for on-call coverage is taken out so you're comparing apples to apples, you would find that indeed secondary school teachers in Ontario have no more preparation time than teachers in other jurisdictions.

What happens when you cut it by a third or a half or whatever this number suggests? Again, when you present it like this, an amendment without opportunity for debate or discussion among the people who are affected by it, you don't really get a chance to look at the details of what these calculations of minutes that each teacher is going to have to teach are going to mean.

I go back to some of the presentations we heard at committee. We know the bottom line here. We know the bottom line is that you are going to have fewer teachers. This may not be as many as the 10,000 at this point; it may be something less than 10,000. But it will be fewer teachers teaching more students, more classes. You can't argue against that, because in the earlier part of this clause you've established class sizes as being at the status quo. You are not going to have teachers teach more and keep the teachers that you've freed up to put them into classes to get class sizes smaller, because you've already mandated the average class size at the status quo.

Clearly the teachers who are going to be made redundant by your cutting of preparation time are going to be teachers who are surplus to the system. They are going to be teachers who are lost to the system. We are going to have fewer teachers.

We heard in committee from representatives of small secondary schools, perhaps particularly from representatives of francophone school boards, that having fewer teachers on an already small staff may make it virtually impossible for them to run full secondary school curricula. Has the government looked at this for one moment when they came up with these numbers? Have you looked at any of the impacts of fewer numbers of teachers on small secondary school staff? Do you have any idea what kind of jeopardy you're placing the students in those small schools in by restricting their curriculum or potentially abandoning the constitutional rights to governance that you claim you're putting into place with this bill because you're making effective governance of a system impossible?

I know that you could care less about what cutting preparation time will do to the extracurricular program in our secondary schools. Concerns that were raised by presenter after presenter about the effect of cutting preparation time on our extracurricular programs just washed over the heads of the committee as if it wasn't even registering.

It was bad enough to have it in regulation; it's equally bad to have it in statute when it is presented in such a way that there is no opportunity for discussion, no opportunity for an understanding of the impact, no opportunity for local flexibility in determining what are the interests and needs of the students in those particular jurisdictions, and most particularly no fiscal accountability for a government that is determined to take $700 million out but wants to be able to preach to the public that it is controlling class sizes and cutting out redundant use of teacher time. I think this is totally irresponsible.

Mr Wildman: This speaks to one of the main areas of concern with this legislation as it relates to the undemocratic regulatory power. The government now is putting some of that into legislation to try and mute some of that criticism. I think it has raised other problems, some of which have been spoken to by my friend from Fort William.

I'll just make one statement and then I have a number of questions I hope the parliamentary assistant can help us with. I don't think the math works. I don't claim to be a mathematical genius, and I didn't study new math, so you've got to keep that in mind, but the fact is this: If you have less money in the system and you want to take a substantial amount of money out, in education most of the cost is salary. The only way you can get most of that money out is by limiting staff. That means getting rid of teachers. So if you have less money in the system, fewer teachers, you can't limit class size. Class size won't go down. The math doesn't work.

Having said that, I've got some serious concerns here. The parliamentary assistant said the government has responded to the concerns about the regulatory power by putting the numbers in here. We have the statement in legislation, if this is accepted, that every board shall ensure that the average class size in elementary schools doesn't exceed 25, and that in secondary schools it doesn't exceed 22. That's in legislation if this passes. However, the key question is, how do you determine these average class sizes? That remains in regulation. It says here:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation,

"(a) establish the method to be used by a board to determine the average size of its classes, in the aggregate."

I want to ask a question here. Is it the intention in making these regulations to have average class sizes in aggregate determined across the board jurisdiction or within an individual school?

Mr Smith: The intent, Mr Wildman, as I indicated in my previous comments to Mrs McLeod on the other item, was that there is local flexibility incorporated into this bill, so it will be determined at the board level.

2110

Mr Wildman: So some boards might do it across the board, some might do it by a grouping of schools, and others might do it by individual schools. That's the way it is now.

The problem, as Mrs McLeod said -- let's use a hypothetical situation. If you have a special ed class of eight kids in a school and the average is not to exceed 25, then in order to get the average up to 25 from eight, you're going to have some pretty damn big classes.

I'll use another example in my constituency. There is a community in my riding that is halfway between Winnipeg and Toronto, the centre of Ontario, called Hornepayne. Hornepayne has a high school. They are 75 miles by road to Hearst in one direction, where there's a school, and they are 120 miles the other direction to Wawa, where there is another school. They have their own high school. They have a total this year of 84 students in this high school. There's a grade 12 class of two students. The grade 9 class in English I think has 15 students.

If the new district school board number 2, of which Hornepayne, thanks to your ignorant government -- district school board number 2 is the largest geographic board in Ontario now. If it's done across the board jurisdiction, then what you're essentially saying I believe is the end of that high school in Hornepayne, because district school board number 2 will not be able to achieve the average class sizes across their system and maintain these very small classes in Hornepayne.

What does that mean for the students in Hornepayne? It means they are going to eventually have to board out. They're going to have to go out to Wawa and board there during the week and return on the weekend to their homes or they're going to leave altogether and go live with relatives in Barrie or Toronto or wherever to go to school. They're not going to be able to live at home with their parents. That's what this means, and that's what's wrong with doing this the way you're talking about it.

If you were in fact setting maximum class sizes -- not average, but maximum class sizes -- which is what your advertisements across the province would like to persuade people you're doing, it would still present some problems, but at least it would be responding to the concern of parents who don't want large classes. And it wouldn't mean necessarily that small schools like Hornepayne would be hammered, because you'd be talking about a maximum. If you've got a class of two in grade 12, you'd be well under the maximum.

This doesn't respond adequately, in my view, to local situations which are very foreign to the situation in a large metropolitan centre like Toronto, and it doesn't respond to the concerns of the people in Toronto for special ed programs and other special programs either.

I also have some other questions with regard to the preparation time and classroom teaching time. You say:

"Minimum teaching time, secondary school

"(3) Every board shall ensure that in the aggregate, its classroom teachers in secondary schools are assigned to provide instruction to pupils for an average of at least 1,250 minutes...for each period of five instructional days during the school year."

Can you tell me, do these numbers work in semestered systems?

Mr Smith: In my understanding, Mr Wildman, yes, they will work. It's important to realize, while you go on here for some time, that we're not changing anything on the elementary panel at all and we're simply asking the secondary panel to spend approximately a half-hour more. The surprising part of this for me is that the members -- and I say this with respect to you. The motivation of me or my colleagues here is not to dismantle public education in this province. It simply is not that. Who would be motivated by that particular vision?

Mr Wildman: To respond to that, what teacher in his or her right mind would negotiate class sizes up? But that's what you say they want to do.

Mr Smith: What I'm saying is that class size --

Interruption.

The Chair: Excuse me. The four young ladies down there are being disruptive. Would you like to leave? If you cannot control yourselves, please leave. Otherwise, I'll shut the place down.

Please continue, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: The reason I asked that is a very practical one. In a semestered system, you don't have eight periods a day; you have blocks. Sometimes they're an hour, sometimes they're 70 minutes, sometimes they're 50 minutes. The timetabling around these blocks is not as simple as saying "an extra half-hour," because they don't have half-hour blocks. You've got 60-minute blocks, 70-minute blocks, 50-minute blocks. Does it work? As of January 1, will these semestered systems have to completely restructure their programs?

Mr Smith: As I indicated, we have put in place with respect to this particular motion flexibility for the principal in a particular school community. In my opinion, yes, it will work. If you choose to take the position that no, it won't, that's a different thing.

The motivation here, as I was saying before I got interrupted, is not to create a problem with respect to the delivery of education. We're trying to move it ahead into the future, and this is our approach to doing that. You took a different approach and the Liberals have taken a different approach in the past, and I understand what that means to the teaching profession when they speak of consistency in terms of the education system in this province. This is the direction the government has taken in terms of responding to the concerns expressed with respect to regulatory powers and placing it in legislation so people clearly understand what the expectations are, that it not be done behind closed doors by three cabinet ministers signing a regulation.

That's what this is about, and we're making every effort to be up front about it, providing the flexibility where necessary and, notwithstanding your opposition to the Education Improvement Commission, using their expertise -- which, I might add, through their Road Ahead report addressed a number of these issues. That particular group conducted substantive consultations with a range of school board officials, parent groups and student council associations across the province. This is not necessarily the brainchild of this government. It's something you talked about as a former minister of the crown yourself and something we're prepared to move ahead and act on. You may not like the way it's presented, but we've tried to clarify and make very clear our intentions with three key, fundamental areas, one of which is the differentiated staffing, which required clarification with the College of Teachers.

That's the viewpoint I have to offer on this particular motion. I think it responds appropriately to the concerns we heard, and I fully recognize that not everybody is going to be happy with this. I understand that.

2120

Mr Wildman: The reason I raised the question is that I fully understand the government's view that perhaps semestered systems are a thing of the past or should be, that we should be going back to an eight-period day for the whole year, that rather than in the first semester taking four courses and the second semester four courses, you take eight courses all year. That may be what is decided and that will become the norm across the province instead of having differences locally, based on the desires of the local community. But I don't think this does work in semestered systems, and I think that's going to be a problem after January 1.

There are many concerns I have with this, but the other major concern is: "(7) An allocation under subsection (4) or (5) may be made despite any applicable conditions or restrictions in a collective agreement." This basically is taking away the control of class size, preparation time, from negotiations between locally elected school trustees and the local representatives of the teachers, the people who are entrusted by the local community to deal with education matters for their students. This strips the collective agreement in some cases, I guess, and takes it and gives it to a central body here at Queen's Park. It limits what boards and teachers can negotiate, and I think that's most regrettable.

If the government has so much confidence in the Education Improvement Commission -- I'll just close by saying one thing here -- I really wish they would take the advice of the Education Improvement Commission when it says the government must reinvest any savings in education. The government says they're taking the advice of the Education Improvement Commission where it's convenient, of the Royal Commission on Learning's For the Love of Learning when it's convenient, but you don't take the advice. You don't take it all; you don't take it as a package.

The Education Improvement Commission has said a number of things that teachers and parents in our hearings have disagreed with. They've also said a number of things they agree with. One of them is that you as a government must reinvest every cent that you save in education back into classroom education, and you're not going to do that. The Premier has said that you can take somewhere between $500 million and $700 million more out of education. If that's what you're doing, you're not following the advice of the Education Improvement Commission; you're just grabbing money from the education of kids. If you're basing things on the Education Improvement Commission, then do so, but don't cherry-pick.

Mr Crozier: I just want to point out to the committee and to the government that the question of average class size will not only, as my colleague has said, perhaps be the end of a school in Hornepayne, but the same thing can happen in the densely populated area of southwestern Ontario. It could happen in Harrow. We have a high school in Harrow that fits that criterion.

My point is that when you close a school, you don't just take the pupils and move them somewhere else. It's not as simple as that. When you close a school, and in this case the only high school in the community, you start to shut the town down, because people won't move to a community that doesn't have that part of the quality of life that we all look for. So it's not just a simple matter of numbers when it comes to the high school in Harrow; it's a matter of the survival of the town.

I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant, through all of this, if we take the number of minutes of instruction, if I'm a parent who has a student in high school, will these changes mean that my son or daughter will have more instructional time? Is that what it means?

Mr Smith: The objective is to increase the amount of time that students spend with their teachers in the classroom. That is the objective of this.

Mr Crozier: I see it as where you're going to have teachers spend more time with students --

Mr Wildman: That's right.

Mr Crozier: -- but is the student going to spend more time with the teacher? They are totally different equations.

Mr Wildman: That's right.

Mr Crozier: I may not get the answer out of you now. We may find it out later, and it may be too late. In my view, you are going to have teachers spend more time with students, but an individual student is not going to spend more time with the teacher. Then you're affecting classroom education, and that's part of what I disagree with in this whole issue.

Mrs McLeod: My colleague is absolutely right. It may be the objective of the government, Mr Smith, to have more instructional time for teachers with their students, but what you are achieving with this is that teachers will spend more time with more students. There will be less time with each individual student. That's the reality of the changes that you're making in preparation time.

You were right, though, Mr Smith, when you said that different governments take different approaches. I happen to have had the privilege of being part of a government that actually did lower class sizes in grades 1 and 2 and provided the funding to allow that lowering of class size to take place. Your approach is to claim that you're dealing with class size while you cut another $700 million out of the education system.

Mr Wildman's question on the effect of the preparation time changes on the semestered system deserves an answer. You don't claim to be outlawing semestered systems, but you are making them absolutely unworkable. In a semestered system, the changes you've made to preparation time mean that teachers have to teach three and a half out of four classes. Maybe that means you're going to team-teach the semestered class, the fourth class, or maybe it means you're going to have a secondary school teacher teach four out of four classes one semester and three out of four classes the next semester, in which case the secondary school teacher teaching in the first semester, the semester in which they have four out of four, has absolutely no preparation time whatsoever. You haven't looked at the impact of that.

This is not workable in a semestered school. If anybody drafting any of this had ever scheduled a secondary school, you would know that is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion. I don't think it's something the government has looked at because I don't think it's something the government cares about.

The Chair: On that note, I don't think we should deal with the matter tonight. We can have an evening to reflect on it. The time is 9:30. We will adjourn, continuing our consideration of item 49 tomorrow. That's section 81 of the bill.

Mr Wildman: We only have 167 amendments to go.

The Chair: We are adjourning until 3:30 or after orders of the day tomorrow afternoon. Committee room 1 is where we are meeting tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 2130.