Committee Transcript 1997-Oct-23 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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 morning, members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of the sittings of the administration of justice committee consideration of Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. The committee would like to welcome Mr Pat Hoy, member for Essex-Kent, and Mr Jack Carroll, member for Chatham-Kent, in which we are presently sitting.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): That's right, Mr Chairman. If I could just welcome everybody to the fine city of Chatham this morning, we're delighted to have you here.

I want to sneak one other little thing in here while I have the floor. I noticed today on the agenda that 14 of the 31 presenters represent organized teacher unions. We have a group of students in the audience who tried to get on the list and couldn't. I'd like to ask if maybe one of those organized teacher unions would agree to relinquish their spot to allow these young people to be heard or, failing that, Mr Chairman, maybe we could sit for an extra 10 minutes at lunch and hear what they have to say.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Chairman, as you know, I have regretted that there aren't a lot more people who could be on the list, but I would certainly be prepared to sit over lunch to give the students the same time slot that others who are on the list would have. It won't be long. They're 10-minute sessions.

The Chair: I understand the students will be here all morning, so we could make that decision later on today. You could raise that again, Mr Carroll. If there are no other matters --

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I am going to present a motion. I'm not going to speak to it, you'll be glad to know. I want to get on with the presentations today. I also know that I'm presenting a motion which is going to be defeated, so there's not a lot of point in speaking to it. However, I feel compelled after the events of yesterday to present this motion.

My motion is that the committee express its dismay that the Premier's provocative and inflammatory comments in a televised message have made a confrontation all but inevitable and have made any constructive work by this committee on key issues of Bill 160 virtually impossible.

I won't speak to it. I just wanted to present it because yesterday afternoon we had a presentation from the Ontario Principals' Association in which they recommended a cooling-off period with a very specific recommendation as to how that cooling-off period could be brought about. The parliamentary assistant was asked if he would forward that recommendation on an immediate basis to the minister. The minister continues to talk about the possibility of negotiation, but I believe that last night the Premier made it clear that the government is determined to have this confrontation. Therefore, very regretfully, I place the motion and will not speak further to it.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms McLeod. We have a motion before us. Hopefully no one else will speak to it because we ran into trouble yesterday in that we used approximately one hour of time and made people wait for one hour, which I found very uncomfortable, as I believe all members of the committee did. If there's no further discussion, I'll put the motion. Do you wish a recorded vote?

Mrs McLeod: Yes, please.

Ayes

Hoy, McLeod.

Nays

Boushy, Froese, Rollins, Smith.

The Chair: The motion fails.

ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION, LAMBTON COUNTY AFFILIATES

The Chair: We shall now proceed to the first presentation, the OPSTF, Lambton, Mr Wayne Schultz. Good morning. There will be other individuals accompanying you. If you wish to place their names on Hansard, please introduce them to the committee. You have 10 minutes, starting now.

Mr Wayne Schultz: Mr Dan Tighe, OECTA; Mrs Agatha Gare, LCWTA; Karen Pluard, OECTA; Jane Hulme, OSSTF; and Mike Hinch, AEFO.

Even though I'm listed on the agenda as being the presenter, I'd like to point out to the committee that this is very definitely a joint presentation of the five teacher affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation in Lambton county and the local affiliate presidents are prepared to answer any questions with respect to our brief.

We represent approximately 2,000 teachers and other educational workers in both the public and separate schools of Lambton county. Our membership includes teachers, occasional teachers and educational support workers. These workers have all expressed concerns about the impact which Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, will have upon them.

The large majority this government has carries with it a responsibility to take care of the democratic process. Government needs to have the trust of its electorate and should never trample upon the democratic rights which are held very dear by all Ontarians. The proposed legislation eliminates local control of education, centralizes power and removes teachers from any real partnership in this, shall we say, right to free collective bargaining. It's an assault on our professionalism and it impinges upon the rights of our students to quality education in their schools. This brief sets out the position of the teachers of Lambton county on just some of the issues that are in this massive omnibus bill known as Bill 160.

Our major concern in this area is the loss of ability of the people who live and work in Lambton county to deal with local Lambton issues. The former minister, Mr Snobelen, suggested teachers and their local school boards could not be trusted and perhaps a crisis should be created. We believe that his resolution to this crisis was that the government could step in and take complete control of every aspect of education.

We are definitely very trustworthy in Lambton and we are prepared to continue to provide and to maintain quality education for our students. We have worked closely with our respective boards and have dealt very effectively with Lambton issues.

Bill 160 establishes a very different bargaining regime which will make the Labour Relations Act of 1995 applicable to teachers. This could create additional pressures on the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which is increasingly understaffed and underfunded; our figures say about 20% less than in the early 1990s. The addition of teachers, we figure, will certainly interfere with the ability of the OLRB to hear and to deal quickly with issues. We can only hope this government has used some common sense, if I might use that term, in realizing that adding 125,000 teachers to OLRB responsibilities is certainly going to hinder its effectiveness.

This proposed legislation severely restricts the scope of bargaining. It empowers the provincial government to address a number of collective bargaining issues through regulations in such critical areas as class size and preparation time -- two very, shall we say, popular ones with the media. These working conditions are local issues and must be dealt with in the local environment. We believe these must be negotiated at the local level to protect and enhance quality education. You must remember that teachers' working conditions are certainly students' learning conditions.

The government has misled the public with statements that the teacher federations have bargained higher class sizes in order to gain wage increases. It's not true in Lambton. Since 1992, the only wage increase that has been bargained is about 1%. At the same time, the impact of the social contract, regardless of the fact that it came from the NDP government, permanently downsized our staffs 4.75%. We didn't have any control over that and we certainly did not bargain it. This increased class sizes.

What we have been able to bargain is simply how we can pay for what we were legislated into. The fact is that prior to the social contract, we'd been negotiating class size reductions, much contrary to what our Premier and the former minister, Mr Snobelen, and I believe Mr Johnson are presently trying to say.

The assault of Bill 160 on preparation time could further reduce our teaching staff in Lambton county by 99 positions. That's certainly going to increase class sizes, not curb them or make them any lower. Although this government claims to wish to keep class sizes small, we feel the effect of Bill 160 is going to increase them, not decrease them.

It's also been suggested that the reduction of preparation time is necessary at the secondary level only and that more quality education will result from increased teacher contact time. The only thing that's going to increase is the number of students a teacher is going to see each day. This isn't going to improve the quality; it's simply going to reduce teacher jobs.

In recent years we've seen class sizes forced up by budget cuts. Research is clearly on the side of smaller classes. We feel that without the ability to negotiate these class sizes, we're going to see classes in the high 30s and 40s in Lambton county and across the province. The election promise of not hurting students in the classroom will definitely be broken in Lambton county.

In Lambton, we've already experienced losses due to funding cuts. Several areas have been reduced: music, technology, adult education, student services and resource personnel for special-needs students. The public school board closed five schools this year to save money and better utilize dwindling resources. Boards may have to do more when the funding formula is released and the new cuts to the education budget come down.

1010

The long-promised funding formula remains a secret. Why hasn't it been released? Is the government afraid to release it? How does this government expect Lambton boards of education to plan budgets when the numbers are unknown? These questions deserve answers. The issue's going to be further confused in January 1998 when the new amalgamated district school boards become legal entities.

Differentiated staffing: a proposed change to allow people without teaching certificates to teach in our schools. At the same time, the College of Teachers created by the present government says that in order to teach you must have credentials. It seems very confusing. The government's suggested areas, although it's not specific to those alone, where people don't necessarily need to have qualifications: computer education, guidance, industrial arts, library, kindergarten, music, visual arts and physical education.

Although these people have expertise in their fields, they don't have teacher training, and that's the training that makes the difference. In Lambton, we respect the value of these people and they're already used to augment a great many programs: guest speakers in arts programs, contemporary studies programs. The PAIRS program and co-op education are excellent examples of where we've already used these experts without Bill 160.

Another question that, if you will, completes this: Will properly trained teachers eventually become very rare sightings in Lambton classrooms?

We make three recommendations, as you see, the first one being that the Education Quality Improvement Act be amended to eliminate any restriction on free collective bargaining; second, that it be amended to eliminate the regulation-making powers, in particular on class size, preparation time and differentiated staffing; and finally, that the committee very seriously consider all of the briefs that will be presented by our provincial affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Schultz. There's still one minute remaining and I am going to invite any further comment that you or members of your delegation would like to make to the committee.

Mr Schultz: We're prepared to answer any questions you may have of us.

The Chair: It's very difficult in one minute to provide questions from the committee. They would only have 20 seconds each and that's why I'm inviting you to use that time by making any further comment you might have.

Mr Schultz: Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Boushy, You cannot ask a question. Then I'd have to permit all three parties --

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): No, it's just a statement. This delegation is from my home riding and I just want to thank them for being here today. I think it was a very good brief, and on behalf of my fellow colleagues I want to thank you very much.

Mrs McLeod: Just as a point of order, Mr Chairman: At the beginning of our sessions I do want to express the regret certainly of opposition members of the committee that the time slots for all of the presenters who are not on the minister's rather exclusive list are only 10 minutes. We have representation of five different federations who are here but have a total of two minutes each to deal with an omnibus bill that is probably the most emotionally difficult time in their history in teaching. I regret that, but I appreciate you being here.

The Chair: Mr Lessard, did you want to comment?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): No, I think Ms McLeod said it very well.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.

KENNETH DICKSON

The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Kenneth Dickson. Welcome.

Mr Kenneth Dickson: I'm a parent of three children who attend a 200-student public school in Wallaceburg. I've submitted my brief in duplicate. Many of these points are understood and the points may have already been made, so I'll just read them.

(1) In order to maximize the effect of learning, as parents we feel that parents and teachers have to work together as a team.

(2) The current policies which support the educationally challenged student need to be reviewed and possibly reorganized in such a way that average students don't become distracted in their education program.

(3) More or less preparation time is not as much an issue as who writes policy that controls the amount of preparation time. The teachers on our school advisory council are concerned about the control of the preparation time, not more of it or less of it.

(4) A longer school year does not seem to be an issue in conversations that I, as a parent, have had with our local teachers.

(5) Discipline during school hours and the ability to give a deserving student a hug are part of what is required to build a person. This must be done appropriately, but it must be done.

(6) Cutting cost: Ask the teachers and the nurses. This is directed to the government of Ontario. These are the people who see excesses every day.

(7) Depend on your school principals to manage your schools. Leave some latitude in the policy so that principals can function and don't tie their hands.

(8) It may be helpful for the province to suggest a fee schedule for tutors. Tutors could assist the process in evenings by helping with homework.

(9) Students could provide a deposit of funds at the beginning of the school year for books and be refunded at the end of the year based on the condition of the books. This is another possible cost-saving idea.

(10) Do we need a board of education? We as a province should review with the province of New Brunswick their experience with regard to the amount of supervision principals and teachers need. I might add here that New Brunswick's experience may not be all good and we should find out what was successful and what was not successful in the changes they've made.

(11) Please do not build new buildings just because we have amalgamated school boards. The taxpayer can't afford more buildings.

(12) Air conditioning of schools: a must if we expect our children to spend two more weeks in school during the hot summer period.

(13) Splitting classes and increasing or decreasing class sizes requires latitude in the position of the principal. It's an individual school need.

(14) Teachers who practise life-long learning and who are actively involved in extracurricular duties should be given the freedom to stay in their home school.

(15) Teachers who do not put in extra effort should be subject to change; again from a parent's point of view.

(16) Cutting of funding without reducing overheads could result in a user-pay scenario. This would not be acceptable. It would cut out underprivileged students.

1020

(17) With the province setting the education property tax rates and being responsible for the distribution of those funds, schools will be more equitably treated. Any funds raised by an individual school may be spent on any form of education aid or equipment. Any funds raised by a school and any equipment purchased by those funds should not come into the tax distribution question. The idea here is that school advisory councils and PTAs are raising funds locally and are wanting to build their own school's computer accessibility to students. We're concerned that the school board will say, "That school has so many computers so we'll cut the funding to that school because they don't need more computers."

(18) Put Bill 160 on hold until you release your funding model. With a little more information about funds that are available in the mix, it may be cause for some relaxed discussion between the two groups.

(19) EQAO level 4 in the grade 3 testing is unattainable. As a parent, level 4 is not attainable. It's ambiguous. My six-year-old in grade 3 is an excellent math student. Level 4 is not attainable in my opinion. It says "exceeds expectations." How can you exceed the expectation of what two plus two is? It's four. How do you exceed that? It is an ambiguous level. It's unfair.

(20) How will Toronto communicate with advisory councils that you have now set up under the new arrangement?

Thank you. That's all.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Dickson. We have about 40 seconds per caucus.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. You raised 20 very interesting and good points here. Number 18, "Put Bill 160 on hold until you release your funding model," I think is an excellent suggestion. Ms McLeod this morning suggested in a resolution that we should have a cooling-off period. You may know that the government wants to take $667 million out of education. The deputy minister has an enhancement in her contract to do just that.

If the government is intent on taking money out of the system, it would only seem right --

The Chair: I'm sorry, 40 seconds is up. That's the trouble with the short periods of time.

Mr Lessard: Thanks very much for your presentation. It's always good to hear from parents with respect to issues that are affecting their children. I wondered, what are the ages of your children, what grades are they in, have you made some arrangements as to how you're going to deal with the events that we expect may unfold on Monday and what concerns does that give you?

Mr Dickson: I have a five-year-old daughter in senior kindergarten; she refers to it as "senior." I have a nine-year-old in grade 4 and an 11-year-old in grade 6. As a group of parents in the town of Wallaceburg, our plan is to come together as a voluntary group and find a location other than the school to provide some kind of program. There's a tentative meeting starting to come into some solidification now.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thanks for your presentation. I really appreciate your comments in item 17 -- and I totally agree with you -- that if funds are raised by the local school's advisory committees, those funds should stay in the school. As you know, the bill allows for more parental involvement. You could advise principals on such matters as school discipline, school safety and local priorities. I think that's a good point you make. Could you give us a few comments on how you feel and how you would advise the government of more parental involvement? How would that work?

The Chair: I'm sorry, there will not be time for the answer. I, however, thank you, Mr Dickson, for your very thoughtful presentation here this morning.

Mr Tom Chalmers? Mr Chalmers?

We will proceed to the next person.

Mr Carroll: We have a vacancy here. What about listening to the students here?

The Chair: That may be, but they're going to be here all morning. We're going to deal with the people who are on the agenda first and then --

Mr Carroll: They may need to go back to class.

The Chair: I believe you told me they were going to be here all morning; otherwise I might accommodate you.

BOB ERNEST

The Chair: Mr Bob Ernest?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, Mr Ernest would be prepared to step down one time slot if that accommodates Mr Carroll's group.

The Chair: I think we may have the time. It's just going to be later on, that's all. I understood the students were going to be here all morning.

Mrs McLeod: That's fine, Mr Chairman. I was just trying to be helpful actually.

The Chair: If they want to go back to school, then I'll certainly let them on after Mr Ernest.

Proceed, Bob.

Mr Bob Ernest: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you this morning. A little bit about myself: I'm a teacher with the Waterloo County Board of Education, have worked in education for over 34 years. In that time I've been a classroom teacher and an English consultant with the Waterloo County Board of Education. I'm also the past chair of the English Language Arts Network of Ontario. That's a provincial organization of curriculum leaders from boards of education across Ontario.

I'm concerned with many aspects of this bill. Other groups will have detailed my concerns much more than I can this morning. I wish, however, to focus on three areas only. In considering what I would say this morning, I looked at the three different hats that I wear: (1) as a political activist, one who believes in the political system, in democracy, one who thinks that you can work through the system in order to make changes; (2) as a teacher in the classroom; and (3) also as one who has been involved with professional development, developing curriculum for teachers, the implementation of curriculum, not only in the Waterloo county board but across Ontario with my provincial role.

As a concerned citizen, this last weekend I went to the Conservative policy conference in London to feel that by working through the system I could have an input into what was being said. I found that in meeting with other Conservatives this weekend there were certain concerns that we share. I'd like to pass on to you, in a few points, some of the concerns that I heard from Conservatives this weekend.

In the education session, which was attended by 220 people, there were a number of different parts, groups that worked together and reported out. In my group there was a feeling that the way this bill and the way this Premier and the past Minister of Education have handled educational concerns has poisoned the educational climate in Ontario, not only in the classroom but within the parent community. As my group agreed -- and some of the MPPs I talked to -- the teacher-bashing has got to stop.

Several mentioned concerns over provisions that are in this bill that allow for non-certified teachers, especially in the areas of library, guidance and early childhood education. Several boards, as was pointed out within our group, have eliminated the position of teacher-librarian, a very important role within schools.

Concern was also expressed that there's been too much emphasis placed on taking money out of education. It is felt this is one of the main reasons for this bill.

High school teachers expressed concern that the increased teaching load as a result of the loss of preparation time will mean less time for individual students. Elementary teachers mentioned that all the cutbacks over the past few years have meant larger classes, outdated textbooks and outdated resources. From my background in curriculum, I know the pace of change with this government has been unreasonable. This bill, like so many other initiatives, is making for chaos.

Last June, new elementary expectations in language and math were introduced. The minister at that time announced he expected these to be in place this school year, without the resources to support the new expectations and without the professional development to support them. For grades 7 and 8 teachers, for example, this is the third new English guideline in the past 10 years.

1030

The government must commit to reinvest any savings from Bill 160 and Bill 104 into the classroom and into professional development that supports the classroom.

The reduction in the number of professional development days in this bill will do nothing to enhance the quality of education in Ontario, as in the title of this bill. The reduction of preparation time will do nothing to enhance education quality at a time when all teachers, elementary and secondary, will be facing new curriculum guidelines in every subject area in the next few months. Every secondary subject area is being rewritten this school year. Not only will there be new curriculum, but the overall reform of secondary education will require much more professional development. We are still waiting to see what details will be unfolded.

One of the casualties of this removal of money from education over the past few years has been the resource staff, those people who assist teachers with managing change, with the implementation of new guidelines.

In spite of what's been said, the new language and mathematics expectations are not classroom-ready. They outline, vaguely in some cases, what knowledge and skills need to be taught. The implementation, the strategies, the methodology are left up to the teachers and the boards of education. We've seen that the Ministry of Education is not equipped to look after professional training. This is left up to local boards and teachers.

In Waterloo, I have watched the downsizing of the resource staff; I have been part of that downsizing. Our board has produced some of the best curriculum documents in the province and has won awards for them. Hundreds and hundreds of teachers would attend workshops and in-services every year. We had the personnel to assist teachers in dealing with special needs of students. With integrated classes, teachers are facing greater challenges in meeting the needs of students. Downsizing has meant an end to these workshops and in-school consultations.

Next week teachers will be receiving the report of the grade 3 tests in writing, reading and mathematics. This report will have many recommendations for implementation by teachers, another need for professional development. The government is placing an increased number of demands on the classroom teacher, not providing the resources to deal with them.

If we're serious about improving the quality of education, you do not remove the quality control personnel and the time for professional development.

Along with new curriculum guidelines, teachers are adapting to new report cards. Information has been slow in reaching the teachers about that and yet they are expected to be implemented this year. Once more, contrary to government advertising, these reports are not clear and will present a fair degree of confusion for parents this year as to what the various levels of achievement actually mean.

I would add that associations dealing with English and literacy have been disappointed that some aspects of the previous Common Curriculum have been made less rigorous. The sections dealing with media literacy have been watered down greatly, seemingly to appease the government's business friends. This is one part that is not rigorous.

The English Language Arts Network agrees that "the status quo is not an option," as in yesterday's ad in the paper. We are a group that is interested in quality and excellence. Our members want to help teachers to help students achieve their potential. We are committed to quality curriculum and quality results. Bill 160 will do nothing to enhance that.

My final area is as a citizen, one who believes in democracy, and that's where I think this bill erodes the local, individual effect. Whether it's fewer trustees or fewer MPPs, people have less direct say in what happens in Ontario.

This last weekend at the Conservative conference, Paul Rhodes, a former senior adviser with this government you'd be aware of, gave a workshop on messaging -- as was very evident in the Premier's speech last night -- around the educational changes. He said that whatever it is, the motive should always come back to improving education for students. He added then that these changes are also about control, "but we aren't going to talk about that."

This committee has heard, through other submissions, concerns about the way this bill centralizes control of education in the hands of a few cabinet ministers.

In my years of experience, dating back to when my father was a trustee with a small township school board 45 years ago, I have observed the way in which locally elected representatives have been able to respond to the local needs. As you have heard, working conditions are learning conditions. These are best addressed at the local level.

In Waterloo region this year we are losing the talents and services of several long-time, hardworking trustees who really have made a difference in education. Like teachers, they have been bashed by this government's rhetoric. They have been told by the Premier that they cannot be trusted to handle educational change. Most are not well compensated now for the number of hours they spend in service.

This legislation and other bills have reduced the role of the local trustee to almost nothing. They are not seeking re-election because they do not see a meaningful role left for them. Local voters are losing as more and more decision-making is centralized at Queen's Park. One of the main reasons I'll be holding my picket sign high Monday morning is that I can no longer stand by and watch democracy be eroded by this government. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ernest. You have 40 seconds, Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: Thank you for your presentation. I was somewhat curious how you ended up at the policy conference. However, I'm not going to ask you about that.

I do appreciate your comments about the erosion of democracy, however, and the fact that this has been a disappointing experience for you to see. But I'm happy that you haven't given up. It's unfortunate that you're going to be ending up on the picket lines on Monday. I wonder if you felt you're "being led or misled by your union leadership," in the words of the Premier, to do that on Monday.

Mr Ernest: Not at all. The people I have talked to, my colleagues, are determined that this bill is something they will not tolerate. It's not the federation leaders. We're all federation leaders and we're all participating. We're all making our individual choices.

Applause.

The Chair: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. I'll have to call a recess and possibly hurt one of the presenters down the road if you continue to demonstrate. It's not permitted.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Ernest. You go to great length to talk about the erosion of democracy. I understand the accepted practice in the trade union movement is for people to have a secret ballot, the right to vote on whether or not they want to go on strike. Have the teachers of the province had the opportunity to express their opinions through a secret ballot as to whether or not they want to participate in an illegal strike?

Mr Ernest: We have participated in the secret ballot of the ballot box through elections. We have not participated on this particular one.

Mr Carroll: But that's democracy, in your opinion.

Mr Ernest: The demonstration will be on Monday as to who is for and against.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Ernest. It's appalling, but not surprising, that the Conservative message would not acknowledge that this bill is about control. Parts that could be taken out to give a cooling-off period that would prevent you having to leave your classroom on Monday are the parts that give the government control to cut the $667 million by cutting teachers. Clearly your brief says that will not improve the quality of education. I regret that the government's refusal to acknowledge that, to talk about it and to negotiate it, is putting you in the position, with your experience, that you feel you have to take the action that you're forced to take Monday. Thank you for being here.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ernest, for your presentation to the committee.

PEEL BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Peel Board of Education, Harold Brathwaite. Good morning. This is the Peel Board of Education?

Mrs Beryl Ford: It is, but we aren't Harold Brathwaite.

The Chair: Yes, that's obvious even to me. I would ask you to introduce yourselves for the purpose of Hansard and then proceed.

Mrs Ford: My name is Beryl Ford and I'm the chair of the Peel Board of Education. I'm joined today by my colleague Janet McDougald, who's the vice-chair of the Peel Board of Education.

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you this morning on behalf of the Peel Board Of Education. We're here today to offer our help in building a stronger education system for Ontario students. We're not here to say we oppose Bill 160 or to speak against the government.

Bill 160 will have a long-lasting effect on the future of every student now in or about to enter Ontario's public schools. We want to share from our point of view as the largest public school board in Canada what we see as positive, constructive and helpful ways we can continue to improve education.

Before I present our ideas, however, I do want to speak positively about the current quality of education in our schools. I recognize that it's easier to get headlines by pandering to the doom and gloom about schools, but the Peel Board of Education will not participate in the continuation of this myth. There's always room for improvement and we're constantly working on excellence in education, but we don't improve education by constantly criticizing schools and school boards and we certainly don't make constructive progress by dragging the reputation of Ontario's teachers through the mud.

1040

As chair of the Peel Board of Education, I am tremendously proud of the everyday miracles performed by our staff in our schools supporting the needs of Peel students. Rather than highlight our achievements -- and there are many -- I have enclosed as part of our package a fact sheet about Peel students, about education quality and attitudes.

The beginning of a constructive dialogue of helpful partnership is a common understanding of where education is going. Without a plan, everything else is window dressing. Bill 160 is an example. It contains 262 pages of amendments to the Education Act and related statutes, but where do the changes take us? They are only a small piece of a large puzzle.

Education achievement is complex and interrelated, so issues like class size and school year can't be seen in isolation; they must be part of a comprehensive school improvement plan.

Class size, for example: The government has said boards and unions have allowed class sizes to skyrocket. However, the truth in Peel is that the average secondary class size has increased only slightly, from 22.4 in 1988 to 23.2 in 1997. The average class size in elementary has actually dropped, from 27.2 to 24.6, in the last decade.

How does a plan to cap class size fit into a downsized education system? Where is the money? We don't need individual quick-fix ideas. We need to look at what works in student improvement and what the characteristics of high-performing schools are and see how we can incorporate those proven and powerful measures into public schools. It's not a quick or easy process, but it brings about results for students. Changes to school structure should be built around a solid plan for education quality improvement, a comprehensive plan involving school boards.

Secondary school reform: Much of the public attention has focused on the secondary school issues in Bill 160; prep time, for example. Why is the government attempting to change secondary school staff before we know the vision for secondary schools? Over 28,000 people gave input on secondary school reform. They expressed concerns about inadequate funding and too little time to make the necessary changes, yet now, a year away from introduction of our new secondary schools, we see changes to how our secondary schools will operate. We cannot consider these changes unless we know the plan.

Our proposal: Remove elements of Bill 160 related to secondary school reform until a panel of teachers, school boards and government members reviews the implications of secondary school reform.

A plan for finance: There is no doubt that a major problem in the foundation of education reform, from our point of view, is the lack of a funding formula. We were first promised that formula last spring, then summer, then fall; now we are hearing next year. The bottom line for the Peel Board of Education is that not a single section of Bill 160 can go forward without a clear funding formula. The formula must be both sufficient and equitable. We must have shared excellence, and that comes from sufficient funding.

Funding must be sufficient to meet minimum local needs and serve local program priorities. We don't have a "one size fits all" education system, as we all know. Communities develop specific programs to respond to specific local needs. How can those needs be met? One way, we would suggest, is to continue, as suggested in the Crombie report, the traditional ability of school boards to raise funds through local taxes -- perhaps even 5% could be determined locally -- with the input of parents and taxpayers, to meet specific local needs of the community. In Peel, 84% of our school councils said they're concerned about the loss of control. This right, the right of those paying taxes to directly help determine how that money is spent, shouldn't be compromised.

In our community, there is a grave concern about the centralization of power over education that Bill 160 represents. Parents, educators and Peel residents don't want all the decisions about education to be made at Queen's Park. We recognize the need for the ministry to set overall policy direction and curriculum guidelines, but we contend that decisions about how to best meet the individual needs of students are best made by the people closest to those children.

Our proposal: Don't take action until the funding formula is public. Guarantee a funding formula that is equitable and sufficient. Maintain the ability of boards and communities to meet local education needs. Respect the rights of locally elected officials by continuing the 154-year ability of school boards to collect at least a small portion of local taxes to meet those local needs.

Early childhood education: It is important for us to know the plans for early childhood education. What is the future of junior kindergarten? The Peel board, for example, was regrettably forced to cancel JK for 6,600 students when the government cut our funding for the $15.4-million program by 73%. Is it the government's plan to reintroduce JK? If so, we have heard that to do so would cost about $100 million for the boards who are not currently offering JK. Will the government increase funding by that $100 million, or will the money be taken from other students in Ontario? Is there a new model that could lower the cost of this program? We need answers to these questions.

Our proposal: Produce a model for JK that allows boards to offer early education, but not at the cost of other students. We cannot afford more cuts. In the absence of a plan, we are left with speculation, and speculation continues that this bill is not about quality. Much of Bill 160 seems to be about cutting costs, prep time, use of non-certified teachers etc, yet there is no statement that savings would be reinvested into enhancing quality education for students. Is the goal to take another $700 million from public education? If so, the Peel Board of Education believes any further significant reduction would cause irreparable harm to the quality of education for our students. A cut of that magnitude wouldn't just be difficult to deal with, it would be devastating for students.

In our local situation, for example, a provincial cut of from $700 million to $1 billion could mean another $50 million lost to Peel public schools. That would be on top of the $37 million we have lost in ministry grants since 1990. That averages out to about $500 lost to every student in Peel, money now spent to teach students and provide supplies, equipment and maintain our schools. This cannot be allowed to happen. Local trustees are extremely worried about the impact on our students.

Our proposal: Before passing Bill 160, guarantee that the government won't remove further funds from public education and will reinvest savings back into the schools. We make this request on behalf of all students in the province of Ontario.

Thank you, sir, and I appreciate once again the opportunity to be here.

The Chair: We certainly appreciate hearing from you. We have about 40 seconds left. Is there anything you wish to add to your excellent presentation?

Mrs Ford: I think the fact that my colleague and I have driven over three hours this morning be here to make this 10-minute presentation tells you that we really feel it's so important to maintain the funding at the school level for our students. We're extremely concerned about the fact that we've had no formula for our funding. It is extremely difficult to plan without the funding formula, so we would urge you.

I brought 25 copies of our presentation with me. They've already been handed out, so you may have noticed I skipped a couple of paragraphs simply because of the time, but I hope you will take a moment when you have some time to review what we've brought down and I hope you will accept our proposal positively.

The Chair: I thank you both. I know how early you got up this morning to make it here.

Mrs Ford: Six o'clock.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your attendance and your presentation.

1050

COALITION OF LAMBTON-KENT STUDENTS

The Chair: At the request of Mr Carroll and Ms McLeod that we permit the students to be heard, there is 10 minutes; that will take us over into our lunch-hour, but is there any objection to me calling the students now for 10 minutes? If not, please come up and make yourselves comfortable at the microphones. I know this is an unexpected pleasure for you this morning, but I'd ask you to proceed, because our 10 minutes start right now.

Ms Sarah Nelson: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving us this opportunity. We appreciate your hearing the voice of the students, because we feel it is important, in these major decisions being made with our education system, that our opinions and views are taken into consideration. Throughout the whole process of getting Bill 160 to the point where it is now, we have felt that the students have been neglected. Obviously the bill is to improve the quality of education for students, but they haven't been involved at all in the process and we feel that was a major problem.

The students of Lambton-Kent decided to get involved and inform ourselves on the changes that were being made and how they were going to affect us. We formed a coalition of Lambton-Kent students and I, Sarah Nelson, am the chairperson of that. We discussed different issues that we thought would affect the quality of our education in Ontario, and we managed to contact our local MPP and talk to him.

There is a lot of concern we had concerning the fact that Ontario students didn't measure up. The testing and the way that information was gathered, it seems to us, was very unfair. In Ontario, all the students were tested, whereas in other provinces where the scores were higher, only selected students were tested. Therefore, that may account for some of the difference in results.

We also had issues concerning class size. That was one of my major concerns, as well as of the rest of the students here with us today. We feel the increase of class size will undoubtedly decrease the quality of our education. The lack of time for personal interaction with teachers which will result from an increased class size will lessen the quality of my education as well as everybody else's in Ontario.

We also looked at the financial issues concerning this bill. We were told that the main purpose of this bill was to encourage equitable spending for all students in Ontario. As a student coming from Kent county, I feel that I'm going to be penalized for coming from a frugal board that's 12th on the spending list, as opposed to a student in Toronto, which has not been as frugal in their spending. Therefore, there is going to be more cuts from my education than that of a student in Toronto and I feel that's very unfair for students in our board and Lambton-Kent as well. We want to know how the government is going to rectify that and assure me the quality of my education won't be decreased as opposed to being increased.

We also looked at the teacher prep time. We didn't want to take a stand just saying we're completely supporting the teachers or we're completely supporting what the government is doing. We're out to support the best interests of the students. That was our goal: to make sure that we were being taken into account and our best interests were being kept as the main focus. With the decrease of prep time, it was said earlier that the teachers are only going to be seeing more students a day. The quality of the time that's being spent is more important than the quantity of time that's being spent with the students. It's imperative that students have the ability to talk to teachers and have interaction with them and have that one-to-one relationship which will help them improve their education.

Chris, you have some other comments.

Mr Chris Boyes: Yes. Spending on Ontario's students ranked 49th per pupil, which has gone down drastically since 1992, I believe.

The Education Improvement Commission, what they said were their solutions: extend the school year by three weeks; reduce the number of staff professional development days to five; reduce prep time by 25%; and reduce the number of secondary school departments: no longer organize them by subject, review qualifications and duties of department heads and give a full teaching load.

The big issue here is that what you guys have been advertising, really, is that the students come first. What we want to know is, why aren't you listening?

We don't want teachers to lose prep time. What is very critical in a classroom situation is the one-on-one confrontation with students to help. Some students are weaker; some students are stronger. Some don't need the teacher involvement, but some do. That's what they depend on. With increasing class size, teachers are going to be so busy with watching over and being responsible for 40 people, when you don't have 40 people who have a halo over their head being properly nice. An increase in class size is a big concern. I attend John McGregor Secondary School and we have about enough room in our class for maybe 23 people. I don't know if new buildings are going to be built or what.

A $1-billion cut: How much education can you get if you cut $1 billion? You have your needs, and if we're losing $1 billion, then I don't see an improvement at all.

We do agree that a more advanced curriculum should be introduced. What needs to be done is for the teacher associations and students as well -- don't forget the students -- to sit down with the government and discuss a new way of introducing the bill. One of the solutions that I thought up was starting at grade 1. You can't have a grade 4 student who is learning what they are now and then all of a sudden, bang, put them into the next year where they are expected to do so much more. You need to slowly introduce it. Better solutions need to be made.

We agree that we need a better curriculum for the understanding of various subjects, but the ways that are introduced are not the way to do it. Teachers need the prep time that goes for marking. Teachers will be pretty much marking assignments in class while we do our work. They will hand us a textbook and say, "Read pages 1 to 100 by tomorrow," and they will mark the test from the previous day.

The big question is, if the students come first and the students don't want the bill to pass, if what you say is true, that the students do come first, then it's obvious what the best solution should be if you do listen to the students.

That's about it, because we do want to allow a lot of questions. We want the questions to be heard.

The Chair: First, could you identify yourself.

Mr Boyes: Yes. My name is Chris Boyes and I'm the student council president at John McGregor Secondary School.

The Chair: We have a couple of minutes left. Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Ms Nelson: Can I ask something, please? I would just like to know where all this money is being cut from. Where is it going to go to? Is it going to be reinvested in the students to make our education better or does it go somewhere else? I've heard a lot of things, "This much money is being cut." What's the plan? Where is it going? That was something that was very vague and not really conveyed to anybody. That's one of the major concerns we have.

The Chair: That's a good question, but unfortunately it's not the jurisdiction of this committee to sit here and answer questions. We're here to hear from individuals.

Mrs McLeod: It is the jurisdiction of this committee, though, to request answers from the Ministry of Education to questions that are posed. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to ask the ministry to provide a written answer to the question that the students have asked.

The Chair: That's quite correct.

Mr Boyes: Can we ask questions?

The Chair: No. There's really no time for questions, unfortunately. Mrs McLeod merely pointed out, quite rightly, that if she asks the question of the PA, she can expect an answer. I was pointing out that the public can't; that's the way it works.

Mrs McLeod: Does my question to the parliamentary assistant then stand?

The Chair: You've asked the question and I assume he will attempt to answer it.

Mrs McLeod: May I just determine whether or not we do have names and addresses for the students so the response can be given directly to them?

The Chair: Perhaps we could put that on the record right now. We could use the next 30 seconds for each of you to put your name and address on the record so that we know who addressed us.

Mr Boyes: Name and address: Chris Boyes, 62 Cross Street, Chatham, Ontario.

Ms Nelson: Sarah Nelson, 72 London Drive, Chatham, Ontario.

The Chair: If we write an answer to those two addresses, will everyone get the answer? Good. I certainly thank you very much for making your presentation here today on very short notice.

1100

ROBERT SKIPPER

The Chair: Our next presentation is Robert Skipper. Welcome.

Mr Robert Skipper: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen. I am here on my own behalf, representing no one. I am here as a citizen, a grandparent, a parent and of course a taxpayer. Everything I say from now on will be in print, and you will get a copy of this immediately after I have presented what I wish to put before you.

I am concerned about what may happen if our government is forced to back down in its efforts of education quality improvement. It has already relieved its Minister of Education of his role and appointed a new minister.

I am quite sure the teachers' unions can, and may, close down schools as they did in Metro Toronto in 1976, with a prolonged strike followed by work to rule and other nonsense. Today's confrontations with illegal strikes as they occur could result in anarchy, for if one sector of our society can bring a government to its knees, so can any organized group.

Back in those days in 1976 when thousands of teachers went on strike, I was a vice-principal in one of Etobicoke's very fine collegiates. To put my background in perspective, I will tell you that I have been involved in education for well over 30 years. I was a high school teacher of various subjects. I was a department head in three different subject areas with three different boards.

I was a vice-principal and a principal in several schools. I was a superintendent of education, and the jurisdiction had over 160 schools. I was an elected trustee on the Peel Board of Education for five terms. I am past president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, better known as the OSSTF. I am also a past president of the STO, Superannuated Teachers of Ontario.

I hope that background will give me some credibility in what I have to say, and that is why I cite it.

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to speak on many aspects of Bill 160, but because of time constraints I shall confine my remarks to three areas which appear to be of great concern and which are much in the news. It should not be construed from what I say that I endorse every aspect of Bill 160. Its brief goes to 262 pages.

The first of the three I will deal with is with regard to preparation time. I taught in various schools for many years, from eight to 10 periods per day in varied subject matters of chemistry, zoology, botany, general science, sometimes English and sometimes industrial arts, but I never had one single spare or preparation period in all those different schools in my years of teaching. You may ask when I prepared my lessons. I was a knowledgeable teacher, and I prepared my lessons after school, which ended at 4 pm approximately. I prepared them evenings, weekends, during my summers, Christmas break, Easter break, March break and statutory holidays.

I'm very disappointed that the teachers' unions, I guess, are calling a strike.

Anyway, I found time to prepare lessons in every subject I taught. It was a lot of hard work, but that's what they were paying me for. I thoroughly enjoyed being a teacher and was a proud one.

I do not quarrel with the government's attempt to cut preparation time by one half. Why not three quarters? Or why not cut it out altogether? However, in certain circumstances, I could see a period a day of free time, prep time or whatever you want to call it.

The second point I want to make is on teaching time. I was privileged to spend months studying educational systems in Europe -- in Switzerland, Germany, Holland and elsewhere. With something like 170 teaching days in Ontario, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that we may be shortchanging our taxpayers, our parents and our students. So few teaching days, and sometimes an undisciplined approach to what is going on in the classroom is my concern.

The third thing I want to deal with is PD days. With regard to these days, I view them somewhat as I view preparation time. It would appear that if any group of people has adequate time for professional development, it would be the teaching profession.

The Chair: Mr Skipper, I should remind you there's only one minute left.

Mr Skipper: I have often quoted the following statement since I became concerned about PD days:

"In my view PD days constitute a fraud perpetrated on a pathetic and long-suffering public, and what is more, they are an especially despicable form of unwarranted welfarism in that they benefit only a secure and affluent group in our middle class."

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for giving me this opportunity.

The Chair: I appreciate your attendance here this morning. Thank you, Mr Skipper.

1110

WINDSOR-ESSEX PUBLIC SERVICE COALITION

The Chair: Our next presentation scheduled is Windsor-Essex Public Service Coalition, Mr Scott Hunt. Welcome.

Mr Scott Hunt: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The Windsor-Essex Public Service Coalition represents 22,000 women and men providing public services in Windsor and Essex county. They include members of the five teacher affiliates, as well as members of OPSEU, CUPE, the Service Employees International Union and the faculty association at the University of Windsor. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 160.

However, I do find it offensive to be told that this is a bill to improve the quality of education in Ontario. Quality to me means more teachers teaching fewer students in excellent facilities with more time to prepare, to offer remedial help, and more money to buy books, supplies and computers. The opposite will happen under Bill 160. Quality will be reduced.

The premise of this bill is that the government can improve the quality of education by taking absolute control. To me, this is one of the major contradictions in the Common Sense Revolution, the fact that the Premier said they wanted less government and this bill is going to create more government. Ironically, you've jeopardized the quality of education through the cuts you've already made up to this point.

At 262 pages, Bill 160 is too large to deal with all the issues in this short amount of time. It's my intention to deal with those issues that I believe will have the most impact on my classroom, because I am a classroom teacher.

This bill proposes in section 170 to allow the government to set class sizes and preparation time. Currently, these are issues for local negotiating and local bargaining. Class size is a major issue and I ask you, why would teachers negotiate larger class sizes? The social contract and the further $533-million cuts by this government created larger class sizes.

In connection with that, I ran across an article in the Toronto Star on September 27 in which Mr David Tsubouchi was meeting with the friends of government, the business community. This government likes to run around and talk about the fact that it is in favour of smaller class sizes. This is what the business community had to say. This is a quote from the Toronto Star:

"The best thing to happen to my business," and this is a business person, "is what the government has been doing lately cutting back education funding and increasing class sizes."

So who is kidding whom?

On the issue of preparation time, I can only speak from my own experience. I spend that time doing a lot of work on my lesson plans. Offering extra help to students who can't stay after school is also an important activity. Increasingly, I'm also involved in fund-raising activities. Preparing and organizing materials for my class is also a key function of this time. I do all my marking at night at home. I can honestly say that there are very few nights in my 32 years of teaching that I have not done a lot of work at home and on the weekends. With another 30 students to teach and less time to prepare, how can that improve the quality I so dearly want to achieve?

Also, I am concerned about the loss of teachers' jobs. I thought this government was concerned about youth unemployment. As well, the loss of younger staff will certainly affect extracurricular activities in my school.

Incidentally, on a personal note, my son is a teacher in Toronto. He is in his second year of teaching and he's going to be forced by this government on to the streets on Monday. He has a young family and he doesn't have a lot of resources, obviously, living in a city the size of Toronto and the standard of living he has to live to. He is very concerned.

The basic question here is, if you have fewer teachers teaching more classes, how does this improve the quality of education? How does it improve the quality of contact time I have with my students?

The regulations will allow for differentiated staffing. I'm concerned for two reasons. First, I rely on teachers being in the guidance office because they have been classroom teachers and can be much more effective in dealing with student problems. Secondly, how far will the minister go in deciding which classrooms will not have teachers? Surely you have to know something about how to teach, whether the subject is art, music, physical education or library.

Under Bill 160 the minister may make regulations covering exam days. My concern with the potential loss of exam days is the possibility of students not being able to prepare properly for their exams if they have to write more exams in fewer days. I don't see how that improves quality.

I would be remiss if I did not comment on the section dealing with the loss of local control of taxation. I believe that communities should be free to raise money locally to improve their own schools. How could one person in Toronto know what local needs should be addressed?

I'd like to conclude with two comments. I'd like to read a letter from Steven Katz of Mississauga because I really believe it sums up a lot of my feelings:

"Hey everybody, I've got a great idea. Let's tell teachers how lazy and overpaid they are and what outrageous vacations they have.

"Let's make their classes really big with all different levels of students with many different kinds of problems. Let's take away their planning time.

"Let's increase the length of the school year and make almost everything in their contracts non-negotiable. Let's take all control of the teaching profession out of the hands of teachers since they are incompetent.

"Let's make sure that teachers are really stressed and have really low morale, and when we've finally convinced everyone how useless teachers are, let's send them our children to teach and take care of."

To sum up, it's time to put education back into the hands of teachers, who don't have an axe to grind or a political agenda to sell.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hunt. We have one minute per caucus. The government caucus is first.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you for your presentation this morning. We've heard a great deal of input with respect to differentiated staffing or complementary staffing, whatever you want to call it. Quite frankly, we all know that teachers regularly supplement their classrooms with outside help. The Royal Commission on Learning has made such recommendations, the Education Improvement Commission has made recommendations on differentiated staffing, albeit they premise their recommendations on certain issues. Can both groups be wrong?

Mr Hunt: In my opinion the problem here is that if we were to sit down or if the parties were to sit down and discuss it, then maybe there is some common ground. My concern is the absolute power that's going to be in the hands of the Minister of Education in terms of deciding what makes a teacher. Certainly the College of Teachers said it is not interested in differentiated staffing because it sees it as a problem in maintaining the standards of the profession. I don't think the recommendations of either of those two committees had anything to do with what Bill 160 is trying to do, and that is to put absolute control of education in the hands of the minister and not in the hands of the people who should have a say, and that is the teacher federations and the College of Teachers.

Mrs McLeod: I think that if the government was prepared to set aside its need to take that absolute control in those particular areas you would not be facing what you're facing as a teacher on Monday morning.

What we're facing at this point in time is absolutely unprecedented. There are some 126,000 teachers across elementary and secondary school spectrums -- public, Catholic, French -- all united in their belief that action is needed, prepared to take action in spite of tremendous personal sacrifice, and a risk, based on last night's comments from the minister, that nobody can even begin to guess at. I just want you to tell me a little bit more about what has brought teachers to this point.

Mr Hunt: It is difficult. I am a classroom teacher. I was in my classroom yesterday. I look at my students and I know how they're feeling, I know the pain they must be thinking about. Every student probably wants a day or two off, but when you talk to students in the halls after school, they certainly don't want this to happen for very long. I look at the students and I know that what I'm about to do on Monday is going to be painful for everybody. It is difficult and I can tell you that 126,000 teachers have done a lot of soul-searching in coming to that conclusion. We certainly did not do this out of any kind of interest in ourselves or interest in our union heads. This is classroom teachers deciding we have to take a stand.

Mr Lessard: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Hunt. I think you've correctly identified that Bill 160 really has nothing to do with improving the quality of education. It's all about centralizing control within the ministry and about taking out $667 million from the education system. It has really, in your words, caused teachers to do a lot of soul-searching in order to take the action they're going to be forced to take on Monday morning. I wondered if there are any suggestions you can offer in the time you have available to the government members who are here today to try and avoid this impending catastrophe.

Mr Hunt: I wish they would listen. In terms of this whole process the only thing that can happen between now and Monday, from my perspective, is if the government takes those sections out of the bill that remove local control. There's just no other way of solving this problem, because even if you put it off, it doesn't change what this bill intends to do to us. We can never accept those changes. The only thing they can do is remove those sections of the bill that remove local control.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hunt, for your presentation here today.

1120

UNITED STUDENT LEADERS

The Chair: Next, lady and gentlemen of the committee, we're going to try something different in a presentation by the United Student Leaders. Each of them is going to address us. I would just ask you to identify yourselves clearly so it goes on the record, because Hansard writes down everything we say and our names. Please proceed.

Mr Keegan Boyd: Are our names really important? We are representing the students of all our schools and I don't think it would be right just to put our names on to our opinions.

The Chair: Yes, they are really important because everything is taken down and transcribed into books called Hansard and it's an accurate record of what a particular person said. So it's important that the person be known to Hansard.

Mr Boyd: Okay, thank you. My name is Keegan Boyd.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I want to determine that this is not part of the 10-minute slot these students have.

The Chair: No, I'm going to start timing them right now.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I would ask that the students be allowed to put their names for identification purposes in writing, since there are a large number of them, and provide that to the Hansard recorder, who can work with that. I just think it will take them 10 minutes and they'll have nothing left to say.

The Chair: We don't want to waste the time. That's an excellent suggestion. You'll give us a list in the correct order. Please proceed.

Mr Boyd: The group you see before you is a number of student representatives from London and area high schools. We are here today to address several issues about Bill 160 and the teachers' reaction to it, which has caused students a lot of concern.

The idea that teachers and the government cannot sit down and come to an agreement which is in the best interests of improving the quality of education in Ontario seems ridiculous to us. We do not feel the effects of actions made by the teachers and by the government have really been considered. Students are the ones who will be affected when the teachers go out on strike. Students are the ones who will be affected by the implications of this bill. It is time everyone takes the approach that should have been taken from the beginning and focuses on improving the quality of education and sets aside their own agendas.

Ms Angela Waterfield: At present the education system seems to be in a state of chaos. The tension is extremely high between both parties involved, the teachers and the government. However, there is a third party involved, the students, who should be the essential key and should be the first party considered.

School is not just about academics, it's about the life lessons you learn. It's not just going to math class, science class. It's going there and learning real life. The people in front of you are the future. We are the light and the way. So talk to us, inform us. Let us express our opinions, because we can't lead blindly if we don't know the information. It's time to consider us.

Mr Jamie Bond: One major issue that concerns us is uncertified teachers in the classroom. One concern we have is having uncertified people dealing with students. When a substitute teacher does not get the respect he or she deserves, how do you expect students to respect an uncertified teacher?

Ms Jennifer Holderman: We feel a specialist may have expertise valuable to the classroom, but a qualified teacher should be present. We are very concerned about how educated these uncertified people will be. Are you, the government, paying less for our education and we, the students, receiving less? On this aspect it should be quality and not quantity. Consider us.

Mr Andrew Michailidis: Preparation time should be allotted by administration under the condition that the time is spent for school-related activity or responsibility. By the same token, there shouldn't be any hesitation on the teachers' part to prepare for lessons after school hours because their time off makes up for, if not exceeds, their preparation time. Finally, a 25% cut in prep time may result in the teachers inhibiting the extra attention a student may need. Furthermore, a lack of prep time could interfere with the teachers' interest in extracurricular activities.

Ms Adrienne MacDonald: Extracurricular activities are an asset to education. If teachers have less time available to run these events, this may ultimately result in work-to-rule action, where they would work from the morning bell to the end bell and that is it. This would then halt all extracurricular activities. On the other hand, if these teachers are forced to be involved with extracurricular activities, they may find themselves involved in an activity to which they are not suited and be therefore of little or no help to the activity. In order to get the most out of your education, it is beneficial to get involved outside the classroom as well. Students are the basis of education. Please consider us.

Mr Jeff Shaughnessy: One of the many proposals on the table right now is to lengthen the school year by three weeks. We understand that the three weeks will increase learning time in the classroom, but is this really necessary? A great deal of class time is devoted to homework, when it could be used for instructional purposes. By extending the school year, how much time will this leave for summer school? Another concern is that the extra school time will cut into summer jobs, therefore not leaving enough weekly work hours to earn wages for post-secondary education. These are our direct concerns. Please consider us.

Mr Matt Davies: We would like to address the issue of class sizes. Through our years of high school, the number of students in our classes has grown larger and larger. We resent these changes, as the larger our classes get, the less time we have for individual attention from teachers. We respect the government's recommendation that a limit be put on the size of a class and that that size be maintained. But please be sure that this limit is, at the very least, no larger than it is now. Please understand that students are the heart of the classroom and the soul of the system. An increase in class size will directly affect us. Please consider us.

Ms Stefanie Kilbourne: It is hard for us to believe that you will be able to cut costs to education and maintain an appropriate class size limit. Perhaps if we were given a specific number and told how the number was decided on, our concerns regarding this issue would be relieved. However, as it stands, we feel that this recommendation is being slipped by us to make us think a limit will be set at a beneficial level, whereas the limit could be set at any number. As students, we should have been asked about our feelings on class size as we are the individuals who will be the most affected by these changes. Consider us.

Mr Chuck Smith: Consider this: As defined by Webster's dictionary, a democracy is a government of people, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly rather than by their elected officials, meaning that the public is entitled to meet, discuss and negotiate matters involving law, the government and itself. As defined by Webster's dictionary, a dictatorship is absolute power and authority vested in only the will of one man, without effective constitutional limitations and requirements. Under Bill 160, it states that the government can make changes through order in council, meaning there will be no need for the government to discuss or negotiate with those it affects. Our question is, if a democracy allows discussion and negotiation, what are we and what does that make you? It's your choice. Please consider us.

1130

Mr Chris Sinal: As we know, teachers' unions have called for a province-wide illegal strike to begin on Monday. As students, this prospect concerns us greatly. If drawn out, strike action could result in the delaying of graduation, the mandatory attending of summer school and the resulting threat to summer employment. We are worried.

Of greater concern, however, is the fact that both parties in this matter serve as role models for us students. If these two groups cannot meet and work out their differences, what are we to take away from this? We see neither side as completely to blame. Both are responsible for failing to resolve their difference, which has resulted in the impending threat to education.

We as students are thoroughly disappointed that neither side has considered the views of those affected, those at the heart of the debate and the education system. On Monday we will, as student council representatives and student representatives, attempt to attend school. If they are closed, so be it. In either event, neither side has considered us.

Mr Ryan Starkweather: This situation is like two divorcing parents fighting over their child and everybody is saying it is for the best interests of this child. Nobody bothers to ask the child, even though this child is the most directly affected by this conflict. We are not children. We deserve to have a say in what will change education forever. We all believe that student leaders, teachers and government can work together to create a better education system for Ontario's children. Consider us.

Ms Lindsay Lake: We are here today before you as students concerned for the future of our education and the education of those to follow us. We are truly sad that the leaders of our schools and the leaders of our province have let this situation come so far, with an illegal strike looming over all our heads. Both parties say they are fighting for us, yet we had to fight today to have our say. We are scared, scared for the future, because our voices are not being heard. Why not involve the students, we ask? After all, no one knows better what we need. Every decision you make directly affects us. It is time to consider us.

We thank you for the opportunity to speak today, but must leave now to return to our school because we care about our education. Please make sure you are fighting for the students and start involving us in the process.

Mrs McLeod: I know there is no time for questions --

The Chair: Yes, there is no time for questions.

Mrs McLeod: So I was going to raise a point of order. Mr Chairman, I'll be brief, but I think the presentation we've just had -- I don't think there's a single individual around this table who would not believe it was important to have heard from a group of 10 students who represent their broader student bodies on issues that affect them so dramatically and so immediately. But we have a process before us which has made it impossible for this group of 10 students to get anything more than a 10-minute slot.

I'm gong to ask, Mr Chair, if it is in order, to have the parliamentary assistant present a report to the committee on how this process could be changed so that never again do we face a situation where 10 students get one minute each to speak to concerns on education.

Mr Bruce Smith: As I've indicated before, we as a committee have indicated we would respond to the student groups that have made presentations. I would be happy to respond back to the committee with respect to your concerns. I think it's something that needs to be considered into their future. We've had a lot of positive input. At the same time, I would certainly welcome some feedback from students. As the Education Improvement Commission prepared its report, The Road Ahead, 17 different student groups across the province were consulted, as well as the provincial organizations. If that process isn't working in terms of reflecting the viewpoints of students in this province, we need to revisit that with the Education Improvement Commission as well.

Mr Carroll: Chairman, may I say something on that same point of order?

The Chair: Are we all speaking to the point of order? Yes.

Mr Carroll: Just as a quick comment. I realize they only had a minute each, but I've listened to an awful lot of long speeches in Parliament and on committees and I have to say that in the minute they each had, they presented an exceptionally clear, succinct message. I think they did a great job in a minute each.

Ms Waterfield: May I respond to that?

The Chair: Unfortunately not, because we do not have time. But I would like to thank you individually for a very good presentation. I also would like that list, because it is very important for Hansard and for history that you each be identified as making your presentation. Thank you.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, again very briefly on the point of order, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to put the parliamentary assistant on the spot with my request. This was not the process that was agreed to with Mr Smith at the subcommittee. It is a process that was imposed in this committee unilaterally by the minister, and we need to find some way to make sure we don't go through a process in the future where groups like this only have 10 minutes.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms McLeod.

GERARD CHARETTE

The Chair: I call Gerard Charette. Please proceed.

Mr Gerard Charette: Thank you. I thought it might be helpful for the committee to know a little about me before I start my submission. I'm a married parent of a 16-year-old daughter who recently graduated from grade 12 at St Thomas of Villanova high school in Essex county. She is spending the year in Belgium on an academic and cultural exchange, and this has been courtesy of a local service club. She expects to return to finish her OAC year in 1998.

I recently finished a 12-day volunteer project for the Ministry of Education. I have acted as co-chairman of the business studies panel that helped recently to develop the guidelines for the new curriculum. During that period, I spent about 12 days in Toronto on a volunteer basis, working with teachers and other people in the business sector, helping to develop the guidelines for our new curriculum studies program for high school in business studies.

I have recently been invited by a teacher at my daughter's school to teach a class on business ethics, as I am a practising business lawyer. I intend to tell the students at this high school about the role of business as a primary creator of wealth in our country.

I also have two brothers who teach in the separate school system, one in Oshawa and one in Windsor. I have a number of other brothers who have been involved in education. I should say that my parents founded the first Montessori school in Windsor about 30 or 35 years ago. Education has always been a hot topic in my house, and it's something I devote a significant amount of time to personally.

I consider myself a fiscal and social conservative, and I support this bill and what the government is doing.

Now to the substance of my submission. The reading I've done on the bill and some of the materials indicates to me that what the government proposes is merely to bring the province in line with what is accepted practice in the rest of Canada in terms of teaching time, time in the classroom, preparation time. All of these items which the bill seeks to address are nothing more than enhancing standards of practice, which will redound to the benefit of our children and hopefully to my daughter when she returns to complete her OAC studies.

I can perhaps do no better at this point in time than to quote a recent article from the Globe and Mail. Mr Jeffrey Simpson, who is a regular columnist in the Globe and Mail, I think says quite adequately what I would like the committee to hear. I'll just read a few extracts from that article, if I may. This was published in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, October 21.

He asks the reader to remember the former Liberal Premier, David Peterson's, last election campaign: "His government had been more than generous to public sector employees during the province's squandered years of economic boom in the mid-1980s. For his generosity, Mr Peterson had teachers in his face throughout the campaign, manifesting their disapproval.

"Along came NDP Premier Bob Rae, followed by a vicious recession. When he tried to tried to negotiate a 'social contract' with public sector unions, the big battalions of the teachers' unions were in his face too.

"Mr Rae, as has often been said, became disenchanted with aspects of the province's education system. As an intelligent, educated man himself, he found disquieting the slack curriculum, the lack of measurements and the middling outcomes produced by Ontario students.

1140

"Along comes the Harris government, with a sharp ideological sword. It wants to centralize control over the system for the reason that local school boards have proved unable to get better results from one of the world's most expensive systems."

The government lopped money off and it did nothing more than equalize cuts across the board. If there is one thing I would tell the committee members, and I've said this in submissions to other committees, we have always fallen into the mistake of equating spending and quality. We figure if we're going to spend a dollar, we're going to get a dollar's worth of quality. That is not true. In fact, it is a paradoxical truth that when we spend more money, we frequently get less quality. That has been proven across our society.

Jeffrey Simpson continues: "These proposals represent the second stage of a two-stage process designed to get better results...The second stage -- to bring Ontario up to the level of other provinces -- is an attempt to require more teaching and learning time. Bill 160 also proposes allowing qualified individuals" -- perhaps even people like myself -- "other than certified teachers into the classroom for certain disciplines.

"More teaching and learning time means elongating Ontario's too-short school year, rearranging those professional development days for teachers so that some are taken outside the academic year, and shortening teachers' preparation time to approximate what prevails in other provinces."

Jeffrey Simpson goes on to explain that this is nothing more than standardizing and enhancing standards in our system.

My own experience echoes what Mr Simpson says. I recently had the opportunity of defending the new curriculum at a meeting of teachers at Kennedy high school in Windsor, and I remember I had such a jarring experience. After the meeting, a lady from Belgium came over. She had moved over to Belgium with her high school students. She took me by the arm and told me: "Mr Charette, please do not stop what your government is doing. Keep on doing what you're doing."

I could see the lady was obviously distraught. She compared her system in Belgium with ours and she said the results are so much lower, the standards are so much lower, and she just literally begged me to make sure that this government does not stop what it is doing. I could see she was quite distressed.

Now I find my own daughter is in Belgium and -- surprise, surprise -- she's two years behind in math and science. She was a good student here, but the students in Belgium are far and away ahead of us. We can do better.

I would please urge this government to proceed with what it is doing. I would ask the opposition members to get on board with this quality train and make sure we improve quality standards for our students in Ontario. I wholly endorse the bill. I ask all of you for your support and I thank you for your patience. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins): We haven't got much time, but we have about 30 seconds per caucus, starting with the Liberals. That's total question and answer.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that. I'm not sure whether Mr Charette will be aware that Bill 160 does not speak to either curriculum changes or to increased standardization of either curriculum or testing, but it certainly does speak to the ability of government to cut $667 million.

I gather by your statement that you think more money doesn't necessarily mean more quality and that lopping off dollars is the result of the government's sharp ideological sword, that you would think that taking another $667 million out actually does act to improve quality.

Mr Charette: It's not taking money out of education; it's taking money out of education bureaucracies, and there is a big difference, Mrs McLeod -- a big difference.

Mrs McLeod: In this case, it's out of teachers.

Mr Lessard: I take it from your comments that you don't have any concern about the erosion of local control or the ability of the minister to set things like class size or taxation assessment. This bill is filled with incredible regulation-making authority for the ministry and you don't have any concern with respect to that regulation-making power, even in light of the fact that we don't know what the funding formula is, for example? We don't know what the restrictions or regulations are with respect to differentiated staffing. You don't have any concerns about that?

Mr Charette: No, sir, I do not.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Lessard, you used up your time. I know it's a little bit hard to try to get those answers. Thirty seconds for Mr Froese, please.

Mr Froese: The bill talks about parental involvement and we all know parents want a greater voice in the education of their children. Could you just comment on what your feelings are on having more parental involvement?

Mr Charette: Absolutely. I've been in contact with some parent councils in Essex county and they want to be involved in their children's education. I think we have this mystique that only the "experts" know what they're doing and I think that is absolutely wrong. I think the drift toward getting parents involved is so important and so critical and I applaud the government for doing that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. The time has expired.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, ESSEX ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY UNITS

The Vice-Chair: The next group we're calling to the microphone is OECTA, the Essex elementary and secondary units. For the purposes of Hansard, if you would identify yourselves. Your time has started.

Mr Rick Meloche: Good morning. My name is Rick Meloche. I am president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Essex secondary unit. With me this morning co-presenting will be Bernie Dupuis, the elementary unit president for the same organization.

You have my brief before you. I won't read it. I just want to point out a couple of sections that might be of interest, or at least are to me. On page 1, 1:07, some of our beliefs. The unit believes that the key partners in education, that is, the parents, the students especially, and the teachers should be heavily involved in the reform of educational policy, not only the government of the day.

1:08: The unit firmly believes in a democratic Ontario, which we once had. Legitimate government action requires the consent of the governed, which this does not.

On page 2, the summary of central points: "The unit strongly protests the centralized control of the education system. It greatly opposes the radical change in current labour practice, that is, the severe limitation to the scope of bargaining. We find the diminishment of professional teacher qualifications and the introduction of non-qualified personnel into teaching positions to be educationally unsound. The fact is that all of the above is nothing more than a power grab being done in order to extract a further $1 billion from the education system.

My next section is on public hearings. I don't believe that we are going to have much result coming from this. Unfortunately, you are probably not here to listen very carefully anyway.

The rest of my brief is broken down into several sections. The first section is called "permanent provisions." Those are the ones I feel clearly and the teachers of Ontario feel clearly must be removed from this bill immediately. You can read those at your leisure.

The next section is "transition provisions," provisions that I think can be workable and adaptable. They cannot be put in place specifically as the government has proposed at this point in time.

The next section is "provisions to be maintained." There are sections we think we can live with right now.

On page 6 is the conclusion. The unit sees Bill 160 drastically cutting funding of education, downsizing the teaching profession for no educationally sound reason and denying free collective bargaining for teachers in this province. How can placing persons without teaching certificates in teaching positions, losing up to 10,000 teachers by downsizing, reducing teachers' preparation time, lengthening the school day, eliminating statutory contracts and eliminating boards of reference and a number of other issues improve the quality of education?

Finally, last night our Premier, in a very well-scripted speech, spoke about issues like report cards, standardized testing, the quality of education. Does he think for a minute that quality of education is not first and foremost in our minds? He didn't touch upon the issues that are causing this dispute.

I was upset listening to him last night, and I am sure other teachers in Ontario were as well, when he insinuated very clearly that it is teacher leaders who are causing this walkout and not teachers across this province. I beg to differ. I have 250 members who would like to be here with me to tell you very clearly that they are going to show you on Monday morning exactly how they feel.

1150

Mr Bernie Dupuis: I am Bernie Dupuis, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, the Essex elementary unit. It is clear that the present government's plan for education mirrors exactly the destructive government plan in health care in the Windsor and Essex area. Because of that, we the teachers of Essex county will protect our students from this destruction of their learning environment as outlined in Bill 160. That vote will take place Monday morning; 412 of my members will be with me. As Rick said, they would like to be here; they can't be. We will show you that we will protect our kids' learning environment from your bill that will destroy their learning environment as it is now written.

Try to explain to our community, if you can, how a 1997 cut of $667 million will not devastate the students' learning environment. Bill 160 promises less time to work with our students, less time to work with our parents, fewer teachers to work with our parents and fewer teachers to work with our students. Prep time guarantees that time and staff will be available to serve our parents and our students.

How can you even suggest that the present teacher expertise we have in our classrooms has to be changed? Teachers understand how kids learn. They are trained in that, and there is no one else who can replace the qualified, certified teacher who is needed.

An earlier speaker was talking about when he started. I started 35 years ago. You can't tell me that things have not changed in 35 years. I was an excellent lesson preparer in 1963. I was not a very good person communicating with students and parents, because there was no time to do so. They were at the whim of my time when I was busy preparing my lessons at night with everything else. I now have ample time, because my parents are part of my classroom. They always will be. You're not going to take that away. We're going to defend that on Monday.

I'd just like you to remember your promise to us in 1995: The classroom will not be affected -- yet less prep time for the benefit of my students. Who is my classroom? They are the classroom. The classroom is not walls and cement; it's the kids. Less time to meet the parents, who are also part of my classroom. They always will be. Less time for student needs, less qualified teachers in our classrooms. If your promise meant that in 1995, then you owe me a personal apology, and you owe my students, my parents and my community the same apology. I'm certainly ready for any questions that you may want to entertain.

The Vice-Chair: We have again about 30 seconds, and we start this time with the NDP.

Mr Lessard: I want to thank you for making your presentation. You mentioned public hearings. We heard earlier from students, probably the most important people who are involved in this debate, saying they really haven't felt as though they have had an opportunity to participate at all. I thank you for your comments about the opportunity to provide public hearings, because I don't think that students and others who are going to be directly impacted by Bill 160 have had adequate time to express their views.

Mr Carroll: I want to read a quick comment from the Toronto Star:

"Teachers are powerful role models; an illegal strike sends a dangerous message to their students that it is all right to break the law.

"The teachers say they must walk a picket line to defend our schools. It looks to us like they are out to defend their turf."

Can you comment on that?

Mr Meloche: In terms of the legality, we of course are calling it a political protest. If you are insinuating it is illegal, what I am insinuating to you and stating very clearly is that what you are doing is immoral.

Interruption.

The Vice-Chair: Sorry for the demonstration. Please.

Mrs McLeod: There are parts of Bill 160 that are there for one reason only. They are the parts that give the cabinet the power to cut teachers, and the reason they are there is to be able to let the government deliver on the $667 million in cuts. Tell me where the morality is in that.

The Vice-Chair: Very quickly.

Mr Dupuis: I can't. There is no morality in that. You cannot expect a $667-million cut not to affect the students and their learning environment.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. The time has expired. I wish we had more, but the clock runs us.

JAMES HILLIER SCHOOL COUNCIL

The Vice-Chair: The next group is the James Hillier School Council.

Mr Phil Midgley: My name is Phil Midgley. I'm the parent of a five-year-old special-needs girl in a grade 1 classroom. I am representing the James Hillier School Council as the chair of that council.

I want to acknowledge as well the presence of our principal, Mr Al Nichols, to my right; Mr Chris McCall, our co-chair and parent representative; and Mrs Michelle Cohoon, our community representative on that council.

I want to thank the committee on behalf of the James Hillier school community in Brantford for the opportunity to present our concerns regarding Bill 160. Quite frankly, we have been frustrated in our attempts to get clarification regarding the details and implications of this bill.

As a council, our first efforts to seek clarification were directed to our Progressive Conservative member of provincial parliament, Mr Ron Johnson. On October 7, we wrote a letter outlining our questions and expressing our ideas. You have this letter before you. Our letter has remained unanswered. We submitted the letter to the local press in an effort to make our questions more public and to elicit a response from our MPP. To this date we have received no communication regarding our letter. As a school council, an advisory body mandated by the current government, we believe we have the right to be informed and to have our concerns addressed. As parents, we care about our children's future, and we are very concerned. It is this concern and the lack of detailed information that has brought us before this committee.

The James Hillier School Council supports the goals set our by the provincial government: increased accountability, high academic standards and increased efficiency. However, we do not see how the current legislation, Bill 160, will meet these goals.

We need clarification regarding the ramifications of Bill 160. How will the measures proposed in this legislation improve the opportunity for our children to learn? How will this legislation better meet the needs of all students in Ontario? Using the words of Mr Harris last night, how does this bill put our kids first?

Specifically, we wish to address the following issues: funding, staffing, the shift of power from the local government to the centralized provincial government, and the government's urgency to pass this bill.

It is difficult for us to understand how the government's apparent fiscal objectives are consistent with the goal of improving education. In addition to the millions of dollars already extracted from Ontario's education system, the Veronica Lacey document leaked by the NDP this week confirms the goal of achieving additional savings of some $670 million. The victims of such cuts are already apparent. Junior kindergarten, a cornerstone of the most recent educational reform, has virtually disappeared from the province; so too has adult education been significantly reduced. How will class size be reduced? Tell us specifically how as a province we are going to do more and do better with less.

Speakers prior to me have addressed the issue of the new funding model and the lack of clarification about what funding model will be. We echo those concerns.

The issue of staffing is one we feel very strongly about. The comments made by the Premier last week stating that the education of our children can no longer be entrusted to the teachers and school boards are offensive to this council. We have tremendous respect and appreciation for the fine work done by the teachers, the administration and the support staff at James Hillier school. This school has met and continues to meet the challenge of providing a high-quality education for each of its students. So too has the Brant County Board of Education been responsive to our council's concerns.

How will the reduction of thousands of teaching positions in this province improve the opportunity for our students to learn? How does replacing professional educators with untrained staff improve education? We believe that quality comes from qualified and caring teachers. Extracting resources and expertise from the school system is not consistent with the goal of improvement.

One of the principles of the new reforms is accountability in evaluation and in instruction. We urge the government to apply the same principles to their administrative structures. Under Bill 160, the government of the day, more specifically the cabinet or the Minister of Education, will have absolute authority over all aspects of education. Under Bill 160, the EIC, originally a transitional body, has been granted a life in perpetuity. Reform in the future can be implemented through orders in council. There will be no meaningful public debate or input; legislation need not even see the floor of the House. There is no voice for parents, for teachers or for trustees.

The evolving role of the school council is unclear. How does this unlimited centralized power support the new accountability which Premier Harris referred to last night in his address? Is the legislation, Bill 160, about improvement in education or the absolute and arbitrary control of education? How does Bill 160 put our kids first?

Our council supports change that results in real improvement in education, change based on sound educational principles and research. We do not support change to serve a political agenda. Give us a real view of the future of education under Bill 160, not rhetoric.

1200

We applaud initiatives such as the Ontario curriculum, standardized testing and the provincial report card, but these reforms, folks, are the product of collaboration between educators, the community and the government. These reforms are already under way. They do not fall under the proposed legislation. What is relevant is the process by which these initiatives were realized: collaboration with all parties involved, shared decision-making.

We urge the government to slow down the ratification of Bill 160. Find answers to our questions and share them with the public. The current controversy surrounding Bill 160 is an indication of the need to reflect upon this legislation. Engage in meaningful discussion with all groups affected by the bill: educators, parents, students and members of the community. Be open to suggestions and be responsive to concerns. Premier Harris stated last night that Ontario has some of the world's best teachers. We agree. Involve them in purposeful discourse. Only through such cooperation can we put Ontario's kids first. The Premier's stated last night, "This is the month.... Let's work together." We echo that sentiment.

It is only through real collaboration that Ontario's kids will continue to come first, as they always have. Thank you for the opportunity to present before you.

I would like at this point just to make one observation. One of the benefits for me was to see two groups of young people present before this committee. Folks, those are the product of this system. If they are any representation of what's out there, our system is not broken.

Interruption.

The Vice-Chair: Please. We have some rules and regulations. Demonstrations have not been permitted and will not be permitted.

Interruption.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. These are the rules of the room; it's not individuals' rules that rule here. We have wasted another part of the time. We will have less than a minute per caucus now, and we'll start with the government.

Mr Bruce Smith: I'll endeavour to inquire of my colleague Mr Johnson as to the nature of his response for you. In the absence of that, I'll respond to it by letter.

Certainly this legislation mandates advisory school councils. We have had a range of input in terms of removal of "advisory," different viewpoints in terms of actually mandating it. Where is your comfort level in terms of your roles and responsibilities as a school council?

Mr Midgley: I think the comfort level is going to vary greatly from one council to another and from one individual to another. We welcome, as parents, the opportunity to provide input, to voice our concerns. I certainly do not believe that we would be comfortable with any responsibility in terms of policymaking or the creation of curriculum. That I think is best left to the professionals.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you for your brief. I truly believe, particularly given the Premier's statements last night as you have noted and the concerns of parents today as they look at what may happen Monday, that the questions you have posed are ones which should receive answers and that Bill 160 should be withdrawn until those answers are received. I'll be making that request on your behalf.

Just as a question, do you, with your emphasis on collaboration here, see any way that we can improve the quality of education when the government has made enemies of our teachers?

Mr Midgley: I think at this point we have to slow down. What I believe we're hearing and seeing in the media is a political battle, and the students are the victims. I encourage both parties to get together to look at what education reform should be about: the improvement of the classroom experience for the individual student.

Mr Lessard: You started out by saying the government's apparent fiscal objectives aren't consistent with the goal of improving education. You have identified that Bill 160 has nothing to do with improving quality and has everything to do with the centralization of power in Toronto to make decisions and to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the education system. I suspect that you have some suspicions about where those savings are going to be found and the impact that's going to have on the quality of education. Do you have some ideas where they're going to find those savings?

Mr Midgley: I'm aware only of what I read in the media, and I understand it's to finance a tax cut.

The Vice-Chair: You have about 30 seconds if you want to finish up.

Mr Midgley: I'd like to echo the speakers before who have suggested that any savings realized through administrative cuts, through systems cuts, through board amalgamation be put back into the education system. We have waited and hoped to hear that commitment on behalf of the minister, and it has not been forthcoming.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation.

Mrs McLeod: I have a motion. Again, I believe the previous brief has spoken to it, and I will not further speak to the motion. I'll simply place it.

I move that Bill 160 be withdrawn until the questions of the James Hillier School Council of Brantford about the substance of this bill in relationship to its stated purpose can be addressed.

The Vice-Chair: Do you want a recorded vote?

Mrs McLeod: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Hoy, Lessard, McLeod.

Nays

Boushy, Carroll, Froese, Smith.

The Vice-Chair: The motion is defeated. This justice committee stands adjourned until 1:30.

The committee recessed from 1207 to 1330.

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. This is a continuation of today's sittings and it's 1:30.

JON BRUNEAU

The Chair: Our first presentation is Mr Jon Bruneau. Welcome. Please make yourself comfortable and proceed. We have allocated 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Jon Bruneau: I first of all want to thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jon Bruneau and I'm a grade 12 student attending Walkerville Collegiate in Windsor. I'm here in support of Bill 160.

This bill ensures that quality education is a top priority. This bill extends the time teachers spend with students in the classroom, allows the government to set standards for class sizes and teacher preparation time and changes the education property tax base. Under this bill, school boards can no longer increase class sizes, which have clearly escalated in recent years. The setting of class sizes can no longer be a local responsibility since boards and unions have clearly abused this privilege.

Critics argue that class sizes should be determined as it is now, through negotiations between unions and school boards. However, determining class sizes through collective bargaining has massively increased the student-teacher ratio. Since when have class sizes been determined on collective bargaining? These are standards that have to be set. It sounds like it's more of a labour issue.

Apparently, a few years ago the teaching profession requested a raise in salary and benefits. In order to grant this, our board increased class sizes. It doesn't sound like they're putting students first. In the best interests of the students, collective bargaining should no longer be abused for financial gain on behalf of federations.

Just briefly, I have the class sizes for last year, 1996-97, and they range from nine students per teacher to the highest of 37. It doesn't sound too balanced. I would say the average would be around 25.

Second, bringing uncertified teachers into the classroom sounds frightening to some. However, in the areas of computer science, guidance, music and physical education the staff would be better qualified, just simply without a certificate. Guidance departments need experience in the business community to effectively suggest ideas to students. Otherwise, it seems that they'd be out of touch with the specific aspect to their job.

We all know that savings will occur in this area. Therefore, those savings can be redirected into implementing smaller class sizes. It would relieve those teachers so they could spend more one-on-one time directly with students.

I believe prep time is definitely necessary for teaching staff. However, it could be used more wisely and in an effective manner. The teachers I've talked to would sacrifice a shorter prep time in exchange for smaller class sizes. Please take that into consideration.

From my own experience, I've noticed some teachers put a great deal of time into a lesson. On the other hand, some teachers put very little time and effort into a lesson. For example, and this happens very frequently in class, a teacher would give a lesson and instruct us to read pages 20 to 25 and do questions 1 through 10. I don't think a lot of effort and time was put into that and if they need that 70 minutes a day. Mind you, department heads have two 70-minute periods a day. I'm not too sure whether that would be necessary. It would be more beneficial for them to spend a portion of the prep time directly with students.

My cousin is one of the 87,000 in this province who attend a private school. I interviewed the program director last week. He indicated to me that their staff have no prep time and that their prep time is in the summer. Apparently, the student achievement is higher than the provincial average. How they achieve this is beyond me, but it's something to look at.

Also, with your support of this bill, the tax base would be shifted from a local level to a provincial level. This idea is not new. Seven other provinces have already done this. You must understand that in the last 10 years student enrolment increased by only 16% while school board spending increased by 80% and education property taxes went up by a whopping 120%. That's unacceptable. You would tend to think that student performance would increase, but unfortunately it hasn't. Massive funding does not necessarily improve student performance. Curriculum does.

Those who claim this bill is about money are clearly out of touch with the education system. This province spends more per student than elsewhere in the county and we're still getting a failing grade. Therefore, a quality education is determined by curriculum advancement.

Last, this bill is about fixing a system that doesn't work for students, teachers or parents. Who's standing up for the students? It's certainly not federations. Teaching must be brought back to a profession instead of a trade union, and I'm asking you to put your open arms in support of this bill because it's for the students, who are the future of this country. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bruneau. We have a little over a minute per caucus.

Mr Bruce Smith: Thank you for your presentation. Some of the opponents of this bill who have appeared before the committee have suggested that increased contact between students and teachers really doesn't effectively affect the quality of their education. How would you respond to that?

Mr Bruneau: I would tend to disagree. Students, when they have difficulties in the system, need the one-on-one time with teachers and it most certainly is beneficial. Otherwise, how would you get the proper assistance if you're having difficulty on your own?

Mr Bruce Smith: One other item we've heard a great deal about is with respect to differentiated staffing. The former Minister of Education indicated, "One place where I think the government is absolutely right, I think the monopoly of the teaching profession on counselling ought to end." That was indicated by the Honourable Sean Conway, who is a former Minister of Education and member of the Liberal caucus. Would you agree with that?

Mr Bruneau: Are you referring to guidance departments?

Mr Bruce Smith: Yes.

Mr Bruneau: Most certainly. I think a problem many guidance departments face today, and I know in my school, is that they're kind of out of touch with what students are looking for in the future. For example, I had a problem --

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bruneau. We have to do a rotation and our time is up for Mr Smith. Mr Hoy.

Mr Hoy: Thank you for your presentation, Jon. In your remarks about prep time, I want to relate a story to you that I heard from a young teacher who has maybe taught about half a dozen years. She is involved with five extracurricular activities at her school. I'm not certain just what they are, but I would assume maybe sports after hours or whatever. She was involved in five different activities. She said she started preparing for her time in the school in early August, which you suggested some teachers should do, and indeed I'm saying they do. She regards her prep time as very important when she balances that with these five extracurricular activities she's involved with, along with parent-student-teacher interviews as well. She meets with people at noonhour, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock, 8 o'clock at night. She's one who agrees that prep time is very important to her as a young teacher and I tend to agree with her.

Would you substitute these extracurricular activities, have her forgo those to do the prep time, as you say, at other hours of the day?

Mr Bruneau: I'm not familiar with many teachers who are involved with five extracurricular activities, and it does seem a bit too much of a workload. I would suggest to them to maybe decrease the extras and put more in the classroom for the teachers who have as many as that.

Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for taking the time to come to visit Chatham today, Jon. We appreciate that.

In your comments you said the teachers you've been speaking to would give up preparation time for a smaller class size. I was wondering if you felt that if teachers feel that way, it wouldn't be appropriate for them to have those discussions during collective bargaining locally with their school boards rather than having that dictated to them by the Ministry of Education and Training from Toronto.

Mr Bruneau: The ones I've talked to I've asked, "Would you prefer it being cut totally or would you prefer a portion of it cut out to have smaller class sizes?" because apparently some class sizes, as I indicated before, are too high. The teachers I've talked to would sacrifice a portion of their prep time in exchange for smaller class sizes.

Mr Lessard: They can do that through collective bargaining with their local boards now. That's my point. This would take that power away from local boards. Do you have any concern about taking that power to deal with many of those issues away from local boards and putting it in the hands of the Minister of Education and Training in Toronto?

Mr Bruneau: Collective bargaining at a local level, as I indicated, has clearly been abused, for example, with class sizes. I think they should lose that privilege and we could increase standards if it was at a provincial level.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bruneau, for your presentation here today.

1340

GERALD LITTLE

The Chair: Our next presentation is Gerald Little on behalf of the Lambton Progressive Conservative Association. Good afternoon, and please proceed.

Mr Gerald Little: Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen of the justice committee, I appreciate the opportunity to address you and add my input to the reforms being proposed to Bill 160.

A couple of items I'm sure we all agree with: Our students in Ontario are our most precious commodity we have among us. Second, I want to express something I think everyone agrees on: That there is nothing wrong with our teachers, students or trustees. They are all very bright and hardworking, in my opinion.

However, we have a problem with the system, and I want to address the system here today as much as possible. Every year we are spending more money, yet we're not seeing our children learn more. I've seen similar problems in business, and I can assure you that the answer is never as simple as throwing more and more money at the problem. What has to change is the system. As soon as we fix it, everything else, in my experience, falls into place.

From what I've read in Bill 160, the government has some real solutions to making the system work better, although there are more reforms I would like to see. To be honest, I have never understood why teachers need so much prep time. Taking time to prepare for work that needs to be done is something that every professional, every business person and almost everyone who works does, yet we're not paid to prepare; we're paid to do a job.

Between teaching in the classroom for three and a half hours a day and the holidays and the sick time our teachers receive, I hardly see what is so unreasonable about asking high school teachers to teach the same number of hours as their colleagues in the elementary schools or the average amount of time the rest of Canada's teachers spend teaching in the classrooms.

In study after study that I saw, we see our children are not performing as well as they could be. To get the level of achievement up, there's no question we need teachers providing more instructional time. I believe firmly that that would do it.

I know that teachers are dealing with many social problems they traditionally never had to deal with before, and we all know what they are. I have the highest respect for their efforts. However, I have to stop and wonder, are they equipped to do this?

They are trained to teach, provide information and help students put the whole economic part together, not to deal with problems associated with substance abuse, as an example, violent relationships, problems at home or even career advice. By allowing staff without teaching certificates into our schools, maybe we can use people specifically trained to handle these problems rather than have teachers doing something over and beyond teaching our children.

On the same topic, I have to question why we need someone with a teacher's certificate to be a librarian, a guidance counsellor or even a junior kindergarten teacher. Wouldn't somebody trained as a librarian or a guidance counsellor do just as good a job? Frankly, even though it probably isn't a politically correct statement to make, I think we all realize that junior kindergarten is more of a babysitting service than anything else. I would prefer junior kindergarten to be supervised by someone with a certificate in children's caregiving rather than possibly a teacher's certificate.

I strongly approve of the government's initiatives to get parents more involved in education. This would give parents more opportunity to address the unique situation every school has and would also give us, as parents, more responsibility for our children rather than expecting educators to do everything.

If there is a problem with violence or the behaviour of our students in a particular school or classroom, parents can get involved and ensure there is a zero tolerance program in place. I'd even like to go as far, on a zero tolerance program, to say that it be spelled out, and use the philosophy that when we register our children in school, we take them there and we understand and sign for the guidelines of a zero tolerance policy. I believe we have to get the parents involved and put the shoe on the parents' foot about the violence we have. Certainly, if we get into a classroom and we have one or two who disrupt a class of 25, we're taking away the opportunity from the other 23 to get their education.

Another aspect of this bill that I appreciate is that it would allow the government to set class size. I've heard critics say this is just a power grab and we can't trust the government not to increase class sizes. My view is that class size should not be a bargaining item left to be resolved by unions and boards. Someone has to control class size, and my preference is the government, because I can hold it directly accountable. If class sizes increase, I know whose fault it is and I'm able to vote against those responsible.

There are many dedicated teachers. There's no question about that. However, I feel that unions have become far too militant. I've heard the government offer compromises and ask unions for alternatives. All I've seen from the unions is a determination to throw their weight around by striking. I am very offended by the fact that my grandchildren are being held hostage in this situation.

Today's situation is not a new story. In the last decade I've seen at least three strikes lock our children out of school. This says to me there is a serious problem with the present system. I can't believe teachers' unions are willing to resort to an illegal strike over what's contained in this bill, which in my opinion doesn't go far enough.

I've heard that originally the government was considering taking principals and vice-principals out of the bargaining unit, but they took this off the table because teachers' unions were extremely upset and opposed to the idea. In any successful company or business I've seen, I've never seen them be successful with this type of situation.

I regret this step was taken off the table and I hope the members of this committee and of the government will reconsider. Keeping management in the bargaining unit with the people they are supposed to supervise, evaluate or reprimand if they are not doing their job is an obvious conflict, in my opinion. Management should be as concerned about our children's education as the teachers are. There is no reason to keep them in the bargaining unit except to ensure teachers' unions are strengthened to the point that they can easily take an illegal action such as striking when they are not in a legal position to do so.

There is one more item I would like to bring to everyone's mind or attention, even though I'm aware that it's not in the bill or even on any agenda: the existence of two school systems. We can't continue to afford two systems. We're duplicating expenses such as school boards, busing systems for one area. Too many results make no sense.

For example, my granddaughters went to a school in our community that had to use four portables because of the lack of classroom space. Right across the field, less than 500 feet away, there was another school from the separate board. This school had five empty classrooms. Does this make sense to anyone here?

1350

Although students from both schools played in the same yard during recess and lunch, one school had empty rooms that the other couldn't use. I ask all members of government and opposition parties to take this situation into future consideration when you're looking for ways to control education costs and make sure tax dollars go directly to improving the education we give our children.

In conclusion, we already spend enough on education. We just have to use our resources in the best possible way. Bill 160 is a good step in the right direction. I hope there will be more. If we think we can go on spending more money doing the same thing, allowing class size to be negotiated by people who are largely unaccountable to us, and keep parents uninvolved in education, we're in for a rude surprise in the future.

The Chair: Excuse me, sir. Unfortunately, our time has elapsed. We have your written brief and can complete it ourselves. We thank you very much for your attendance here today.

GINN RAWLINSON

The Chair: Our next presentation will be OPSTF, Kent District, Ginn Rawlinson.

Ms Ginn Rawlinson: I'm here as a representative, as you stated, of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, but I wish to speak to you today as a teacher, very proud of the work that is performed by me and my colleagues across this province. I am committed to lifelong learning and to equal opportunity for every child in this province to live an independent life as a contributing member of society.

I began my career, as so many teachers have, by working without pay for two years. In the 27 years since then I've spent my summers preparing for the upcoming school year and upgrading my skills in a variety of ways, including the completion of university courses equivalent to six years of full-time study. I have given literally thousands of hours of my own time, after school and on weekends, to coach teams of children, write curriculum, plan with colleagues, and attend and contribute time and energy to a variety of work-related activities and committees. I've spent more of my own money than I care to calculate, purchasing materials for my classroom that would not or could not be provided by my school board. I've gone to hospitals and private homes to visit sick students and, unfortunately, attended some of their funerals.

Believe me when I tell you that I am not an anomaly. I know scores of colleagues who could tell you the same things about themselves, many of whom have received provincial and even international recognition for their contributions to education. Anyone close to teaching and schools will tell you it is the goodwill, dedication and commitment of teachers that are responsible for the quality of education in Ontario. It comes without a pricetag, but its value is immeasurable. If you destroy it, no amount of curriculum and testing will improve the quality of education.

Certainly, teachers do not have the same reputation today that they did when I was a schoolgirl, but then the children we teach and the societal pressures that mould and shape them cannot be compared to those of the 1950s. Throughout the decades since then, teachers have taken it on the chin. Like many other professionals, we've often been the target of ridicule, though never to the extreme to which the former minister himself went and invited others to go. I'm told that this riding's MPP, and even the Premier himself, have had brief and unsatisfying careers in teaching. The former minister's school record speaks for itself.

Perhaps this is the basis for some of our current events. If so, we may not enjoy it, but we can continue to be your collective punching-bag. The elementary teachers of Kent county have never before contemplated strike, legal or otherwise. We've had our staff and wages cut by the previous government and we've experienced the depletion of human and other resources and the increase in class sizes due to the continued funding cuts imposed by this administration.

Though we have not negotiated a pay increase since 1992, in June of this year Kent's elementary teachers struck a deal with our board that saw a 10% reduction in our preparation time. We agreed to it because the board of trustees let us keep half the teachers who normally would have been displaced by this reduction so that we could begin to address the class size problems created by this government.

But now we've drawn the line. With Bill 160 you're going after our kids. A nurse at one of the mass rallies held a few weeks ago spoke to a colleague. Nurses had not wanted to take their patients hostage and so continued to work through their restructuring. She stated that this government's policies have since taken Ontario patients themselves hostage. Teachers cannot and must not allow them to do the same with our children.

What happens in Toronto, and has been happening in Toronto since the beginning of this school year, happens in school yards across this province. There's a power struggle between two camps of politicians, goaded on by the media. First one, then the other, plays the role of bully and the fight goes on. The former minister claimed that union leaders wanted a strike, not the general rank and file. Let me assure you, not one of us wants the political protest to proceed on Monday, but the teachers of Ontario need not follow their union leaders to the bricks. They need no more reason than Bill 160 to take this unprecedented action.

Those of us who have stayed in this proud and noble profession do so because children, our students, are our first priority. We recognize that the future we will share is in their hands. This bill frightens and alarms us. I've often used the analogy with my colleagues of a mother and child. I remember how my mother sacrificed for me and my siblings. The consummate and constant teacher, she taught us to solve rather than create problems, to negotiate rather than fight and to put others before ourselves. This government could learn a lot from her. Like any good mother, she fiercely defended and protected us and continues to do so today.

I tell you here and now that I will do whatever is necessary to defend and protect the present and future students of this province. I say this not as an ultimatum or a threat but merely as a statement of my conscience. I could enumerate for you all the objections I have to the Quality Education Improvement Act, but you have only given me 10 minutes. For the past three years the teachers of Ontario have been trying to tell our politicians why we find it so objectionable. Our words thus far have been ignored or fallen on deaf ears.

I will attempt to summarize the issues I find most contentious in this unconscionable piece of legislation.

You claim that you must improve the quality of education in Ontario and will do it with standardized testing and a new curriculum. What do you think teachers have been teaching? We teach today, as we always have, what this government tells us to teach. In my professional career we've taught and defended your new math, whole language, Transitions years, the Common Curriculum and now the Ontario Curriculum, less than half of which we currently have. We've tried our darnedest to make a success of your open concept schools, streamed, destreamed, structured and activity-based teaching strategies. We've suffered education whiplash at the hands of each change in government. We so rarely receive praise, but that's OK. We will not, however, accept the blame for failing to make a silk purse of an occasional sow's ear.

Now, with Bill 160, you put total control of education policy in the hands of the provincial government. To whom shall we go with our concerns? Our school boards have been relegated to distant, unrecognizable names and faces without much local accountability and less authority. Yet, like me, many of our local taxpayers have had the disheartening experience of seeking the support of local, let alone provincial, government representatives.

This brings me to the final and most formidable objection I have to the bill. My school dictionary defines "democracy," as those proud students did this morning, as "a form of government for the people, by the will of the majority of the people, based on the conception of the equality of man." In the democracy I have enjoyed as a citizen of Ontario, it is my right and privilege to belong to a union with all the responsibilities that entails.

Teachers in Ontario have a long and excellent record of collective bargaining under Bill 100. As a federation leader, I work in cooperation and collaboration with my school board and senior administrative staff. The teachers of this province have never, in my experience, demonstrated the collective strength or opposition, which you so obviously fear, until it was provoked by this government. Each year of my career, I've seen a greater number of children arrive at our classroom doors with challenges that, I would suggest to you, few of us around this table ever had to face.

The only chance they have of an independent future as contributing members of society is with equal opportunity to, and benefit of, a good education. The greatest joy I have as an educator is to see one of my students, with whatever influence I may have been able to give, find success. I will not stand idly by as this government dismantles and strips the education system we currently have until it becomes an opportunity, not for all children, but from which private enterprise can realize a profit.

Privatization and charter schools are not an option for the growing number of disadvantaged students and their families. For them, fee for service is displacement to a substandard system, replete with unqualified staff, limited programs, few options and precious little hope. In short, the education system of Ontario is not and must not be for sale.

In addition to the comments I have given you, I would like to suggest that I agree totally with you, Ms McLeod. There needs to be a cooling-off period and some meaningful discussion. We need to grow up and do our jobs.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Rawlinson. There's one minute left. I'd like you to use that for any further comments you'd like to make about the bill.

Ms Rawlinson: Thank you. I think more than enough has been said about the bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much, then, for your presentation here today.

1400

ONTARIO CATHOLIC SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association, Patrick Daly. Welcome. We have allotted 30 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Patrick Daly: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm joined today by Patrick Slack, the executive director of our association, Monsignor Dennis Murphy, the director of Catholic education, and Carol Devine, the director of political affairs and media relations.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Chair: There is some confusion in the audience about why this particular group has 30 minutes as opposed to 10. Could you explain that so everyone understands, please.

The Chair: The committee dealt with it and the majority of the committee, over the objections of a minority group, decided that certain individuals would have 30 minutes and certain would have 10. This group received 30 minutes, and unfortunately I guess there was not room for them in Toronto, so you've had to drive all the way up here to get your 30 minutes. Is that correct, Ms McLeod? Is that fair?

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'd certainly be prepared to identify myself as part of the minority that did not like the change in process with an exclusive list from the minister of people who got half an hour, but I am delighted that the OCSTA is one of the groups that received half an hour. Welcome.

The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed.

Mr Daly: Founded in 1930, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association represents 53 Catholic school boards who collectively educate over 600,000 students from junior kindergarten to grade 12/OAC. The mission of all our Catholic school boards and their schools is to create a faith community where religious instruction, religious practice, value formation and faith development are integral to every area of the curriculum. This is in addition, of course, to providing a complete curriculum as defined by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training.

Our remarks today are offered within the context of the broad agenda of education reform put forward by the government of the province in recent months. Within this broader context, which is indeed partially the context of education reform in western society, we hope the committee will better benefit from our specific comments dealing with Bill 160. We realize that much of the reaction and commentary regarding educational reform suffers from the unfortunate politicization of education. As an association of Catholic school boards, we do not pretend to be free from the politics of the issue but we are trying to present an assessment of education reform and Bill 160 in as objective a fashion as possible. Our hope is that our comments reflect the desire that these educational reforms be directed and inspired by the concern to provide the best education possible for children in all of the publicly funded schools of Ontario.

In appraising the education reform agenda of recent months, we applaud the government for moving to implement many of the reforms suggested by the Royal Commission on Learning and other groups and commissions. It is salutary to recall that the report of the royal commission was warmly received by most Ontarians in 1995 as providing a way into the future for Ontario's education system. What is therefore distressing is to witness some groups intent on rejecting the implementation of many of its recommendations. As will be clear from the comments which follow, however, we are not in agreement with all of the recent education reforms introduced by the government. Nor do we believe that the speed of the educational reform agenda is, in some of its parts, necessarily in the best interests of children and our education system.

Our association is supportive of the directions taken by the government in the areas of curriculum, standards, accountability, reporting and funding. We are less supportive of some of the initiatives taken in the area of governance, in the matter of labour relations and negotiations, and about the pace of such comprehensive education reform in certain areas.

We go on, on pages 3 and 4, to outline our support in the areas of accountability, curriculum and funding, and we'll come back to those a little later in our specific comments on the bill. As well, on pages 5 and 6, we comment in detail about some of the troubling aspects of the recent reform. We'll allow you, at your leisure, to read them.

One comment, on page 6, that I would like to make in regard to section 136 of the Education Act is that our association has been strongly opposed since that part of the Education Act was added in 1986. We want to go on record again as indicating that we believe the way is open for the government to take action in this regard, as section 136 of the Education Act has been effectively opened by section 135.1 of Bill 160. We hope you will take that into consideration.

Beginning on page 7, we go on to give some specific comments on the bill. The first is in the area of finance. As mentioned earlier, OCSTA supports and is encouraged by the intention of the government to finally achieve equity of educational opportunity for all Ontario students. We are pleased that the legislation contains a review process intended to ensure that the funding mechanism will operate in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. The legislation as worded allows as well for the maintenance of our constitutionally guaranteed taxing rights. We are heartened as well by the bill's insistence that the "legislation and regulations governing education funding operate as to respect the rights given by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights."

In this section we strongly recommend that the government ensure, through legislation, adequate resource allocation which will guarantee the high degree of autonomy and flexibility which the various types of school boards require.

We make the second strong recommendation that no further cuts be made to educational funding. The issue of equity is linked directly to the adequacy in the level of funding in Ontario.

Our final recommendation in the area of funding, and one of our strongest out of clear justice issues, is that we recommend that the implementation of the funding model proceed without delay. We cannot make that recommendation strongly enough. For too long the province has funded education in such a way that clearly there are second-class students. We can no longer allow that to continue.

In the area of teacher bargaining, we believe our comments present the kind of compromise that could be of assistance to those working, hopefully, to resolve these contentious issues over the next number of days. We leave them for your consideration.

We are concerned that much of the publicity surrounding the teaching profession in recent days reflects the efforts of the teachers' associations, which understandably strive in this period of education reform to ensure the welfare of their membership. Some of this publicity is quite unflattering. We wish as an association of Catholic trustees, and I as a Catholic parent with three children in elementary school, to go on record as being highly appreciative of the teachers in our Catholic schools, who are impressive in their professionalism and their dedication to the ideals and goals of Catholic education.

1410

Specifically in the area of class size, we state that any provincial regulation which would cap class size would have to take into account the possible impact it could have in creating additional classes in overcrowded schools where physical capacity is already overloaded. It must be remembered that in a good number of boards the current backlog of new capital requirement remains large. Care must be taken, therefore, to provide some flexibility to local district boards in the application of any such control.

We would argue that discrepancies in class size across the province, in large measure, have been created by the significant inequities inherent in the current education funding model. The new "fair" funding model will ensure relative consistency in class size throughout the province.

To assist boards, we believe that the government should provide provincial guidelines regarding average class size. Such guidelines would have to allow for flexibility at the local level and in areas such as special education. Within the scope of these guidelines, actual class size will be best achieved through bargaining between school boards and local teacher units. Any control which the government deems necessary in relation to class size can be assured through the new funding model, and we want to go on record as recognizing the fact that that control will be inherent in the new funding model.

We recommend strongly, therefore, although we support the concept of provincial guidelines for class size, the deletion from Bill 160 of regulatory powers which would give the minister authority to determine class size.

Moving to the area of differentiated staffing, just to read our recommendation: We do not believe that the matter of differentiated staffing should become the subject of regulatory power. Local school boards are better positioned to determine what is beneficial in their areas and can more effectively negotiate this matter with the local teacher unit.

The final specific area in labour relations is the contentious issue of preparation time. There is convincing research that indicates that at least at the secondary level Ontario teachers have considerably more preparation time than their colleagues in other parts of Canada. On the other hand, it must be remembered that, like many good wines, educational research often travels poorly. What is adequate as preparation time in other educational jurisdictions is not necessarily adequate for secondary school teachers in Ontario.

We caution as well that in determining preparation time for teachers concern must be shown not only for the educational welfare of students but also for the welfare of teachers.

We agree as an association that reform is important in the matter of preparation time. We share the opinion that change must occur in the manner in which schools are staffed. As indicated in the report of Education Improvement Commission, this is particularly true at the secondary level. Thus we support the intent of the bill in this regard. We would, therefore, appreciate and support the establishment of benchmarks related to the setting of limits on preparation time by the government. Within these limits and benchmarks, trustees and teachers can negotiate what is best in the local circumstances.

We do not agree, however, that preparation time is best determined by regulation at the provincial level. To us this goes too far. We believe that within the context of the new funding model school boards can better deal with this matter at the local level, and we recommend that again for your consideration.

Moving into the area, briefly, of school governance, we speak to our concern on the issue of removing in many sections of the bill the usage of the word "trustee" in the act. Within the Catholic community, "trustee" is a term that holds much historical meaning and connects those who serve Catholic parents and ratepayers not only as financial stewards but as stewards of the faith and the rich heritage of Catholic education. We have encouraged all our boards to use the term "trustee" rather than "board member," and we strongly recommend that this same consistency be assured within the Education Act itself.

On the issue of representation of pupils on boards, we just quickly want to go on record as supporting that concept and the unique contribution students can make around the board table.

On the issue of electronic meetings, an important point we'd like to raise, we are concerned that electronic meetings would effectively limit the ability of the public and media to participate or be present at meetings. To all intents and purposes, all such meetings would be held in camera, and we do not think that is useful or helpful to the democratic process. For this reason we feel that the minimum of three face-to-face meetings as mandated in Bill 160 should be increased until at least such time as there are effective and non-costly technological ways of involving the general public and the media in electronic board meetings.

On the area of school councils, we want to go on record as strongly supporting Catholic school councils and their development as an advisory body. We as an association, and Catholic boards across the province, will move to assure their evolution as constitutive dimensions of the educational structures of this province.

In conclusion, and I won't review all of it, we would like to indicate at the bottom of page 16 our strong recommendation and perhaps our most important.

There remains much debate as to which programs most adequately address the educational and other needs of young children. There is, however, an area of program wherein the debate is really over, an area which calls for immediate action. The research supporting the recommendations on the value of early childhood education, as recommended by the recent report by the Royal Commission on Learning, is practically unassailable. Early childhood education benefits not only disadvantaged students who lack adequate educational stimulation in their early years but all students. Catholic boards in Ontario have long been convinced that a successful start in the early years provides children with a solid foundation upon which to build their educational career. This conviction has led most Catholic boards to maintain junior kindergarten programs even in the face of funding cuts for these programs.

For this reason, and again to emphasize, we recommend strongly that there be no further cuts in funding to education. However, we agree that funds can be saved in certain areas, and any of those savings should be reinvested. We strongly propose and recommend that any moneys saved through the educational reform package of the government be reinvested through the gradual introduction of early childhood education as a constitutive part of Ontario's educational system.

Mr Chairman, just to thank you and the committee members for giving us this opportunity, and we are pleased to respond to any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Daly. We have five minutes per caucus.

Mrs McLeod: First of all, let me thank you for, as expected, a very thoughtful brief and a very thorough brief. I appreciate how much material is in the brief that you didn't take time out of our session to present and I'll look forward to going over it.

I want to start with a number of the recommendations that you've presented in the areas that, as we've heard in committee over the last few days, are the ones at the crux of the confrontation. It is an omnibus bill. There are a huge number of issues and areas dealt with by this bill, but we are all obviously focused on what may happen to 2.1 million students on Monday morning, not to mention the anguish of 126,000 teachers.

You've identified a number of areas in which you feel as a trustee association that this bill goes too far in its regulatory power. It would seem to me that if those areas could be addressed by government immediately, if they would even, if not accept the recommendations, at least withdraw those portions of the bill that your recommendations speak to, that could avoid the protest that we now seem bound for on Monday morning. Do you think that would be true?

Mr Daly: I understand clearly that it seems to me that's what the teacher federations have requested, if not demanded, at this point. It's our belief that the recommendations we've outlined would propose a balance between Bill 160 as currently written and the concerns of the teachers and that, although we support many of the reforms in terms of labour relations, removing the regulatory power and the discretionary nature of those powers to the minister would be very helpful. I'm hopeful that over the next few days, in the discussions that go on, there can be some understanding and consensus around those issues so that the strike does not happen.

1420

Mrs McLeod: I know you will be taking those concerns forward in forums other than this one. I hope they will be heard because, as you've noted, there is much in Bill 160 where there can be agreement, where there is a need for some fairly immediate action. There are certainly areas that need to be amended. The teachers' groups themselves who have presented have identified a number of areas in which there would be no quarrel with some of the changes that are proposed in Bill 160.

My concern obviously is that the reasons that the regulatory controls are there, in those specific areas that allow reduction of teachers by cabinet as opposed to making local decisions about staffing, is in order to effect what we saw this week, which was the $667-million reduction in overall educational funding that the deputy minister's draft contract contained. It's a bit of a rhetorical question, given the statements over and over again in your brief that there should not be any overall reduction in funding -- you've said equity is related to adequacy -- but is it possible to even achieve that central goal that you have worked for for so long of equity if there should be another $667 million withdrawn?

Mr Daly: Not at any level we would find acceptable, no. It would clearly be harmful to children if such a cut were forthcoming. One of our real concerns is that those positive aspects of the bill such as the new funding model, which we go on record as commending the government for, are getting lost in some of the other obvious, very public, issues taking place at this moment. We're hopeful and confident that people meeting over the next few days can resolve those. We think we've provided recommendations, a compromise, what have you, that would resolve it. We're hopeful we can do that and move on to allow and provide teachers with an opportunity to continue to provide the excellent education they do.

Mrs McLeod: I truly pray you're right. Is there time for one brief further question?

The Chair: You've got one more minute.

Mrs McLeod: Then, to one of the very important but less focused-upon aspects -- I'm just flipping back to the very beginning of the brief on the governance issues -- it was the stated comfort level that you've expressed with the way in which your historical rights as separate school boards to taxation have been recognized in the bill. The designation power is certainly there. My understanding of that is that would meet a concern that had been expressed about Bill 104.

This is just a straight question. Is there inadequacy in terms of the protection, given the fact that the taxing powers are still suspended? They rest in the hands of cabinet entirely to tax for education. Would you be seeking some amendment that would allow at least some portion of taxing power to actually remain at the local level so that those rights to tax are clearly protected in practice?

Mr Daly: We believe the bill as written provides that protection and we will not be seeking amendment. Our position has always been that Catholic boards clearly have the constitutional right to tax; however, if a funding model was implemented that was in the best interests of the children that we serve, that Catholic boards could choose to set aside or suspend that right. We think the bill protects us in that regard.

Mrs McLeod: Such an amendment as proposed by the public school boards, though, would not be at odds with your historical right to taxation. Is that --

Mr Daly: I haven't seen their amendment, but if, in any way, that continued to allow the inequities to continue, we wouldn't support it. Without seeing it, I can't comment.

Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. I sincerely appreciate your comments with respect to junior kindergarten. As a parent of a four-and-a-half-year-old son who was in junior kindergarten last year and is in senior kindergarten this year, I have had an opportunity to see at first hand the advantages of having young children attend junior kindergarten. I think, if there was any mandate that this government was going to impose on school boards, that would be one of the things they would say. This is a program that school boards should have to provide, but they haven't done that.

You've also made a suggestion that any savings that are found are reinvested in classroom education. That's certainly something that the NDP agree with. You've also made some comments with respect to your optimism that discussions over the next couple of days may be fruitful and avert a province-wide walkout by teachers on Monday. That's something we're certainly hopeful of as well.

However, we're concerned that that may be difficult considering the hardened positions of the government and the teachers at this point. That's why we've called for the appointment of an independent facilitator to attempt to assist the parties in those discussions. Without that independent facilitator I don't think we can continue to share that optimism about averting a walkout on Monday.

One of the questions I had was with respect to the funding model. Do you feel that it's important or critical to ensure that you know what the funding model is going to be prior to the passage of Bill 160?

Mr Daly: We obviously are concerned and continue to work with ministry staff regarding the development of the actual funding model. We see this as an important step and the most important to put in legislation, that the funding model in fact will work in a non-discriminatory manner. This is a big step and we want to see it go forward. Moving from there, we have concerns and want to see the details of the funding model and will continue to work with the ministry staff to ensure that it provides the flexibility and autonomy that we would require as Catholic boards and the adequacy that I referred to earlier. There are two important parts. We think this should proceed and then finalize the funding model.

Mr Lessard: My question is, are you saying to the government members of the committee today that you would like to see that funding model before Bill 160 is passed, or do you feel comfortable with the passage of the bill without knowing what that formula is?

Mr Daly: I'm not saying that Bill 160, in terms of the funding model aspects, should be delayed. No, we think it should proceed and we will continue to work with and influence and lobby, do whatever we can, to ensure that the details of the funding model work to the benefit of the children.

Mr Lessard: Part of your suggestions as well deal with your concerns with respect to the loss of local control. There are issues that you feel you can best deal with on a local level. You've mentioned a couple of those. Those are with respect to class size and with respect to the use of non-certified teaching staff to provide certain services in schools. Only time will tell whether the government takes into account your suggestions and makes changes to this bill. However, I'm not all that optimistic, and I'm wondering what you, as trustee, would see your role to be if Bill 160 were to be passed as is. How important do you think your role may be?

Mr Daly: I think as Catholic trustees we play a very important role and will continue to do so in the future. Obviously, and as you've mentioned, we are concerned about the regulatory power, the discretionary power given to the minister. We oppose that and think there are better alternatives. However, we clearly think that, as the policymakers and the stewards of our systems and of our educational operations in our communities, we will play an important role. I get concerned that perhaps people -- and I'm not saying you are, but others -- minimize the role trustees will have in the future. I think we'll have a very important role. I'm running again this time and look forward to serving.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Daly. I appreciate your presentation. There have been several references, especially from the teacher union people we've heard from, about the issue of democracy. So much so, I guess they were probably highlighted by one of the gentlemen from Windsor OECTA this morning. His parting shot to us was, "Heil Harris," which I thought was terribly inappropriate. I've had several teachers in the Catholic school system approach me and say, "Can you explain to me why we did not have the right to a secret ballot vote on this issue of an illegal strike?"

Your organization represents the trustees that all these teachers work for. Are you aware of any situations, any school boards that your trustees represent that have allowed their members of OECTA to have a secret ballot vote on whether or not they wanted to break the law and participate in an illegal strike?

1430

Mr Daly: To be honest, I'm not aware of the details of the process used by OECTA in terms of receiving approval, if that was done in each community. I've not heard in any jurisdiction where all the teachers actually voted. I know they went through their executives in the manner in which they operate. I couldn't comment specifically. I don't know what mechanism was used, but I'm not aware of a vote of all the members taking place.

Mr Carroll: Just as a follow-up to that, in the CAW, CUPE, OPSEU, all those folks get an opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to strike. As a member of a Catholic school trustee association -- and I'm a Catholic myself -- how do you feel about the fact that we've asked these teachers to go out on an illegal strike and we didn't give them the opportunity to say yes or no that they wanted to? How do you feel about that?

Mr Daly: Rather than comment on the specifics, clearly we don't condone an illegal strike and we would strongly encourage the teachers to show up for work and we clearly expect them to. However, I understand their concern in terms of the regulatory power. The only way I can answer that is that the teachers will hold their local presidents and their organization accountable for actions they take and it's best left for them to deal with that.

Mr Froese: In your brief, you indicated that you're in favour of the new funding model and clearly there's now fairness for the children in the Catholic school system. I agree with you; I think that's fair. You're not in support, though, of class sizes and differentiating staff and preparation time. You clearly want that control as trustees. The differentiating staff, the bill allows you to have that flexibility. You would have that flexibility under the bill anyway.

I'd like to have your reaction. What do you say to parents when they've told us that because the collective bargaining units, teachers' unions and boards, have had this under their jurisdiction, class sizes have gone up as a result of dealing with the prep time? What do you say to those people? You want that control and they've told us that class sizes have gone up because of those negotiations.

Mr Daly: In our brief, we indicate clearly that we support reform in all of the three areas you mention. We're not opposed to provincial guidelines, benchmarks that local boards and teachers' units should have to achieve. However, we oppose the regulatory power that would leave that totally at the discretion of the minister.

What I would say to parents, and obviously I have many times in my capacity, is that the needs are so unique in any school, let alone board, that the absolute decision-making is best left at the local level. I think if one looks at the issue of class size in particular, it's only in recent years that class sizes have increased, and in large measure that was due to the social contract. The social contract put requirements on boards and teacher units all but to negotiate increases. Although clearly we are accountable for the decisions we've made and actions, I think some of the reasons for those increases were due to actions by not simply this government but provincial governments.

The Chair: Thank you all for your excellent presentation here today.

CHRIS LORETTO

The Chair: Our next presenter is Chris Loretto. Welcome, Mr Loretto. Please proceed.

Mr Chris Loretto: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me the time to speak on Bill 160. My name is Chris Loretto. I'm a second-year political science student at the University of Windsor.

I guess it would be fair to say that we are at a crossroads in the history of our education system in the province of Ontario. It is unfortunate that the teachers feel it necessary to compromise the education of over two million Ontario students by participating in an illegal strike, but hasty and poorly thought out political protests seem to be the order of the day.

The current debate on education reforms needs some perspective, especially after the events that transpired yesterday. It is time to cool the rhetoric and take a long, hard look at what Bill 160 is proposing for the students in Ontario.

I do not view Bill 160 in the same draconian terms that the teachers' unions do. In fact, I believe Bill 160 is a necessary step in ensuring the highest quality of education for our students here in Ontario.

Our education system must be more responsive to parents and students. We need to limit class sizes. Class sizes have been increasing since the beginning of this decade. It began long before this government came into office, and unless someone demonstrates leadership in this area, class sizes will continue to grow at the expense of students' education.

We have enough teachers in the system to lower class sizes. In elementary grades there is one teacher for every 17 students, yet the average class size is 22. In the secondary level the teacher-pupil ratio is 1 to 15, yet the class size is 25. It is very difficult to justify these numbers to the parents in this province. It does not take a report or a study or even a royal commission to tell you that there is a direct correlation between class size and the performance of students, especially at the elementary level.

It is a fact that the more time a parent spends with his or her child at a young age, whether it's reading or playing with the child, the happier and more complete that child will be. The same logic can be extended to teachers and class size. Capping class sizes can be done by ensuring that teachers spend more time in the classroom doing what they do best. But perhaps more important, we need teachers to spend more time in the classroom to improve the performance of our students.

Lengthening the school year, reducing the number of professional development days, reducing the examination period for students and asking teachers to spend more of their day teaching students are all positive initiatives in this bill. The fact that Ontario secondary school teachers spend 20% less time with their students than do their counterparts across the country is unacceptable. Bill 160 will attempt to rectify this situation. According to the EIC, high school teachers spend 3.75 hours a day teaching students, while the national average is 4.5 hours a day.

Who can argue against increasing students' time with their teachers? Ontario spends more on education than any other province in this country. We spend $644 more per student than the national average. The parents and taxpayers of this province are not being unreasonable when they say they want those dollars to be spent ensuring that Ontario students are receiving the quantity and quality of instruction they deserve.

Another positive aspect of this bill, though I'm sure many would disagree with me, is the provision for allowing experts in the classroom. This step is long overdue and further ensures quality instruction for our students. I do not believe this action to be a direct attack on the teaching profession. With the rapid change in technology and the resultant change in demands on our workforce, we cannot afford to wait for skills to be upgraded in order to be amenable to the new realities facing our students. There is nothing wrong with bringing in computer programmers to teach a computer class or a professional artist to teach an art class or a political scientist to teach a politics class. These would all be positive steps towards providing a more rigorous and challenging school experience.

I must share a personal experience with you with respect to experts in the classroom. Last year I had the privilege of serving on our political science departmental council. The council was looking for ways to excite younger students about political science in order to attract more students to the program and prevent a further decline in enrolment. I had proposed the idea of working with high school history department heads to set up a politics class that would be taught by a grad student or an associate professor. The idea was discussed but never adopted because many of the professors felt it would be seen as an infringement on collective bargaining agreements.

We cannot allow petty politics to get in the way of innovative ideas and approaches that would benefit all students. The aim is not to undermine the teaching profession but to supplement and support it.

Bill 160 also aims to support the teachers in this province by encouraging a greater role for parents. The provision in this bill to entrench school advisory councils is to be applauded. For too long parents have been relegated to the sidelines of the education system instead of being in the game. Parents need encouragement to get involved, and Bill 160 attempts to create the framework in which they will be able to get more involved. I believe increased parental involvement will serve to strengthen our schools and the social fabric that holds these schools together. The more active a parent is in his or her child's education, the more successful that student will be. Once again, it does not take a university degree to figure this one out.

There has been a great deal of debate surrounding whether or not it is wise to allow the provincial government to set education property taxes. The simple answer is that, yes, it is wise. The justification for this lies in the fact that between 1985 and 1995, school board spending increased by 82% and taxes by 120% while enrolment went up only 16%. The new demands placed on school boards during that time do not justify a 120% increase in education property taxes. I believe the province must take control of education property taxes to prevent a further gouging of taxpayers.

1440

As much as we like to pretend that school boards and trustees are responsive to those who elect them, the simple fact is that they are not as accountable as we think they are. When only 20% to 30% of eligible voters choose to exercise their right in school board elections, it is difficult to say that school boards and trustees are more accountable. Perhaps if 70% to 80% of eligible voters exercised their right to vote, school boards wouldn't have been so eager to increase taxes. Since it is very difficult to change voter behaviour and since it is arguably just as difficult to get school bards out of the tax-and-spend mindset, giving the province control over property taxes will ensure that any attempt to increase taxes will get the public scrutiny and debate that is necessary. The provincial government is the more accountable level of government, and I am confident that this will prevent education taxes from increasing excessively. It also helps to have taxfighters in government.

In conclusion, the initiatives contained in Bill 160 need to be implemented. They are positive for our students. These initiatives, together with initiatives already taken by this government with respect to a standardized report card, a common curriculum and standardized testing, will raise student achievement. Our students deserve nothing less than the highest-quality education in Canada. It is time to put politics aside and do what is right for our students.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Loretto. We have one minute per caucus.

Mr Lessard: Thank you for your presentation. I wasn't able to hear the whole thing, but I did hear the final comments you made, that you thought provincial government representatives were more accountable than locally elected representatives. I wondered why you thought that.

Mr Loretto: I think it's through no fault of their own. I think you must take into consideration the focus that comes on school trustees. There is a lack of media attention, a lack of attention and interest in general. When things get on the provincial agenda, they tend to be scrutinized more closely and people become aware of them more frequently. This bill is a case in point of that. I think people have an easier time of knowing where to go to get answers and knowing who to protest or write letters to when those items that they agree or disagree with come up.

Mr Boushy: You made a comment in regard to so-called unqualified teachers in the classroom. Could you enlarge on that a bit? Do you have them in the system? How many? How satisfied are you?

Mr Loretto: Experts in the classroom currently? I never had experience with experts in the classroom. In a few courses, we certainly could have used experts in the classroom to supplement what the teachers were teaching, especially with respect to -- I'm very social-science-focused, and in high school we could have used an economist to come in and supplement what was being taught in an economics classroom. I'm trying to think of what other ones I've had experience with, but that's the one that jumps to mind.

I've always shied away from computer science programs, but plenty of my friends just sat there bored out of their minds because they knew how to do more than the teacher, and that's through no fault of the teacher. We could use them there.

Mr Hoy: Thank you for your presentation. Good luck in your field of endeavour with political science.

You talked about accountability of school boards and the voting habits of people in general in that regard, but do you think it's all right for the cabinet, and more specifically the Minister of Finance, to raise $6 billion worth of taxes by regulation only? He wouldn't even have to come into the House, the Legislature, to increase those taxes and impose them on the people of Ontario.

Mr Loretto: I think it's fair. I must say I have confidence in this government at the moment that they are taxfighters and that they'll work to ensure that those property taxes aren't hiked the way they have been in the past.

I don't think you can trust boards to make those decisions. I don't see school board trustees being as accountable as, say, members of the provincial government or members of provincial Parliament in general. They've proven that they can't take control of this situation -- we have the numbers in front of us -- and that's just no longer acceptable to the people of Ontario. I think this government has earned the trust of the public and that they have proven they are taxfighters and that they will do the job they said they would do.

The Chair: Mr Loretto, thank you very much for your presentation today.

WATERLOO COUNTY WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Waterloo County Women Teachers' Association, Donna Reid. Ms Reid and I have had many animated and informative discussions. She's an excellent representative for her association. We've allotted you 10 minutes. Please proceed, Donna.

Ms Donna Reid: Thank you very much, Gerry. Yes, my name is Donna Reid. I am a teacher, I am a parent, I am a grandparent, and I am a federation leader.

I came here today to talk about basically three things. Teachers care. Teachers care about public education. Teachers cannot support the transference of power from the local jurisdiction to the government, the lack of details in Bill 160 and the interference with collective bargaining. Because we cannot, we are willing to take a stand.

I am talking about the women teachers in the region of Waterloo in the elementary system. Those are our members. We do not look forward to leaving our classrooms, our schools and our students. We consider ourselves caring, knowledgeable, professional women who take our role in the education of young students very seriously, so seriously that we are willing to stand before you and other members of the public on picket lines all across the region of Waterloo.

Like Premier Harris, we also believe that quality education doesn't come with picket signs or rhetoric. Unlike Premier Harris, we believe that quality education comes from staffing schools with qualified teachers, providing excellent early years education, ensuring sufficient textbooks and educational material for every student, offering a full range of programs, keeping schools clean and safe, allotting time for teachers to work collaboratively, providing excellent libraries with qualified teacher-librarians, and ensuring a full range of support staff in schools, all of which is dependent on adequate funding.

The members of WCWTA are saddened that we must take action that will impact on our students, our parents and ourselves. We take this action because we believe Bill 160 would result in a lessened quality of education, a reduced range of programs for students, a missed opportunity to improve learning conditions and a starved system unable to respond to the diverse needs of the children in Ontario. We did not become teachers to carry picket signs, but we will carry picket signs and we will protest this government's action because we believe the future of quality education is a responsibility we cannot shrug off.

Teachers aren't afraid of change. Teachers embrace change. They encourage change in themselves, their students and their school systems. The particular quality teachers bring to change is their ability to critically analyse its worth. Teachers are committed to growth, lifelong learning, change with definable outcomes and change with a clear purpose.

There is a huge void in Bill 160 around how the proposed changes will aid the quality of education. How will less preparation time add more teacher time with students? How will less preparation time help teachers to work collaboratively on developing and enhancing programs? How does a centralization of power over teachers' working conditions add to the students' learning conditions? How will complete control over educational finances by this government allow local autonomy to flourish?

The Premier of Ontario, Mr Harris, said last night that the taxpayers in Ontario were not getting value for their money. He has assured all of us that he will not let the status quo stand. His words reveal a cynicism about teachers and the work they do in schools across Ontario.

The teachers in Waterloo region are dedicated to their students. It shows in the number of curricular activities and clubs that are available to students through the volunteer efforts of teachers. It shows in the out-of-school hours teachers spend on marking, planning, driving students, serving on parent councils, fund-raising activities, field trips, getting materials, counselling students, report cards, notes to parents, calls to parents, and on and on and on. As Christa McAuliffe said, "To teach is to touch the future."

The members of WCWTA are feeling diminished and bewildered by the lack of respect shown by this government towards teachers. Their dignity and professional pride has been pushed beyond their ken.

1450

Teachers are afraid for the public education system in Ontario. They are afraid that the students will not come first. They are afraid that the Common Sense Revolution and tax cuts will come first. They are afraid that teachers' working conditions will deteriorate to the point of crumbling the supports that hold the system together. They are afraid that relationships among teachers, support staff, administrators and trustees will break down under the strain of disempowerment at the local level. They are afraid that our public education system will not be equally accessible to all. They are afraid that a two-tiered system and the privatization of education are on the horizon.

Their fears cannot be allayed by Mr Harris or Mr Johnson saying, "Trust us." Teachers need to know that the funding model allows local decision-making, has adequate funds for junior and senior kindergarten programs, encourages a broad spectrum of programs by incentive funding, and empowers local trustees, teachers and parents.

The issue here is one of power. The government is trying to convince people that centralization of power and control will yield a better educational system. The government is telling people that trustees and teachers cannot be trusted with the educational system. They, as the elected officials, are the only ones who can be trusted to use their power wisely, says the government. On the converse, trustees, teachers and parents are telling the public that empowering local stakeholders is far more likely to produce the results you desire. When people work together to reach a shared goal, the achievement comes sooner and is stronger from the commitment of all parties.

The goal of quality education is shared by all. How to achieve that goal differs dramatically and has taken our members to the brink of civil disobedience. Teachers care about kids. It is our caring that causes us to contemplate such serious action as walking away from our jobs. Quality education comes with a pricetag. We are willing to pay the price. Are you?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Reid. We have about 30 seconds per caucus.

Mr Bruce Smith: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it certainly provides an accurate overview of the positions we've heard from other representatives of the women teachers' federation. In Toronto we heard from your parent organization, which indicated that teachers will respond on their feet, not by secret ballot. Does that not concern you at all.

Ms Reid: No. We recognize that the action we are about to take is illegal. There would be no point in having any kind of ballot around something that is illegal. We have told our members that it is their personal decision they must make. I'm here and I think I have said to you that the personal decision of the Waterloo county women teachers is that they are going to use their feet and they are going to walk.

Mrs McLeod: The separate school trustees' association just made a presentation to our committee. They are supportive of much of what's in Bill 160 but they specifically recommended that the parts of this bill that provide control to the government to cut costs by cutting teachers be deleted from this bill. If that were to happen, would that reassure the fears your members have and allow you to be in your classroom Monday morning?

Ms Reid: I believe there are more issues than one. Because we're a local association, I wouldn't have the power to even begin to answer your question and to say that's possible. But I can tell you how we feel, and how we feel locally is that the centralization of power to the government is something our members are looking at very seriously, and I think they would need to see some change.

Mr Lessard: You don't strike me as an overly militant sort of person and feel as though you're being led down this path on Monday by your union leadership. It seems as though, and you've expressed this, this decision is a painful one for you to take. I hope this government takes our suggestion to appoint an independent facilitator to try and avoid this happening on Monday morning.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Donna, for your excellent presentation.

LONDON WOMEN TEACHERS' FEDERATION ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF LONDON

The Chair: Our next presentation will be the London Women Teachers' Association, Marion Holgate, and Mike Moffatt of OPSTF of London. Welcome.

Ms Marion Holgate: Good afternoon. My colleague and I have made it with about three minutes to spare. Collectively, we represent approximately 1,800 elementary teachers for the London public board of education.

Since coming into power, the Harris government has repeatedly disrupted the education system. Already, a billion dollars has been cut from the Tory educational budget. The result: loss of junior kindergarten programs, larger class sizes, fewer textbooks and supplies, a cut in music, art and drama programs, loss of library resources, cuts to special education, and much more. Contrary to their propaganda, Bill 160 is the Tory attempt to take away more resources and further weaken the educational system.

Mike and I consider that one of the most dangerous and anti-democratic aspects of this bill are the regulatory powers cited in a number of sections. Far too many issues in this bill are left to regulations. Indeed, some of the regulations override the Education Act. The heavy reliance on regulations seriously undermines public debate and the role of elected MPPs in the democratic process. Acts are debated both in the Legislature and in the public in general. Regulations, on the other hand, are approved by the cabinet and made public after the fact. We maintain that regulations must not be used in order to evade open democratic debate. Regulations must be the exception rather than the rule.

The regulations being contemplated in this bill will erode the provisions in collective agreements, agreements that have been carefully and fairly negotiated over a number of years and agreed to by both teachers and school boards. The regulations will remove the opportunity for public input and debate. The regulations will remove the opportunity for duly elected members of provincial Parliament to debate and vote on important educational issues. And the regulations will mean that more decisions regarding education will be made by cabinet rather than by our communities.

One of the regulations that is extremely disturbing to teachers as it impacts on the decertification of our profession is the use of people without teacher qualifications. Bill 160 contemplates employing people other than qualified teachers for certain designated positions that are not teaching positions and duties that are not teachers' duties. I cite section 81 of Bill 160. This government argues that they want specialists in the educational system. Teachers not only have basic training qualifications, but additional qualifications in specialized areas such as primary education, math, reading. I'm an example of an individual with special music qualifications, two post-secondary degrees in that area.

Teachers bring more than specific subject knowledge to a classroom. They know how children learn and how to teach. They know the whole curriculum. They know how to evaluate their students' progress. We fear that regulations regarding employing people without teacher qualifications would be used to weaken the education system.

My colleague would like to address you with regard to our perception of public support for the dismantling and removal of Bill 160.

1500

Mr Mike Moffatt: I think far too often in recent days, weeks and months, and probably over the next short or long haul as we progress into the next week, we get tarred as the big bad boys and girls, the union people of this province, representing 126,000 teachers. I think it's pertinent and appropriate to draw on some of the information we're getting given to us by various sources, and we're not in this alone. We have a group of parents entitled People for Education who are a non-partisan group of parent volunteers from public and separate schools around this province, and I'd like to share with you -- if you haven't already heard them, and I think they're worth repeating -- some of their comments about their interpretations, non-partisan, not attached to any union representation or union influence.

Bill 160 completely centralizes the education system where local boards will no longer have any power. A central bureaucracy with broad regulatory powers, as my colleague has stipulated, will be created. Normally in far-reaching bills like this, all of the legislation is spelled out in specifics. In Bill 160, there are no details, there are very few specifics.

The Minister of Education will have, if this passes as is, total control over the education system. It means the education system will be in its entirety at the mercy of politics.

In terms of prep time, one of the overriding premises that's driving the existence of Bill 160 is that the preparation time that supposedly is being enjoyed by our secondary colleagues is way beyond the average of the other provinces in this country. It's interesting how the government makes use of information like that when at the same time we, in the Stats Canada figures and the figures pulled out of the United States, are in the 49th -- out of 63 -- position in terms of the per-pupil expenditures; another driving force behind this bill, trying to legitimize the fact that we're overspending in this province. How can we sit, how can we stand, how can we write, how can we endorse a Bill 160, all 262 pages, based on the premise that we're overspending and that we're way beyond what's reasonable across this province? We're not even close to being number one in Canada in terms of per-pupil expenditures, let alone number one in the North American jurisdictions that surround us. There is a dichotomy.

The prep time: By decreasing prep time, that's supposed to increase the quality of education for our students. When Marion or I, as classroom teachers, which we were before the roles we're now involved in, were not with the class somebody else was. So it's not like our kids, during the preparation time that's supposed to be exorbitant, are being left just to kind of figure out what to do next with no supervision, with no instruction. At the same time, those students we would normally have, while we're enjoying that preparation time to prepare for all the myriad of things that we have to do, are being taught by specialists. Because I can't sing, I've got somebody teaching music to my kids, as I have had done over the course of years. That person is a specialist.

At the same time we're saying, "Let's bring specialists into the education system," we've got them there now. We have never been opposed to the fact that we would like people to come in and assist us. I've been at it for 26 years. My colleague is probably right around there too. Between us we're talking half a century of experience just sitting at this table. We have never been opposed to people coming in and assisting, but when you talk to somebody and you leave somebody who does not have the training necessary to become a teacher in the very demanding world of professional teaching nowadays, you're talking to somebody who doesn't have a clue about how to manage a class. Believe me, 26 years ago it was a whole lot different than it is in 1997 in terms of the disparity and the makeup of the groups we're dealing with today.

I mention the aspect of funding and taxation. There have been several groups that have made recommendations directly related to the funding model that have not surfaced. Apparently these are being hidden for who knows what reason. They have not been shared with the general public. We're still waiting. The taxpayers of this province -- and we're part of that group also -- are still waiting for that information and it's not forthcoming.

Those are some of the things that one particular organization of parents concerned about education has made. I'll just make a couple of personal observations, in all due respect to the people in this room and in all due respect to the people who represent us in public. I believe it is absolutely unconscionable that the government of this province would have the audacity to misrepresent Bill 160 as the Education Quality Improvement Act. It has absolutely nothing to do with improving the quality of education for the 2.1 million students in this province. I believe it's deplorable that the elected representatives of the taxpayers in this province would have the gall to lead the general public to believe that there is not a means to an end in order to reduce the deficit at the expense of one of our most treasured societal functions, that being the education of our young children.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, sir. Your time has expired.

KENT COUNTY WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: The next group we call to the microphones is the Kent County Women Teachers' Association, Ruth Behnke and Mary Haden.

Ms Ruth Behnke: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ruth Behnke. I represent approximately 400 women teachers in Kent county as their association president.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly to the concerns that teachers in Kent county have regarding Bill 160. First of all, let me make it very clear that the regulatory powers outlined in section 81 of Bill 160 regarding class size, preparation time and differentiated staffing are unacceptable to the members of the Kent County Women Teachers' Association.

In this board we have endured funding cuts that have affected our students in the classroom for many years. For example, we no longer have instrumental music programs in all schools -- no money for instruments. Special education classes are being reduced and special needs children are integrated into classes too large to address the individual needs of even those who don't struggle to learn as much as some. Our teachers rallied and were able to maintain junior kindergarten as an important component to the early-years instruction. But for how long can we keep it? Textbooks and supplies are being shared more extensively than ever. A class set of 15 now has to meet the needs of 35 or more students. We believe in cooperative learning, but this is pushing the limit a bit too far.

In our county, negotiation relations with our board of trustees have been good at the elementary panel level. Our trustees make the effort to visit schools and assess the classrooms in our schools to ensure they are making good judgements when making important decisions affecting the students in our schools. They ask questions. They come to teacher training and professional development sessions to find out more regarding the actual teaching and learning process which is so important. Our new amalgamated board of much fewer numbers, to come into effect January 1, 1998, will not have the luxury of visiting our schools regularly, nor knowing the teachers in the schools personally.

We have negotiated sensibly for the benefit of our students, never a larger class size or pupil-teacher ratio; rather, working conditions that are beneficial to the learning conditions of our students. Our board is notorious for being extremely frugal. We believe the regulatory powers in Bill 160 will hinder us from meeting the needs of the children in Kent county. We are focused on providing the best for the children in our community whose diverse needs vary from location to location and we want to continue addressing those needs as they shift and change.

With me today is a classroom teacher. In my estimation, she is one of the most creative and innovative teachers in our county. She is extremely dedicated to teaching and through her many years of training student teachers in her classroom she has been able to bring high-calibre teachers into the employ of our county. Her perseverance and creativity are endless. Listen to her personal statements about the reality of classroom teaching in the elementary system today.

1510

Ms Mary Haden: My name is Mary Haden. I teach an energetic group of 30 grade 6 students at Harwich-Raleigh Public School in Blenheim and invite you to join me on a typical school day. At 4 o'clock in the morning, my alarm goes off. At 4:15 am I'm in the home office, where for the next three to four hours I am involved in school-related work. Once at the school, there is additional marking, preparation, a school-based team meeting with principal and resource staff, or an interview with a parent.

At 8:30 you will probably find me out on yard duty or with a student who has come in to access a news service on the Internet.

At 8:45 my students enter and my official work then begins. In front of me are a wonderful bunch of kids, but I know that before I even begin, even with 28 years of experience and a master's degree in education, I will not be able to respond to each child's needs.

There is curriculum with which I have to engage children on both an individual and a cooperative basis. There are personal and social needs that need attention. There are those with identified behaviour problems that will intimidate their classmates and disrupt the flow of learning for all.

During recess and noonhour, when not on duty, you will find me very probably in the classroom with students who want or need to stay in. Two days a week I have no preparation time, and so often, after bus duty, you'll find me rushing down the hallway to the staff washroom, as there has simply been no time to take a break all day. The needs of the kids have again outweighed my own biological needs.

Wednesday from 3:15 to 5:30 you will find myself and a colleague meeting to plan new curriculum units and make adjustments to the plans we had previously developed under the Common Curriculum so they now reflect the as yet unfinished Ontario curriculum.

Evening time presents a quick meal and up to four additional hours of homework for me. In all, 18.75 hours have been spent working on various aspects of my job before my head hits the pillow. I often use my weekends to catch up on unfinished piles of marking, but last Saturday, for the fourth year in a row, I was one of more than 500 anxious customers waiting for Scholar's Choice in London to open their warehouse doors. I had arrived at the site at 6 o'clock in the morning and found I was 24th in line. Two first-year teachers from Windsor had arrived at 4:30. It's too bad you were not there to do some questioning of those who were there.

My husband considered that our budget got off easy this year. I left the store at 11 o'clock in the morning with my total out-of-pocket expenses at $529. In order to have top-quality manipulatives and resources within my students' reach, it has been my practice to pay for these items myself.

I brought one of my Saturday finds with me today. This roller-coaster from K-NEX will present the kids in my classroom with an exciting challenge that will involve them in many problem-solving opportunities as they work on its construction. The cost? One hundred dollars, and a good buy at that price. My math closet at school currently holds an estimated $4,000 of material that I have purchased in order to help make a difference in my students' learning process.

I am not alone in this willingness to fork over personal finances for the benefits of other people's children. Look closely and you will find hundreds of examples within your own counties.

I have taken a personal day today to be here. This means that I pay for my own supply teacher, again out of my own pocket. Bill l60 concerns me and has me scared about what is going to happen if it passes third reading without vital changes.

The Conservative government must act like leaders, not political bullies. Take this message back to Toronto with you: This Conservative government's tactics with regard to Bill 160 have placed this individual teacher's back against a wall. Her voice may be insignificant in the total picture, but she's not moving. I shall not back down in my support of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and I am ready to stand with my colleagues on an informational picket line for as long as it takes. I encourage this government to do what is right and lead. A good leader instils and excites a desire to follow. I await your leadership.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks. That exhausts your time. I wish we had a little more but unfortunately we haven't.

RAY MOREAU

The Vice-Chair: The next group is OECTA, the Windsor secondary unit, Ray Moreau.

Mr Ray Moreau: My name is Ray Moreau. I am president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Windsor secondary unit. I am really happy to be here today. I am not giving you a brief or something written. I think you have probably got quite a bit of that already.

I am going to be speaking to a great extent from my experience as a teacher, as a taxpayer and also as a union president, but mostly my own gut reaction to most of this stuff. Anything I say is me, not anybody else. Mr Carroll will recognize me, I am sure. On Bill 104, when I went to the hearings in Windsor -- and feel free to drop in next week if you've got time -- I brought my students with me. Contrary to what a previous speaker said, I have a master's degree and I am a political science teacher and I teach political science.

When you come to ask me questions at the end, I have a question for you. You people are the politicians. You're the so-called experts. Therefore, I want to know at the end of this session how many of you want to teach my class next week, all 35 of them, because you are in fact the experts.

There's a great deal of cynicism about this whole process. I personally teach politics. I believed in my heart in the processes we built up in this country for democracy. Do you know what? I don't believe it any more. The government has manipulated this process. I myself, who teach it and believe it and have practised it -- and I've been a political backroom boy for many years -- and believe so much in the process question the process we're following now because we're running into a stone wall.

When I made the presentations on Bill 104, the Chair of the committee and the committee -- the following week the minister rejected every one of their own recommendations because he was mad, and they even agreed with some of the things that I said. But then the minister just told them and then fired the Chair of the committee. I hope that isn't going to happen to you.

I am very concerned about the process here because this is the reality and it's all within the last few months. I'm not talking about 100 years ago. I am concerned about the political process as much as I am with the political philosophy and ideology that we're faced with.

You know, when you become extreme it doesn't matter whether it's socialism or conservatism. When you go to the extreme of either political philosophy, you concentrate all power in the central body, and that's what this bill is. It doesn't matter. If you check the history of socialism and the history of extreme conservatism, both of them do away with local rights and local democracy and concentrate the power in themselves because that's the only way they can control the population. That in fact is what Bill 160 does.

My first recommendation to you is to go back and tell the minister that we want out of there all those parts of the bill which allow the minister to wake up one morning in a bad humour and change the educational system by regulation and decree. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that you and I both know that we have a College of Teachers which decides what professionalism is and decides what is needed to teach in a particular class. This bill allows the minister, after us spending all that time and energy putting it together -- and we're working really hard to develop professional development -- to now decide you don't have to be qualified to teach anything. Do you have any idea how demeaning that is to the profession and to the teachers across this province? It's very demeaning.

Because I can play the piano doesn't mean I can teach piano. There is a difference in the skills. You need both. Our teachers are well trained and we have experts in the classroom. The art teachers I know are all artists. They're damn good at what they do. The computer teachers have computer degrees. We don't mind people coming in, but you can't confuse the two. You can come in and help but we don't want you to take our place because teaching and having the knowledge are two different skills. We combine both in our system and we're darn proud of that, contrary to what the government may say.

1520

The next thing, the second recommendation is that you remove, and tell the minister to remove, from the bill all those things that allow him to determine the professional life and what it means to be a teacher, to remove all regulation by decree, because who wants that power? I was talking to one of the people in my building and they said, "We're fed up, we're angry," and this is a retired person. I'll tell you how angry teachers are.

Last Friday, we had the Days of Action in Windsor, and contrary to what the government may say, the union leadership in Windsor, and I'm one of them, did not tell their teachers to walk. In the days of protest, school systems have never been closed before anywhere else. We told our teachers they could go if they like, and we set it up so that they could. Guess what? They were way ahead of us. Ninety per cent of them didn't go to work. The school system and the boards closed it, not because they wanted to. It's because they had no teachers last Friday, they had to close the schools. The teachers and the education workers closed the schools because of their anger at the demeaning comments of the minister and the actions that are in Bill 160.

I'll just make a couple more points. I want to say to you, as Hugh Segal said, the famous Tory guru -- and he said this -- how the government is dumb to demoralize teachers. It's very difficult for us as teachers to believe that the government really cares about children when it continually demoralizes the people who educate and care for those children on a daily basis. You keep repeatedly telling us that we don't do enough, we don't work hard enough, we get paid too much and, of course, what we repeatedly have heard from this government and the previous is, "What you teach is irrelevant anyway." We're getting pretty tired of that. Teachers are angry, I want you to know that; not just me.

I also want to talk about walking on Monday. I'm sure people wonder how can I be a role model and walk on Monday. I'm going to tell you why I can do that in clear conscience. Number one, I can go to my classroom and teach for three more years and leave. I can do that. But I can't in conscience do that because this is a social conscience decision about my rights as a person in the employ of a school board and local decisions. I want you to know that there are such things as unjust laws. Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke laws. They used civil disobedience because the laws they were fighting were unjust. I say to you here, and I have no qualms about saying it to anyone who wants to listen, that I feel so strongly about what's going on in Bill 160 that civil disobedience is really our only alternative. Some day maybe the people who are reviled in Toronto as these bad teacher union leaders who are forcing us out will be the Gandhis and the Martin Luther Kings of the Ontario education system in the near future.

The Vice-Chair: We have about 30 seconds per caucus, starting with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Hoy: Thank you for your presentation today. We don't have much time here, but I have met a number of teachers who are in a similar position to you, who are very close to retirement. They have determined, as you have, that it is within their own conscience to take the action they do on Monday. It would be very easy for them to go two, three, four, five years and simply retire. It's a difficult decision and I've met many who are in the same position as you and I appreciate your resolve.

Mr Lessard: Thank you, Mr Moreau, for making a presentation. We've heard from group after group this afternoon their reluctance in having to face a possible walkout on Monday and we hope that can be avoided. We've suggested that an independent facilitator be appointed by this government to attempt to avoid that. Do you think that would be an act of good faith that teachers may take into consideration to try and avoid this happening on Monday?

The Vice-Chair: Thanks. That's the time. The next question?

Mr Moreau: Can't I answer?

Mr Carroll: As a union leader, you've rationalized in your mind that breaking the law is okay. Have you given your fellow teachers the right to express their opinions through a secret ballot?

Mr Moreau: If I may, that question does come up quite a bit. You're a representative. We have a general meeting where we have delegates on a proportional representation basis, the very same thing as you people; you represent thousands of people. There were 700 delegates last March in Toronto and the motions over my desk at all times unanimously said, without one, single divergence, that if the government was to interfere with our rights we would walk.

Mr Carroll: A secret ballot?

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. The time has expired.

Mr Moreau: We didn't have to have a secret ballot.

Mr Carroll: Every strike has a secret ballot.

Mr Moreau: Do you do a secret ballot every day in the Legislature? No, you don't.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, your time has expired.

Mr Moreau: You don't do a secret ballot every day in the Legislature. Are you representing all the people in your riding?

Mr Carroll: I'm not breaking the law, sir.

ROBERT VAUGHAN

The Vice-Chair: I call Robert Vaughan. You have 10 minutes to use as you see fit.

Mr Robert Vaughan: I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak. My name is Robert Vaughan. I'm a trustee with the London Board of Education; however, my comments and suggestions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the London board.

Before I get into my recommendations regarding a specific aspect of Bill 160, I would like to make a general statement regarding education accountability and quality, two things which are the focus of Bill 160.

Over the past 30 years or more the bureaucracy which makes up public education has grown to the point of collapse. Expenditures have begun to be greater than the taxpayers' ability or willingness to pay and the players involved, from school principals to directors to trustees, have become victim to some sort of ideological inbreeding, where those who dare to think for themselves or criticize the system are at first ostracized and then eliminated or, to put it another way, chewed up and spat out.

There can never be any degree of accountability in public education without some degree of choice. As long as parents are not free to make choices regarding the education of their children, that is, without incurring the financial hardship of continually paying education taxes to a failing education system, then the public education monopoly has no incentive to be accountable. It will continue to do whatever it can publicly get away with, knowing full well that there are no alternatives for that so-called "stakeholder" or "partner," the parent.

Regarding quality, public education has been at the mercy of large-scale political experimentation with curriculum for generations. I happen to agree with the latest trend towards higher standards and a greater use of phonics. However, the current government and ministry bureaucracy will not be in power forever and when they go another group of well-intentioned souls will try to reshape education in their ideological image. Quality will always remain a distant dream as long as parents and students are at the mercy of the political party of the day.

So here we sit having yet another kick at the can of public education. I'll have to resign myself for the moment that what we have here in front of us today in the way of Bill 160 is as good as it's going to get for the next year or two. That being the case, I have one or two recommendations.

It is my understanding that the establishment of senior staff positions and the creation of new district board offices will eventually be left up to the new district trustees. If this is the case, I believe there will be several decisions made at the district board level which will needlessly cost taxpayers several tens of millions of dollars within our board alone. I would like to outline some of those potential decisions in hope that the government can perhaps prescribe remedies within Bill 160 to pre-empt them.

On August 25, the local education improvement committee for district 11 made several recommendations to the EIC and the new board concerning senior staff and board offices. Among those recommendations were the establishment of the following positions: six senior superintendents, including a superintendent of transitional issues, to be filled by the current director of one of the amalgamated school boards; three associate superintendents, one each for business, human resources, and program; nine associate superintendents of education to supervise the schools.

1530

I have a great deal of difficulty believing in the necessity for a superintendent of transitional issues, especially when it may involve paying the equivalent of a director's salary. Transitional issues could and should be dealt with by the director of the district board.

I have a great deal of difficulty believing in the necessity of any associate superintendents of business, human resources or program. Regardless of the number of schools, pupils or staff, superintendents of business, human resources and program will have the same job description and the workload of these positions will hardly change at all.

Whether or not a board has 5,000 staff or 6,000 staff, the job of the superintendent of human resources will remain the same. Whether or not a board has 50,000 students or 60,000 students, the job of the superintendent of program is not going to be any more difficult, certainly not more difficult to require two superintendents. As well, with the province removing the board's power to levy taxes, the job of the superintendent of business/treasurer will become that much easier. No associate superintendent of business is required.

If these recommendations are approved by the EIC and subsequently by the district board, these superfluous positions will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in the form of salaries and benefits for the superintendents and their personal staff, and in the form of office space required.

To quote from the LEIC's press release, "The recommendation for the senior management team represents a reduction of three superintendents, or 14%, from the total number at all four boards." So for all of the government's efforts at saving bureaucratic costs through amalgamation, the LEIC is recommending the elimination of only three senior superintendents.

Another recommendation from the LEIC which causes me concern is that four community education centres be set up in district 11. While I have no problem with setting up an individual office for rural school superintendents in each of the counties, I believe it may be the intent of this recommendation to maintain the actual buildings now housing the three county boards of education. Judging by past practices and past discussions with London trustees, there is no motivation for boards to relinquish assets to the provincial government. They believe, and probably quite correctly, that if the board offices are not kept in the hands of the district board, then the province will assume ownership and the proceeds from any sale of these buildings will revert to the province and not to the district board.

The recommendations regarding the four offices, coupled with the recommendations of only a 14% reduction in senior superintendents, can only lead me to conclude that little will be realized in the way of savings due to amalgamation unless the provincial government takes action.

It is within the power of this committee to recommend to the Minister of Education that clauses be placed in part II.2 of Bill 160 to ensure that every effort is made on the part of the EIC and the new district boards to reduce superfluous senior management and sell off unused board buildings. Perhaps as an incentive for district boards, and considering that many of the tax dollars spent to build the board offices came from local ratepayers, it would be reasonable to allow district boards to keep a fair portion of the proceeds from the sale of board buildings.

As for keeping on senior staff in unnecessary positions, I would recommend that a formula be worked out prescribing the exact number of superintendents needed to do the job of administering school boards.

Once again, I'd like to thank sincerely the committee for its time and attention.

The Vice-Chair: We have time for a brief comment from each caucus, starting this time with Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: It doesn't appear as though they're going to be able to find the savings in reduced administrative costs that this government is talking about. It only leaves, I believe, one other area for those savings to come from. I wonder if you agree or disagree with that.

Mr Vaughan: I would agree. However, the blame does not rest with the provincial government; it rests with trustees and administrators if they recommend that all of the people and the senior staff from the past boards are kept on in superfluous positions and buildings are not sold off. In other words, the province is going in the right direction with amalgamation in this case; however, it is stymied by trustees and board administrators who just don't want to go.

Mr Froese: From your comments, it looks like you would agree that more parental involvement could be involved at the local level and then some of these issues could be drawn and you'd have direct input into what you're talking about here. Could you give us some advice, if you see that as a need for stronger parental involvement?

Mr Vaughan: I'll tell you first off that the ideal in my situation would be for the government to start things like charter schools, voucher systems, directing taxpayers' dollars to the schools of their choice. However, since that may be a few years off, if at all, I would suggest that --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Time has expired.

Mr Vaughan: Empower school councils.

Mrs McLeod: I had taken from your brief, actually, that you might be more comfortable with parental choice being achieved without the role of school boards, which in your view have not been effective. Why do you think the government is leaving them in place at all?

Mr Vaughan: I don't know. As a matter of fact, I presented to Bill 104 and I suggested that they dismantle school boards completely.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate that

JENNIFER STILSON

The Vice-Chair: The next group is Leesboro Home and School, Jennifer Stilson.

Mrs Jennifer Stilson: Hello. My name is Jennifer Stilson and I'm here today to speak on behalf of concerned parents in rural southwestern Ontario. We, as parents, have grave concerns regarding the upcoming illegal strike action the teachers of Ontario are prepared to take.

A recent full-page ad has appeared in the London Free Press entitled, "Is Bill 160 Moving Too Fast?" The ad was funded by Ontario teachers. The ad leads us or wants us to believe that a billion dollars will be cut from education, that there will be fewer teachers, less time and individual attention for students, unqualified people replacing experienced classroom teachers and loss of control for parents and teachers.

We should not be blinded by the onslaught of the federations' negative media. Unfortunately, as parents we do not have a large union behind us that can afford to run ads like that, buy high-priced time on radio and TV, but we are very thankful for a forum such as this today so that we can get our message out.

All of corporate Canada over the past several years has been taking part in belt-tightening and cutbacks. Most Canadians have had part of these cutbacks take place in their homes. Some of us lost hours, wages, benefits, and some their jobs. We see no reason why dollars should be not be cut from an ever-failing education system by means of salaries, benefits, pension packages or high administrative salaries.

There is not one aspect of our daily life where we do not expect to get the best value for our money. However, our education system is not producing these results at this time. We pay more in Ontario per student than other provinces and it has been proven time and again that we just don't score as high on international and national testing. As parents, we feel changes to our education system are long overdue and now is the time to capitalize on our educational dollars. Bill 160 will help us reach those goals. Back to basics is where we want our education system to head. For Mr Johnson and this government, now is the time to set our children in the right direction.

The statement is put forth by the federations that teachers will be replaced by non-teaching staff. If we looked at this in a positive light, it would really not be such a bad idea. Would it be so bad to have guidance counsellors who were non-teaching staff? The same could be applied to librarians. Why shouldn't we use the expertise of these teachers as classroom teachers, when they could be in a full-time teaching position and not wasting their talents in a non-teaching position? Non-teaching specialists should be brought into our schools. They can offer various skills and experiences from their respective areas of expertise. In reality, as we all know, in many schools there are non-teaching staff assisting on a casual basis. To date, there have been no reports of these professionals jeopardizing our education system but only enhancing it.

Should these changes initiate excess positions, then welcome to the real world. Again, all of corporate Canada has had to downsize and feel the blow of cutbacks and these cannot be avoided any longer.

Should the government decide the limit of class sizes? This issue has been blown out of proportion. Nowhere in Bill 160 does it state that classroom sizes will grow to the reported 40 or 45 children per classroom. We have to look at this in a mature nature and not instil fears in the public, who do not research the untruths that are thrown at them through the media. This type of fearmongering is totally unacceptable to me and to other parents and is simply a union ploy to have the uninformed on their side.

Unfortunately, with the media attention at an all-time high, our children are getting confused between what their teachers are really about and what the unions and federations say they want and feel. We as parents feel a very poor example and message is being sent to our children. Many of our kids admire and emulate their teachers, and rightly so. That's what we want. We want our children to respect their educators and to know what they stand for. However, what kind of message are we sending to our children that should they not get their own way, it's okay to take whatever action they deem necessary, even if it is illegal? That's just too much for me. I feel the way the federations are handling this issue is not in our children's best interest. These are not the type of role models I want for our children. All of us here today can remember a teacher who impacted very positively on our lives. They helped shape our lives, and that's what I want our educators to do.

1540

To go forth with an illegal strike is definitely sending a contradictory message to today's students, especially when problem-solving skills are being taught in our classrooms and our school yards daily by the very same people who are listening to a federation that says, "If we don't get our own way, we will strike." That sort of juvenile behaviour is not acceptable in most of our homes or schools, so why do the teachers' unions feel they are above the rest of us? The old adage of "Do as I say, not as I do" is quickly coming to the forefront in this situation. Many times it has been stated to parents that we have to lead by example and I feel this is the same for our educators.

What concerns us as parents is that it has been stated repeatedly by the federations that this action is for the kids. I really don't know where our kids fit in collective bargaining. The federations feel collective bargaining is a basic right. What about the basic constitutional right of our children to an education, an education that should not be riddled daily with strike talks and concerns that have no place being in our school hallways, let alone in our classrooms? Our children deserve this right, and to say that the bargaining for power has anything remotely to do with our children is an absolute joke, a joke that will not leave any of us laughing in the end.

Let Bill 160 work. Only by living with change will we see whether or not it is making a difference. Bill 160 was not thrown together overnight. Much of what is contained in Bill 160 is what parents want to see back in the classroom and what we voted this government in to do. We urge Mr Johnson and your government not to overcompromise on Bill 160 for the sake of a settlement with the federation. To do so would see the loss of an opportunity to significantly improve our educational system, an opportunity we may never see again.

To conduct an illegal strike would be very costly and goes against the very concept of right and wrong. Please get on with it and leave our children out of this dispute. Parents are getting very tired of this game. Let's get the education dollar back to the classroom so our teachers can do the job they were hired to do: to equip our children with the knowledge, skills, tools and resources they will require to face the challenges of an ever-changing, high-tech world.

We must come together as a team with the ability to work together towards a common goal, which is improving our children's education system. Coming together will be the beginning; keeping our goals focused together is progress; working together is an actual success. One has to look at change with an open mind as it affects not only teachers but every individual in daily life, for change has to be looked at as though it is a bend in the road, not the end of the road. Unless we fail to make the turn, change can be beneficial if given a chance. The future of our children is at stake. Let us not throw away this chance, a chance we will never have again, to make their lives better.

I wish my kids can be part of a group that will be one of the better-educated children of Canada.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We have a very short minute per caucus. On the government side, Mr Smith.

Mr Bruce Smith: Thank you for your presentation. We've had a lot of input with respect to the role of parents in the school community. Where is your comfort level in terms of decision-making as it applies to decisions within the school community, your level of comfort in terms of the types of decisions, as a parent, you would like to make within that school?

Mrs Stilson: Personally, as far as parents go, I would like us, through parent councils and our home and schools, to be able to speak to our educators. I'm in an area where I can phone our board office and voice my opinions quite freely and they are heard, and the same with my MP. I would like parents to have a fair stand on this, or say in what is going.

Mrs McLeod: I won't ask you your views on the further $667 million of cuts that are intended in education because I think you made it clear at the beginning of your brief that you think there can be some further cutbacks.

The question I'd ask you, though, in terms of cutbacks that mean fewer teachers, do you not see that the jobs of teachers and the numbers of teachers we have in our schools are related to the quality of our children's education?

Mrs Stilson: I do. With cutbacks, I am one of the parents who does believe that JK could be an area where we could save money. I am not personally, as a parent, wholeheartedly in agreement with that. That's an area where we could cut money, so that would displace teachers, unfortunately, if JK was eliminated from our program; the same with non-teaching professionals.

I believe that as far as guidance, library, some music, sports -- at our school we do not have a physical education teacher for our students. I feel if we could have a non-teaching professional in teaching our kids physical education that would be fine with me because then that child would be getting the best possible physical education instruction.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): You don't think junior kindergarten is necessary.

Mrs Stilson: No, I don't. I have had two children, both in the system now. One child went to JK, and for the second one, JK was not available through our board. I have seen no benefit from my first one going to JK. If anything, my second one seems to be just that much faster than the first one. I think, for some of the kids, it is just too much for them to handle at that time and I don't really feel it's necessary with the way our educational system is now and dollars. We need the best bang for our buck, so to speak.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. The time has expired for your presentation.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, KENT UNIT

The Vice-Chair: At this time I would like to call on OECTA, Kent unit, Mike Chater. Go ahead.

Mr Mike Chater: I'm going to make this very brief and very much to the point. I never got involved in federation work in any way, shape or form to see us at the point we're at now. I never dreamed in my career, and a third of my career has been involved as a federation president, that I would ever be involved in anything of this type that we're involved in now.

We could all sit here all day and talk about who is right and who is wrong. I could give you a written brief and you could look at that written brief and all that could happen, but the reality is there's just too much anger now. It's gone way beyond the ability of people to come to a solution, with all this volatility that is in the air.

I am urging, and my urging is very simple: I think we need some time. I think the minister said we needed time. The only way we're going to get time at this point is to withdraw -- and I'm not asking you to back off on Bill 160 and I'm not asking for the status quo. I'm asking that the sections of 160 which are causing the type of activity that's going to happen in this province on Monday be withdrawn for now; that the minister, who is new, who's only been on the job for such a short period of time, be given time to go through his portfolio; that everybody get a little bit of time to cool off a little. That's both sides, us and the government. Let's slow down the rhetoric a little bit and then come back to the issues.

I think that last night, as I heard the Premier, much of what he was talking about in terms of quality and the desires of quality, many of the things he was talking about that he wanted to see in our education system, I as a parent and a teacher couldn't argue with. I don't consider myself a special interest. I'm a parent; I'm a teacher; I'm a Catholic; I'm a businessperson in this community. I care about this community and I don't want to see the confrontation we're heading towards happen. I think it can be avoided if cooler heads prevail.

That's simply my point: Withdraw the sections for now. Give some time, a cooling-off period. Sit down and continue negotiations. My understanding is negotiations are happening right now and I'm very happy about that. With that, let's see if we can come to mutual agreement on those interests.

I can tell you the teachers in Kent county are not trying to empower themselves to run education in this county. We have never demanded anything. We have never gone on strike. We have never had a strike vote in our unit. We are not about to go to our board and demand things. We've taken a very different approach here. I know it hasn't happened across the province and I know there are things that have to be changed. Given that, let's all cool off a little bit and continue the schools going.

1550

The Vice-Chair: That gives us quite a bit of time for each party. It starts off this time with the Liberals.

Mrs McLeod: I gather from your presentation that although Kent county teachers have taken a very different approach and that you have never even contemplated job action before, unless there are some changes in the government's position before Monday morning, your colleagues will be supportive of the action so many teachers across the province feel they have to take.

Mr Chater: Jack Carroll, our MPP, and I have spent quite some time together discussing this. We really believe that school boards and teachers, at least in Kent county, have worked well together in operating the school system. We believe there has to be some local control of education.

I don't question that there are problems in all the areas. There are always problems. That's what you get elected for. I served on municipal council for a long time.

I'm sure everybody in this room has one motivation: to do good for the province of Ontario. But I think there has to be some local input in that. I really thought as a local politician that I performed a valuable service, understanding that I had to work within the parameters of the province of Ontario and that I only had a limited amount of power to work with. I think that still needs to be had. That's my fear about 160. It centralizes power so much that in the end everything will run centrally.

I notice the Premier last night used 1985 as a starting point when he said things began to change. Well, 1985 was the year we began to change. We had 40 years of government -- it doesn't matter the party -- and then we began to have ongoing change. Each party had its own point of view and put in its own ideas. We've had some ups and downs during all that time, and teachers have not always agreed with all those ideas and changes that have come about, but we've had some input.

If you're going to have change, let's not sway it all the other way. There's got to be some place in the middle in all this where we can find some mutual and common ground. I'm not the negotiator in Toronto and I know it's difficult for them. That's why I'm hoping that you'll take heed and we can pull back a little bit and give people some time to do it.

Mr Hampton: I put a proposal to the Premier this morning that the government should appoint an independent facilitator; that is, bring someone from outside who would work with the Minister of Education and with the teachers' federations.

In effect the government would have to do two things. It would have to agree to suspend any further movement on Bill 160. The government would have to guarantee that any money found within the education system would be reinvested in our classrooms, not taken out of education altogether, and teachers would have to agree not to move on the political protest on Monday so long as the independent facilitator was working between the parties. Would you agree with a proposal like that?

Mr Chater: At this point my feeling is that there are sections of Bill 160, it's my understanding -- you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that need to go through because of the new school boards that will be put in place in January, that Bill 160 is more than just education reform, that it also is some form of omnibus bill that has a number of things so that school boards can function.

I am not an expert in what you do. Maybe what I'm suggesting is too simplistic, but I was suggesting, when I said it, that if we could take out the sections of Bill 160 -- I'm not asking you to back off because I know politically that's a tough thing to do, but if we took out the sections of Bill 160 that are causing the confrontation that will happen on Monday across Ontario and give some time to negotiate, perhaps that would alleviate the Monday situation, perhaps lead to some discussion.

The kinds of things you're suggesting might come from that discussion. I perhaps wouldn't put as many parameters as you're suggesting on it because my main goal would be to avert the action that is going to happen on Monday if we proceed on the road we're proceeding on now.

Mr Carroll: Good to see you again, Mike. Last week I met with all the teacher federation heads in Kent county and then you and I had a separate meeting and we agreed on a couple of issues that are key to the concerns of the teachers in Kent county. I put those in the letter I sent to you. All the other teachers' federations I understand looked at that letter. I sent the letter to Dave Johnson with my comments, "I accept these as valid concerns expressed by our Kent county teachers and ask that you keep them in the forefront as you work towards a solution that benefits our kids." I talked to Dave Johnson personally. We've had some discussions about these. Dave Johnson talked to the teachers and he said: "We've got a couple of months here. Bring me your ideas. Let's talk about this."

The line in the sand, Mike, as I understand it, was drawn by the teachers. You are the people who said, "We're going on strike on Monday." You say, "Cool it and let's get on with some more discussions." You and I have had them. I've had them with Dave Johnson. We didn't call the strike. You folks called the strike.

You and I have some agreement on this. Have you given the people in Kent county an opportunity, through a secret ballot, to say: "We don't want to walk off the end of the cliff with the people in Toronto. We want to stop and get into some serious discussions about this so we can avoid the strike and do what's best for our kids"?

The Vice-Chair: The time has expired unfortunately.

Mr Carroll: I'd love to hear him respond to that.

Mr Chater: I don't mind; it's up to you.

The Vice-Chair: A real quickie.

Mr Froese: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Could we have unanimous consent for him to respond to that question?

The Vice-Chair: Can we get that unanimous consent for a response? Yes. Okay, 30 seconds, if you can, please.

Mr Chater: It's hard in 30 seconds. I guess my point is, Jack, you're telling me it's the teachers who have drawn the line, and teachers' federation presidents tell me you drew the line. I think that if sections of the bill could be put in abeyance for some period of time, when there would be time to negotiate, we'd have a lot more time to discuss these things.

Frankly, I could point fingers at you and you could point fingers at me all afternoon. What I want to do is see something that could happen that will avert some kind of action on Monday.

Second, I have had no problem ever if our teachers want to vote. We're meeting right now, this afternoon. If somebody puts a motion on the floor that they want to have a vote, we'll have a vote. If that makes you happy, I'll suggest you suggested it and they can vote. All our teachers will be there. I'll give you the results, Jack.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I know Mr Carroll wasn't present at the committee yesterday when there was a motion placed before the committee which would have allowed exactly what the last presenter has suggested: that those parts of the bill that are the focus of the current confrontation that appear to be unnecessary in terms of the January 1 date for implementation of some of the measures to deal with amalgamation, just those measures, would be withdrawn to avoid the confrontation on Monday morning. This committee could then proceed to deal with the rest of the bill.

The committee did not accept that recommendation. It was defeated by the members. But it might be appropriate, if you feel there should not be a line in the sand, to replace that motion.

Mr Carroll: On the same point of order, just quickly, I wasn't here to vote on that. I would have voted against it.

The Vice-Chair: I don't know whether that's a point of order.

Mr Carroll: I'm answering Mrs McLeod. I would have voted against it. I still say the line in the sand was drawn by the teachers' unions.

1600

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, LONDON-MIDDLESEX

The Vice-Chair: The next group is OECTA, London-Middlesex. If you would identify yourself for Hansard, your time has started.

Mr Tony Huys: My name is Tony Huys, and Jerry O'Connor is here. We're here on behalf of the London-Middlesex unit of OECTA. We're 1,000 teachers. We teach in JK through grade 13 OAC, and adult education classes, in London and Middlesex. We welcome this opportunity, brief as it may be, to present at least some concerns or some views on Bill 160.

You are aware, as we are, that both OTF and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Federation have already submitted much more extensive briefs than we can do here in the few minutes we have. We don't intend to repeat everything they've said, but we want to be on record as supporting those two federations.

Even the quick look we've had at the bill suggests that one of the criticisms of teachers has been that we have been unwilling to change. I would point out that the OECTA brief contains nine statements of support, 16 statements in opposition, makes eight specific recommendations for alternatives in other areas, and concludes by making 32 summary recommendations. I would submit that we have at least attempted to be proactive in responding to Bill 160 and I want to dispel the notion that all we have wanted to do is fight for the status quo.

What we would like to do this afternoon is focus our comments on one particular aspect of the bill. In the brief time we have been here, I have heard some other speakers address some of the same issues, but primarily our concern -- not only ours but that of parents, ratepayers and indeed some senior students who are alert to what is happening in the current climate -- is that Bill 160 represents a tremendous concentration of power in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, unprecedented in the history of Ontario, certainly unprecedented in the history of Ontario education.

The Lieutenant Governor, for example, will determine what positions are not teaching positions, what duties are not teaching duties, will prescribe minimum qualifications for said positions or duties. We're not convinced the Minister of Education and Training is the best qualified, the most suitable, the most appropriate person to determine what the grade 3 class in Teeswater should look like, or in Thamesford or in Thedford or in Toronto for that matter. We think that decision properly belongs to the local parents, properly belongs to the local school community, and we think they are intimately more qualified to address those concerns.

Despite government claims that parents will have a greater voice in education through the instrument of school councils, we're intrigued by the almost total absence of any specific terms of reference for said councils. In fact the minister will determine what the councils will look like. Their powers are not specified. We all understand that the ultimate power in any game is the power of the purse, and school councils certainly have no voice in that matter. Our fear is that we have created, in the form of school councils, lions without teeth and that the real power will rest in Toronto with the Minister of Education.

Even statutes are no guarantee. Even statutes will not stand in the way of this power. The minister, or this bill, reaches back 350 years to the good old days of King Henry VIII to ensure that if there is a conflict between regulation and statute, indeed the regulation will prevail over the statute. Law is no guarantee here and we find that frightening -- nor do we think it's necessary. One of our members suggested that this smacks of what he called the EWMA clause. We turned to him and said, "What are you talking about?" and he said, "I'm talking about the Educational War Measures Act" -- government by regulation.

To suggest that such a concentration of power in the hands of the minister is the only way to bring about reform in education is worrisome and a grave change in the way decisions are made in this province. We know from our study of change theory and the literature on that, that's not the way to effect change. We know that for change to be effective, it must be gradual and include reflection by the numerous participants involved.

We know that change must allow for decentralized decision-making, not just advisory councils but decision-making at the local level. We know that change involves trusting members of organizations involved to act for the good of all. I don't think it would be redundant to say that probably has suffered greatly in the last couple of months. Change must involve participation and change in an organization must be accompanied by support.

I watched, as I suspect most people in this room did, the comments of the Premier with great interest. I was at your policy convention in Toronto on Saturday evening and spoke with a number of your delegates and some of your fellow caucus members. I think the consensus I reached after several hours in that room is that there is very little trust at the moment and that the teachers certainly don't feel a great deal of support. There's nothing in Bill 160 to suggest we're being supported by this government in any way.

In conclusion, we draw to your attention that change is not something teachers are averse to. We want to put that issue to rest, and to demonstrate our point, we have taken the liberty to present you with audio-visual materials. That's our teacher's bag of tricks, right? Here they are. Those are government documents outlining curriculum changes that have occurred well after I began my teaching career, and I point out that I'm past my retirement date as of last month. I started out with a little grey book that was half the size of this, and boy, life was nice and life was simple then, because I had to be on page 13 for November 2 and that was easy. I could teach that stuff with my eyes closed.

These are government documents, not union documents -- for those who say that we're ramming a union agenda down the throats of our children and that the unions are controlling the education curriculum. Every single one of those is a government publication. We're not averse to change. We have lived with it. I have lived with it for 34 years now. But you can't do it by giving the power to the minister and then asking me to implement that blue box, green box and yellow box and whatever.

In conclusion, we think the only way to really create effective change is to implement those policies, those practices we have alluded to, and we don't think concentrating the power in the hands of the Minister of Education in Toronto is the way to go about doing that.

The Vice-Chair: We've got about 30 seconds per caucus. We'll start with the NDP.

Mr Lessard: You never mentioned the impending actions that may happen Monday. I was wondering whether you would support the appointment of an independent facilitator to try and avoid a walkout.

Mr Huys: That's a change, right? We're used to change. Yes, if that can do that, certainly. But I must point out we can't do that if this eight-day or 10-day train is going to proceed apace. I'd have to be stupid to agree to that. I'm not buying a pig in a poke, not after what we've seen, and I don't think our members would.

Mr Carroll: You are the fourth OECTA unit I have asked this question of. Did you give your teachers secret ballot rights to decide whether they wanted to break the law?

Mr Huys: Sir, we conducted that ballot in exactly the same way as you conducted the motions and votes on all the bills I have watched on the CPaC channel.

Mr Carroll: We're not breaking the law though, sir.

Mr Huys: Pardon me?

Mr Carroll: We're not breaking the law and you are. Did you give your teachers a secret ballot right to decide whether they wanted to break the law? Yes or no.

Mr Huys: Sir, our policy manual says you can call for a secret ballot if you wish.

Mr Carroll: Okay, but you don't have to. That's democracy?

Mr Huys: Absolutely.

Mrs McLeod: You raised the issue of trust. You might be interested in knowing that a poll that was released today shows that in terms of who the public trusts for education, over 60% trust teachers; around 20% would trust the Mike Harris government.

The central issue, as the separate school trustees identified, of this confrontation are the parts of this bill that allow the government total power in cabinet to cut $667 million by cutting teachers. If they would simply withdraw just those parts of this bill, do you think you could be in your classroom on Monday morning?

Mr Huys: I would hope so. I don't know a single teacher who wants to go out, and that includes me certainly. I have spoken on behalf of teachers and I have presented to various committees on various bills, and I don't want to go out.

I should point out I have been 34 years in this profession. I have been out of my classroom once in those 34 years, and that was before the passage of Bill 100, before we had bargaining legislation. We collected resignations three out of four years in a row, and we went out for a week. Now that that's being removed, I'm faced with the same darned problem. For 22 years we have had bargaining legislation; we never went out.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Your time has expired.

1610

ONTARIO COALITION FOR EDUCATION

The Vice-Chair: I call the next group to the microphones, the Ontario Coalition for Education, Bob Cartlidge.

Mr Bob Cartlidge: My name is Bob Cartlidge. I would like to introduce Mr Sam Sheprak. I'll be giving the presentation this afternoon.

I am appearing on behalf of the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform to speak to the issues raised by Bill 160 presently before the Legislature. This bill is a clear example of the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Upon the amalgamation of school boards, the province has taken over, and is taking over, the funding of education.

There is no question that the responsibility for paying the costs of education will be with the province. It is our submission that it should be able to control and be able to direct and guide the kind of education delivered. It appears at this time that the opponents of Bill 160 are primarily interested in preserving the status quo. It is the position of the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform that the status quo cannot, and must not, be maintained.

At present in Canada various and sundry organizations and studies have shown as follows. The OECD has shown in their literacy tests that upwards of 40% of the graduates in Canada are not able to read a bus schedule. Between 30% to 40% of the students entering first-year university are required to take remedial math and English. The Economic Council of Canada, in its report in 1992, stated that 100,000 students would graduate each year as functionally illiterate students unless a change is made in the teaching system.

Ontario students place at the lowest levels of achievement among the provinces of Canada, even though the per capita spending in Ontario exceeds that of every other province in the country. With respect, this is not teacher-bashing; this is pointing out facts that constitute the status quo in this province.

Rule 160, we submit, takes the first steps towards bringing the spending per capita in line with other provinces in the country. By combining school boards and streamlining the administration, moneys will be saved that can be put to better use in the classroom. By taking over the funding of the school system, inequalities that presently exist with regard to provision of education in the poor, less economically fortunate parts of the province will be eliminated. This is only fair and proper.

In dealing with the amount of preparation time and the length of the school year, together with professional development days and holidays, it is most appropriate that the province of Ontario have control of those issues. At the present time, the province of Ontario, under Bill 160, is suggesting only that the length of the school year be brought in line with other school years in Canada, that the amount of preparation time be cut back to be more in line with teachers in other parts of Canada.

Also with regard to the question of success in teaching children, we submit it is not directly related to the level of spending or to class size. In this regard you can see the Globe and Mail, October 22, 1997, for a summary of TIMSS, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. The primary result that was found there was that there was not a direct correlation between spending and class size and learning.

As indicated by Lord Rutherford, a famous British scientist in the early 1920s, "We haven't the money, therefore we have to think more clearly about what we're doing." For instance, it is best that children learn to read and write as early in their school year as possible. It is possible by a proper selection of curriculum materials to assist children to learn to read and write as early as possible and to do it in a much less expensive way than is presently done in the system.

There was a study done in the United States, Operation Follow Through, a massive study that showed that teacher-directed learning, utilizing systematic phonics, at the earliest grades was the most successful way to teach children how to read and write. The present method of teaching children to read and write is a system known as whole language, wherein children are responsible for their own learning and in which they essentially guess the meaning of words.

When whole language was mandated in the state of California in 1987 and the use of systematic phonics was outlawed, the literacy skills of the children in California plummeted from the top five states to third from the bottom, ahead of the island of Guam and Louisiana.

It is suggested that the proper way to teach children to read and write as early as possible is to utilize systematic phonics methodology. In a 1994 study done for the United States government, the average cost of a phonics program was determined to be $30.74; the average cost of the whole language program was $214. That was on a per pupil basis per year. It is suggested that a savings of $170 per pupil per year for the several hundreds of thousands of children in the earliest grades would have the effect of saving upwards of $50 million per year. We actually approximate it at $51 million if there are 300,000 students.

Not only would this be an enormous saving of money, the children would be better taught to read and write effectively and there would be the additional benefit of being able to do away with a lot of the remedial work that has to be done at the present time after grade 3 to try and have children learn to read and write properly. The potential savings in that area could be as much again as was saved in the first place. This is suggested as only one area of study that would be better facilitated by having the province of Ontario better able to assess, analyse and direct the educational system.

We have given the previous example to enable this committee to understand that children can be taught in a more effective and responsible manner. We are in favour of the expansion of the school year, as was indicated, by adding time at the beginning of the year and by cutting back preparation time. But it also has to be related to the quality of the curriculum and the quality of teaching that is going to be carried out.

The regulation of class size and the method of determining the size of classes is of primary importance. But, as indicated in the TIMSS study, that is not as crucial as you might want to believe, or even people in the public might want to believe. With the proper adjustment of preparation time and the move of teachers in administration perhaps back into the classroom, coupled with curriculum reform, class size probably would not increase but might actually decrease.

We also want to deal with the hue and cry raised by teachers that without Ontario College of Education qualifications people should not be allowed to teach. We submit that there are a number of teachers who are already in the school system, have been in the school system for a number of years. They are primarily found in the technical schools, but these teachers have a very precise knowledge which they can impart to their students and which will allow them to move into specific jobs. This practice has been carried on for a number of years and perhaps should be expanded.

Finally, we feel compelled to point out to the committee that the teachers' unions have taken a very loud stand against Bill 160. We point out to the committee George Bernard Shaw's famous dictum: "All professions are a conspiracy against the laity." By this statement, Mr Shaw indicated that the interests of the professionals are, by definition, opposed to the interests of the ordinary person, who we submit in this particular case are the parents, children, taxpayers and ratepayers in Ontario. We submit that the teachers primarily are interested in maintaining the status quo and we suggest that Bill 160 is the first good step towards changing the status quo and making the educational system more responsive to the parents, children and taxpayers of Ontario.

The Vice-Chair: We've got less than about a minute, if you would like to add a little bit more and round out the rest of your time.

Mr Cartlidge: Primarily, we would like to see -- how do I say this? -- the thrust of Bill 160 carried through, pure and simple. As I say, our group and the people that we talk to are in favour of Bill 160, and for the reasons set out. It's definitely going to require a great deal of work. It's definitely going to take a great deal of attention. It's going to require, perhaps, almost a superhuman effort, but it can be done. It just has to be done more intelligently and more properly.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

1620

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, BRANT UNIT

The Vice-Chair: Next we call on the OECTA, Brant unit, Cheryl Hasler. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Cheryl Hasler: Thank you. My name is Cheryl Hasler, I think. It's been a little crazy the last few days, but I think I've got that straight. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Somewhat surprised actually. I wasn't anticipating a call but we did receive one Thursday, so we're pleased to have the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of my membership. I represent 425 Catholic teachers in Brantford. We have members from JK through to OAC, as well as occasional teachers.

I'm going to refer to the act as we go through this as Bill 160. I find it pretty tough to refer to it as having anything to do with quality and improvement of education; I haven't managed to make that leap yet.

Listening to the two presentations before me, I find it a little hard to know where to start because Tony stole the thunder. He's so good at it, it's hard to follow that. But hearing the gentleman who followed him, I can hear that despite what we keep saying, no one's hearing it.

This old adage about teachers refusing to accept change, the people who support Bill 160 seem to continue to throw that at us and yet, as Tony demonstrated very well, we're faced with change every day and probably more change in the last two years than at any time in the history of education.

I point out that in spite of what's going on right now, which certainly no teacher enjoys, every night this week my members have been attending curriculum workshops trying to get the little bit of in-service that is available to implement the new Ontario curriculum. They're there because they choose to be, not because they have to be. That being said, they'll also be somewhere else Monday morning if that's what needs to happen.

Amid the curriculum overhaul that's going on, Bill 160 has also made recommendations for provisions that are going to slash both professional development time and preparation time for our teachers. In terms of teacher readiness and preparedness for these reforms, those are the two major vehicles we use in order to implement the curriculum that continues to arrive out of Toronto.

The major area I want to touch on to start, since the change aspect has been hit on by some of the other presenters, is the College of Teachers and the relationship that has in terms of qualifications. We find it amazing that at a time when the college is just getting up and running and that we're told that one of its main objectives is to ensure professional standards and high qualifications for teachers, we've got a government that's turning around and telling us that you don't need to be qualified. As long as you have some expertise in a field, you can walk in and run a classroom.

Those of us who have been in a classroom know that's not true. Certainly expertise in a field is important, but teaching is a lot more than simply skill in a field. I can think of plenty of professional musicians, for example, who are very successful but I am not so sure I'd want them in the classroom. This is just one example of the government's efforts to save money at the cost of our students.

That's really what's at the heart of Bill 160. This is all about saving money and providing the government with the tools it's going to need to do that in the future. By the time this bill goes through, if we can't put a stop to it, when change is needed and parents do want to talk to people who have the ability to have some influence, it's going to be too late. There won't be anywhere to go with it.

It's an undemocratic bill, plain and simple. It's given unprecedented powers to a select few in the government, who will have no accountability to the people of Ontario until the time an election is called. In the interim, publicly funded education will have become ghettoized, and the damage that's done is probably going to be irreparable by that time. Public education will be a two-tiered system, one for the poor and marginalized and one for the affluent. We believe the children of Ontario deserve better than that.

The limits this bill places on the scope of bargaining for teachers are undemocratic and they represent a violation of widely accepted collective bargaining principles and practices. The permanent establishment of the EIC to oversee collective bargaining issues is unnecessary and it's an intrusion into issues that belong more appropriately at the local level.

I remember having the opportunity to speak on Bill 104. When we talked about the EIC, we were assured it was just this little committee that was going to disappear when Bill 104 was implemented. Of course, we've all seen now that's not going to be the case. It will be a vehicle whereby the government can continue to push its agenda through.

One of the areas that has upset my members most in terms of this bill is the government's attempt to garner public support on the issue of the school year. As a professional, it's rather insulting, quite frankly. Most of my members are at school, starting in early August, on a daily basis to prepare for their classroom activities for the year. The idea that they're now going to be mandated to show up at the end of August is actually quite humorous, but unfortunately what it's done is play into the worst aspects of the public perception on this issue. Quite frankly, it wasn't necessary. As we all know, the government had the ability to do that under the existing regulations. It's just an example of the government playing games in order to further its agenda.

Locally, the issue of class size has been a very contentious issue for us. We have tried for years to get that placed into our collective agreement. Every year since I began teaching it's been a centre part of our bargaining proposals. Finally last year, after a seven-day strike in January, we managed to achieve a PTR. It's not ideal and it's not the numbers we'd like to have, but we were pretty proud of it. We finally convinced the board that it had to make some move in that area.

To be fair to them, part of the reason, of course, that they couldn't do it earlier is the fact that we're a small board. We're assessment-poor and they don't have the money. But when my members turn on the radio and hear Premier Harris accusing us of being responsible for large classes, not only are they outraged, they are sickened by the whole thing. I can tell you, right then and there, that was the last straw for any of them who had any doubt as to where they are going to be if the issue is pushed to the final brink.

PTR and class-size numbers are not the fault of teachers and boards. The general trend in Ontario has been towards decreasing class sizes over the years. It was only when funding levels began to be cut in 1993 that we saw that trend change. I would be surprised if anyone could find a situation prior to that where teachers walked in and tabled initial proposals that had larger class sizes in them. Everyone's been forced into the situation we're at now because of the funding cuts this government has moved ahead with.

We certainly have concerns about the regulations that will be given to the government, to the minister, regarding preparation time. I am not going to go through the whole list. I am sure you've heard for days about how valuable preparation time is to teachers.

What I will mention is perhaps how it's important to MPPs, and I'm making some assumptions here. I assume that what you're doing here today is valuable. There are others who might say the only time you're doing your job is when you're sitting in the Legislature. I don't believe that's true, nor do I believe it's true that the only time teachers are working is when they're standing in front of their students. The other activities we're involved with are important. We can only assume that if they're important for you folks when you're doing these types of activities and reading reports and meeting with your constituents, we're not sure why there should be a separate set of standards applied to teachers. Coming from Brant, actually we're not even so sure what the MPPs are doing, but that's a whole other game.

There's no evidence to suggest right now that the massive overhaul of teacher-school board relations that Bill 160 contemplates are necessary. We've shown over the years, of course, that we can settle our differences in almost all cases in a manner that works out to be best for the local stakeholders, and we believe that's how it should remain.

My local board is one that is going to amalgamate. We're going to move from a situation where right now we take about 25 minutes to get from probably our two most distant points to a situation where we're going to see over two hours' travel time. So certainly the issue of transfers is something that my teachers are very concerned about. We have grave concerns about the fact that the EIC is going to have a hand, potentially, in where those transfers may see us go. Someone like myself has particular concerns because I get to go back to the classroom soon. They may not be really happy to keep me close to the board office. I may be in Dunnville soon. We believe those are issues that have always been able to be worked out on the local level and we see no reason why those things shouldn't continue in that fashion.

Just in summing things up, we're not opposed to education reform. We're faced with it every day. We're involved with the changes that happen on a day-to-day basis. We put forward suggestions ourselves. We will work with any government that is going to make changes that will improve education, but we don't believe that's what's going to happen here.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You have exhausted your time. Thanks for appearing here today.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 2, KENT

The Vice-Chair: The next group is the OSSTF, District 2, Brantford. Is it Kent instead of Brantford? Sorry.

Mrs Barb Gundry: My name is Barb Gundry, but I'm from Kent county, not Brantford. I want to make that clarification.

The Vice-Chair: You have two minutes to use as you see fit.

Mrs Gundry: Thank you very much. This government is convinced that it needs to accomplish two objectives regarding publicly funded education. The impact of these objectives is far-reaching and was never articulated in the Common Sense Revolution. Those objectives are to remove control of education spending and taxation from school boards and trustees and to centralize it at Queen's Park, and to control teachers' terms and conditions of employment by regulation so that certain perceived cost items, such as prep time, class size and the resultant number of teachers, will not be negotiable.

The government would have the public believe that educational spending is out of control, that school boards and teacher unions are to blame and that in order to make inroads into the deficit and to ensure that the future costs of education are managed successfully, Queen's Park must control the education purse strings and limit the power of teacher unions to negotiate certain terms and conditions of employment on behalf of their members.

1630

This is one of the reasons why the government has proposed such dramatic and fundamental changes to the way social, municipal and educational services are financed in Ontario. Assume total control of education spending and download the cost of welfare and other services on to regions and municipalities. Educational spending is more predictable and manageable; welfare spending is not. Ultimately, local taxpayers who may have complained about their education taxes in the past will feel the impact. Nothing suggests that these changes will lead to better quality social services or educational achievement.

Along with total control of education finance, the government expects that by closely regulating the working conditions of teachers, the productivity of teachers will increase, the number of teachers will decrease, the quality of education will improve and the costs of education will go down. Two of those assumptions are correct: The number of teachers will decrease and the costs of education will go down. But with what kind of publicly funded educational system will Ontario citizens be left?

As a teacher, taxpayer and a voter in this province, I want to tell you that I am very disturbed by this government's continued attack on our educational system. Funding cuts and legislated changes to JK and adult ed have already hurt educational opportunities for thousands of our young people.

We do not need a government that interferes with the rights of teachers to bargain for their working conditions and the learning conditions of their students. We at the local level understand these needs and know how to best act on them. The government's latest attack, Bill 160, will not improve the education system in this province.

Moreover, Bill 160's implication that increased time in the classroom in and of itself leads to improved quality is unproven. While time is a necessary component of quality education, it is not sufficient in and of itself. The major decision to be made in relationship to the allocation of time revolves around the quality use of whatever time is allotted as opposed to the extension of time for time's sake. Bill 160 is silent on this fundamental issue. One can only assume, without an answer to this question, the government's motivation is economic as opposed to any serious attempt to improve the quality of education for the students of Ontario.

Using people without teacher qualifications to instruct students in any area is a shortsighted proposal. Teachers know more than just the specific subject matter; we understand how children learn, how to evaluate students' progress, how the curriculum fits together and how to manage a classroom.

Lengthening the school day or the school year will not ensure higher student achievement. What students and teachers need are the resources to make this a higher quality system, not more time in an underfunded system with too-large classes.

Bill 160 is about removing control of education spending and taxation from school boards and trustees and centralizing it at Queen's Park. The bill unnecessarily expands the government's current regulatory authority in an unwarranted attempt to control critical terms and conditions of employment for teachers.

OSSTF does not support the provisions of Bill 160 that remove the constitutional right of school boards to levy taxes locally in support of educational programs which their constituents believe necessary for their children. Furthermore, OSSTF cannot support legislation which removes the rights of teachers to bargain all terms and conditions of employment and places those terms and conditions in regulations.

OSSTF believes that any changes to Ontario's publicly funded education system should conform to the following fundamental principles:

(1) There must be no adverse impact on students and programs.

(2) Every student in Ontario's classrooms must have a qualified teacher.

(3) Teachers must be entitled to have all terms and conditions of employment negotiated through direct and free collective bargaining with their employer.

(4) Local school boards must maintain their constitutional right to levy taxes to meet the educational needs of their students.

(5) There must be a smooth transition to the new district school boards.

Bill 160 is undemocratic. It violates all of the above principles. Bill 160 gives Queen's Park sweeping dictatorial powers over every aspect of the educational system: school boards, funding, school councils, teacher qualifications, the number of teachers and the amount of time teachers have to spend with their students.

Bill 160 is not about improving quality in education, as its title suggests, but about downsizing public education, eliminating programs, laying off 10,000 teachers and replacing teachers with unqualified personnel. Nothing in Bill 160 supports the contention that its purpose is to improve the quality of education.

Even in the area of teacher-pupil contact, the bill provides for an expansion of available teacher classroom time, but in no way provides for extending time with existing students in existing courses. How does that improve the quality of education? The only consequences that one could determine would be the teaching of an additional course with the resultant increase in teacher responsibility for an additional 15 to 40 students. If each teacher teaches more students, then this creates the opportunity for thousands of teachers to be laid off.

Bill 160 raises the red flag of quality education, but it is obvious that the forces at play are economic and far removed from the daily activities of students and teachers in Ontario's schools. Only school board control of a significant part of educational funding and the negotiated guarantees in teacher collective agreements ensure that the quality of education will prevail. Only school board control of a significant part of educational funding and the negotiated guarantees in teacher collective agreements stand in the way of the government's agenda, which is precisely why Bill 160 targets those two areas. OSSTF believes there are alternatives to this authoritarian and undemocratic legislation:

(1) Guarantee, under the control of the local school boards, the funding needed to ensure quality programs for students.

(2) Guarantee qualified, certified teachers in every classroom and learning program.

(3) Guarantee that teachers will continue to bargain all terms and conditions of employment directly with those responsible for teacher working conditions and student learning conditions.

(4) Minimize the regulatory control of Queen's Park and its educational bureaucrats. Reinstate shared decision-making on educational policy so that students and their programs are protected.

There is no shortcut to a high-quality educational system. I urge you to support the needs of the students in this province. I urge you to support the desire of the teachers to provide a high-quality education for all students. I would like to ask the Minister of Education and Training how we can have a better system with less funding. I demand that the Minister of Education and Training respect the rights of teachers to bargain for their working conditions. I demand that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw the offensive, widesweeping regulatory powers contained in Bill 160. I demand that the government commit the funding needed to ensure a high-quality education for all students in Ontario.

On behalf of the nearly 500 teachers and educational workers who are members of OSSTF in Kent county, I thank the members of the committee for their attention to my presentation.

The Vice-Chair: You've exhausted your time. In fact, you went over by a little bit, but thank you very much. We appreciate that.

1640

COLLEEN WARRENER

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter I have on the list is Colleen Warrener.

Mrs Colleen Warrener: Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Chatham. I hope you and your committee members will enjoy your visit to Kent county. My name is Colleen Warrener. I am here to inform you of my concerns from a parent's perspective about Bill 160. I have a son who is a grade 11 secondary school student and a daughter who is a grade 8 elementary school student.

I will also be addressing my concerns and observations formulated as chair of the school advisory council for 1996-97 at Queen Elizabeth II Public School, Kent county.

Bill 160 takes away local control over schools. Bill 160 is not democratic. Bill 160 provides the Minister of Education with unprecedented powers such as an order in council. It is my understanding that the Minister of Education will no longer be legally required to consult parents, teachers, students, trustees, school boards or anyone else before changing any aspect of education.

In an era of spending accountability, where does the accountability of the Minister of Education fit into the picture? When one body of people is given such sweeping powers and the potential to make changes that will affect all of our student population in this province, where are the guidelines governing the Minister of Education? Where is the democratic process in Bill 160? How does the public lobby the changes made by an order in council? What is the value of a recommendation for action from a school advisory council if there is no democratic legal process that the Minister of Education must be accountable to?

What is Bill 160? I asked eight parents that question last night at the annual Rotary banquet and none of them knew. They knew it was to do with the teachers, but they all said they didn't understand what it was about.

For example, if you were to send a letter home to those same parents and tell them their children's school will be closing next month and their children will be bused to another school, that there will be 40 children per class next month, with disruptive behaviour and special needs children included in their child's classroom, or that their business will be taxed higher due to downloading and the need to pay for education, then you would have their attention, and very quickly.

A lot of parents think this bill is about wages for teachers. Parents have never had to be as knowledgeable about the education system in the past and do not understand what impact these changes, such as Bill 160, will have on the future quality of education for their children. The Minister of Education is not providing adequate information to parents or to the media before passing Bill 160.

The Ministry of Education has made numerous conflicting announcements about changes to the education system which have led to both professional and public confusion. The provincial government has yet to announce a new funding model for district school boards. More recently, reports of a potential $1-billion further cut to the education system has heightened concern among the teaching community, school advisory councils and parents. How many more cuts will be allowed to the education system? How will the education taxes be spread out over the province to guarantee equality and provide a standard of quality education? How will capital improvements be equalized between amalgamating boards, as well as separate and public boards?

The government is asking us to accept Bill 160, to give them all the power, and they will give us the details later. This is not acceptable. As the standing committee on administration of justice, how can you condone the undemocratic processes contained in Bill 160 with regard to the Education Improvement Commission? What are patronage appointees? Why are they not elected to the position? What are the qualifications to become a patronage appointee? As defined by Webster's dictionary, "patronage" means: (a) the material, help and encouragement given by a patron; (b) the special protection of a patron saint -- I like that one the best; (c) the power of putting people into advantageous positions, bestowing privileges etc. "He owed the job to political patronage."

As a parent I do not feel confident that a person can become a patronage appointee through political patronage, and to what advantage to that person? These patronage appointees will have the authority to govern my school, and I have no recourse upon their decisions. I understand in the bill it states, "The orders of the Education Improvement Commission are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned in any court." I do not want my children's education system to fall victim to the whims of changing government and decision-makers who are not qualified to evaluate the decisions we made.

Please tell me, does the Ministry of Education have a five- or 10-year plan to bring our education standards up to a competitive level globally? Are all the education cuts in the past three years and the future going into improving our education standards? Are we working towards education cuts by downloading the cost of education through apprenticeships in trade, commerce and technology provided by corporate sponsorship? Are we providing Ontario with a skilled workforce that is needed and that will economically stimulate our economy?

Ontario is considered to be behind several other provinces in the quality and/or standard of education it provides and has decided to improve the standard. By raising the standard, this puts all our students on a lower level that they will be obligated to overcome in the next several years. What precautionary measures have been put in place to ensure that a high level of high school dropout does not occur? Where is the tutoring to start this fall which was promised by the government?

These are some of my concerns. I am very grateful to have been able to present them to your committee. I trust that your committee will uphold the democratic process, explain where all the money is going and expose to public view all the changes to be made before Bill 160 is passed.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We have about a minute per caucus, starting off with the government.

Mr Froese: In your brief you had stated that the minister would no longer be "legally required to consult parents." Actually, the bill does just the opposite. Parents have been telling us they want more involvement in their child's education, and I do as a parent. I have four children in the public school system and I want more involvement, I want more say, and that's exactly what this bill does. It allows them to have more say. It also asks the Education Improvement Commission to strengthen that role of the parents and to advise us of where they can be more involved.

Can I just get your comments on what comfort level you would be okay with for your involvement and more involvement?

Mrs Warrener: I have a problem with taking away the rights of people in a democratic system. The Minister of Education would definitely have all power in that statement. That really concerns me as a parent because there are no control factors in that whole system. There is no democratic process, and that's what bothers me. I want to be involved with my kids.

Mr Hoy: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. I think it's important to note that with Bill 160, cabinet would have authority over 186 different issues. That's centralizing power to a great degree, in my mind, along with some of the points you mentioned.

This is not the first time we've seen legislation that did not allow for appeals or for persons to go to court. This is a rather shocking revelation from the government and is appearing in more than one piece of legislation, and of course should not be appearing here.

Your comments about patronage, and I'll be very brief here: I asked a question when I was first elected in 1995 about what qualified someone to be a minister. The answer was if the Premier said you are, and that's simply it. It was also interesting to hear over the last few days that the Premier can also say, "You are not minister." Thank you for your comments.

Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned that you have a son and a daughter in school. I wondered whether you are going to be inconvenienced by the impending action being taken by teachers on Monday and whether you have any suggestions you could offer to the government to try and avoid what the teachers feel they're being forced to do.

Mrs Warrener: I think sometimes if you're pushed up against a wall you have to fight back. If you think that things are wrong -- that's how our country is set up -- you can speak out and you can say that this is definitely wrong. I was very upset about a rumour I heard -- I don't know if it's correct -- that the government was going to give individuals $40 a person --

Mr Lessard: It's true.

Mrs Warrener: -- for children under the age of 13. I think that's absolutely outrageous when we're trying to save money. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

1650

ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS FRANCO-ONTARIAN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I call the next group, AEFO, Essex secondary, if you would identify yourself for the Hansard record and start your presentation.

M. Paul Lachance : Merci, Monsieur le Président. J'aimerais présenter deux de mes collègues présidentes : à ma gauche, M^me Danielle Francis, présidente de l'unité de Kent élémentaire ; et à ma droite, M^me Marie-France Boulet, qui est présidente de l'unité de Windsor secondaire.

L'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens du sud-ouest catholiques vous remercie de nous avoir permis de présenter quelques réflexions pendant ces audiences sur le projet de loi 160.

L'AEFO sud-ouest catholiques comprend plus de 450 membres qui sont regroupés en 12 unités, et nos membres oeuvrent sur un territoire qui s'étend de Woodstock à Windsor, au sein de 26 écoles élémentaires et secondaires de langue française dont plus de la moitié ont moins de 250 élèves.

Nous tenons toujours à offrir à nos élèves une éducation de très haute qualité et nous voulons travailler en partenariat avec nos nouveaux conseils de district, nos sections de langue française présentement, de même qu'avec le gouvernement pour assurer cette éducation de qualité et aussi pour assurer le succès des réformes de l'éducation.

Tout en commençant, j'aimerais vous dire que nous appuyons tous pleinement la position que notre association provinciale vous présentera la semaine prochaine. C'est pourquoi nous ne voulons pas reprendre aujourd'hui toutes les recommandations de modifications au projet de loi qu'elle vous soumettra. Plutôt, nous voulons tenter dans les quelques minutes que nous avons de vous informer de certains des impacts négatifs que le projet de loi aura sur l'éducation en langue française dans le sud-ouest de l'Ontario.

Je vais toucher trois points qui sont très litigieux et dont nous parlons beaucoup de ces jours-ci : d'une part, le nombre d'élèves en salle de classe.

Contrairement à ce que veut prétendre le gouvernement, le projet de loi ne promet pas de réductions du nombre d'élèves dans les salles de classe, mais vraiment permet au Cabinet, en fait au ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation, de fixer les nombres comme il l'entend. On sait très bien, puis on est d'accord, que les recherches indiquent que les classes plus petites font une différence. Il était même prouvé que les effectifs réduits favorisent de meilleurs résultats scolaires et ont des effets bénéfiques et durables. C'est pourquoi nous, l'AEFO, avons travaillé depuis plus de 25 ans dans le cadre de nos négociations collectives locales pour maintenir le nombre d'élèves par classe à un niveau raisonnable.

Ce n'est pas en développant une formule à tout usage qui serait créée à Toronto que l'on pourrait s'assurer du nombre d'élèves dans les classes qui serait maintenu à un niveau raisonnable. Je vais relier ça aussi dans quelques instants avec la question du temps de préparation pour vous montrer certains des impacts néfastes sur nos écoles.

On est aussi tout à fait outrés d'entendre que le gouvernement veut réduire le temps de préparation de nos enseignantes et de nos enseignants. Ça va avoir un impact sur la qualité de l'éducation. C'est clair, et cela a été dit aujourd'hui à plusieurs reprises, que le temps que nous avons est essentiel pour nous permettre d'accorder une attention individuelle à des élèves qui ont besoin d'aide, préparer nos programmes d'enseignement, puis plusieurs programmes individualisés, planifier les activités spéciales à caractère culturel, linguistique et religieux, consulter nos collègues, puis aussi assurer une liaison entre les spécialistes du conseil et de la communauté qui sont à nos services.

On sait que la réduction du temps de préparation pourrait vouloir dire une perte de 6000 enseignantes et enseignants dans la province. Mais quand on y pense, puis je vous donne un exemple, si je réduis le temps de préparation de la moitié dans une école secondaire sur notre territoire, ça veut dire la perte de l'équivalent de 1,6 enseignantes ou enseignants, et ça veut dire dans les petites écoles secondaires l'abolition d'un département ou d'un service entier ou la disparition de programmes.

De plus, quand on voit les questions de maximums de salles de classe et de temps de préparation, pensez bien que dans plusieurs de nos écoles élémentaires et secondaires on doit vivre avec des classes jumelées : maternelle-jardin-première, ça se voit ; quatrième et cinquième années combinées ; une enseignante ou un enseignant qui est obligé d'enseigner de la bureautique aux 10^e, 11^e et 12^e années dans la même salle de classe, ou même de la mathématique au niveau fondamental aux 10^e, 11^e et 12^e années.

Tout ça pour vous dire que le temps de préparation et de contact que nous avons, c'est un temps absolument nécessaire pour être capables d'assurer la qualité de l'éducation et les services que l'on doit rendre à nos élèves.

Permettez-moi de toucher ensuite un troisième point, qui est celui du personnel enseignant ou du personnel non qualifié. Contrairement à ce qu'on veut essayer de nous faire croire, les enseignantes et enseignants sont des spécialistes dans leur matière. Ils savent comment les enfants apprennent, comment évaluer leur progrès, les motiver et gérer les salles de classe. En confiant des postes à des personnes qui n'ont pas de formation en pédagogie, le gouvernement est en train tout simplement d'épargner de l'argent aux dépens de la qualité de l'éducation.

En plus d'être des spécialistes dans leur champ d'études, les enseignantes et les enseignants ont cherché une formation pédagogique dans le but d'être capables de transmettre des attitudes, des connaissances et des habilités. Cette formation est vraiment au coeur même de l'enseignement/apprentissage dans tous les domaines de nos écoles.

On reconnaît que les écoles ne peuvent pas être un milieu fermé mais doivent être des endroits de partenariat avec la communauté. Cependant, la relation dynamique qui est celle de l'enseignement et de l'apprentissage ne peut pas être réduite à de simples gestes. C'est en tant qu'enseignantes et enseignants qualifiés et spécialistes que nous sommes venus défendre l'esprit d'un milieu de vie que nous nous efforçons de rendre le plus enrichissant et le plus valorisant pour tous nos jeunes.

Nos enseignantes et nos enseignants sont polyvalents, dévoués, curieux. Ils ne cessent d'apprendre. Ils s'entraident beaucoup. Ils travaillent à la fois avec les parents, les jeunes, la communauté entière, tout ça sans compter les heures, que ce soit durant la journée de classes, la journée scolaire, après la classe ou même les fins de semaine. Je vous demande, pourquoi est-ce qu'on voudrait détruire ce qui fonctionne déjà très bien ?

En terminant, le projet de loi s'arroge de tous les pouvoirs, et c'est ça qui est le thème central : tout est centré à Toronto, prise de décisions et tout. Nous avons travaillé très fort avec la communauté franco-ontarienne pour obtenir la gestion scolaire. Le projet de loi 104 était pour nous un succès et une grande victoire. Mais en fait, un gouvernement qui est en train de centraliser tout le pouvoir à Toronto et qui se préoccupe très, très peu de la dimension francophone -- il ne faut pas oublier que c'est le même gouvernement qui a planifié la fermeture de notre seul hôpital universitaire de langue française.

Nous craignons beaucoup cette centralisation de pouvoir, car elle aura un impact incroyable sur la qualité de l'éducation dans les écoles de langue française. Nous vous exhortons de prendre le courage de dire que si, retirons ce projet de loi, prenons le temps d'y réfléchir sérieusement pour voir quels sont ses impacts réels sur l'ensemble des écoles de la province, et revenons avec un projet de loi qui veut reformer le système de l'éducation, et aussi amener une formule de financement, parce que l'un sans l'autre ne marche pas.

Mesdames, messieurs, merci beaucoup de votre attention.

1700

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have about a minute left, if you want to say one more thing.

Mr Lachance: If you have any questions, I'll be quite happy to answer them.

M^me McLeod : -- déduction de 667 $ millions.

M. Lachance : On a toujours déploré les coupures que le gouvernement effectuait au niveau des budgets consacrés à l'éducation, et d'apprendre que le gouvernement tente d'en soutirer un autre 667 $ millions nous écrase complètement. On se demande, «Comment pourrons-nous faire ce qu'on nous demande, réformer le système de l'éducation, offrir une éducation de qualité, quand les ressources financières qui sont absolument nécessaires pour ça ne sont pas mises à notre disposition ?»

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Is there another question? If you've got time, I will permit it.

M. Hampton : Monsieur Lachance, combien d'enseignants pourront perdre leur emploi si le gouvernement force le projet de loi 160 ?

M. Lachance : Monsieur Hampton, une réponse bien simple : un enseignant ou une enseignante sur sept pourrait se voir perdre son poste. Pour nous ce serait tout simplement dévastateur parce qu'on est à peine 6000 pour offrir l'éducation en langue française et nous devons, comme je le décrivais, prendre des bouchées doubles et parfois triples dans nos salles de classe, dans nos écoles, pour être capables d'offrir une éducation de qualité.

Nous sommes prêts à travailler fort pour maintenir et améliorer la qualité de l'éducation en Ontario, mais si on se voit diminuer, un enseignant sur sept disparaître, l'impact, vous pouvez le comprendre aussi bien que moi.

Mr Froese: I know you talk in your brief about the non-teaching staff. During these hearings we've heard from parents, students and teachers that more flexibility in having qualified professionals work with certified teachers in certain area subjects like computer technology wouldn't be a bad thing. Could you just comment on that?

Mr Lachance: The comments I'll make on computer technology would be the same that I would make for the people in guidance, in music, in the arts, because it's all the same: Our teachers are qualified. They are specialists. They go to university; they get their training at a university. They become specialists in their area. They turn around and decide the teaching profession is what they want to do, so they go back and get qualified as teachers. Then they work to get the necessary qualifications to become, in the eyes of the ministry, specialists also.

That's three times that you become a specialist. What more do you want? I've got people who teach music, phys ed, guidance, all of these areas. They've gone through these three steps of becoming specialists, three-time specialists. What more do we want?

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

This draws to a --

Mr Lessard: Mr Chair, I have a point of order that I'd like to raise. I'd like to make a motion that this committee recommend to the Minister of Education and Training that an independent facilitator be appointed, agreeable to the provincial teachers' organizations and to the government, and in the event that a facilitator is appointed, that this committee suspend hearings into Bill 160 until such time as the facilitator completes his or her work.

The Vice-Chair: I'm not sure that you are permitted to make a motion when you have gained the floor by a point of order.

Mr Lessard: I don't know how else I could raise it.

The Vice-Chair: Well, that's the ruling.

Mr Lessard: I don't know how else I can raise it.

The Vice-Chair: They tell me you're not allowed to do that.

Mrs McLeod: How do you make motions, then?

The Vice-Chair: If you just wanted to make a motion, yes, but not as a point of order.

Mr Lessard: Okay. I'd like to make a motion, then.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. To that effect?

Mr Lessard: I'd like to read it again if that's necessary.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order: I believe you've already adjourned. Did I not hear you adjourn this sitting?

The Vice-Chair: The hearings had adjourned, yes.

Mr Martiniuk: I don't see how you can proceed now, Mr Chairman, if this sitting is adjourned.

Mr Lessard: I didn't hear the Chair say that we were adjourned.

The Vice-Chair: I will rule that I said the hearing was adjourned, but I did ask you to speak again. So if I'm putting myself out of position, I guess that's what it amounts to. If you prefer to make a motion, I will take it.

Mr Lessard: Yes, I wish to make the motion that this committee recommend to the Minister of Education and Training that an independent facilitator be appointed, agreeable to the teachers' organizations of Ontario and to the government, and in the event that such a facilitator is appointed, that this committee suspend hearings into Bill 160 until such time that the person completes their work.

The Vice-Chair: We've heard the motion. Is it your wish to have a recorded vote?

Mr Lessard: I would like to make a few comments, if those are in order.

As a committee we are here to hear from members of the public, and we have heard from presenter after presenter over the past couple of days that no one wants to see a province-wide strike.

Yesterday a motion was introduced to remove sections of the bill which would result in the loss of teaching positions as an attempt to avoid a province-wide strike. That motion was defeated. Another motion was introduced to delay passage of Bill 160 until the funding formula was provided. That was made in an attempt to stop a province-wide strike from taking place. This is really the last attempt that we as committee members have to try to avoid a province-wide strike on Monday morning. I think it is our duty as committee members to do everything we can to try to avoid that that eventuality happens. If we don't do what we can, we're really failing to fulfil our duties.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I can almost sense the futility of this, but surely after all we've heard for four days, the idea that there could be an independent facilitator appointed to find a resolution to this so that 2.1 million students aren't facing the loss of their classrooms on Monday morning is not too much to ask people to at least recommend. I don't understand why the government is so dug in and so determined on this confrontation.

If there was any point in presenting motions, I would have presented the motion I have in front of me that we at least commend to the Minister of Education for his immediate attention the brief presented by the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association today. They clearly are supportive of much that is in Bill 160. They are clearly supportive of the necessity of parts of this bill going ahead in time for the January 1 deadline and the restructuring of school boards. They equally clearly identified parts of the bill that they believe should be taken out but that furthermore can be taken out without affecting the restructuring agenda of this government, other than parts of the agenda that we have not yet had made public.

Why can we not at least, as a committee, recommend some reasonable steps to avoid the confrontation? Why is the government so determined to force this issue?

Mr Hampton: It seems to me the Premier said last night that the government does not want to have a confrontation. If the Premier is true to his word, I think it would be an important step for this committee to recommend to the Minister of Education that an independent facilitator be appointed to sit down and work with the parties.

I believe it should be possible to find an independent facilitator such as a Kevin Burkett or a George Adams or a Vic Pathe who has a lot of experience in this area and who would be able to work constructively with the government, with the Minister of Education and with the teachers' federations to deal with some of the aspects of Bill 160 which are most controversial and thereby find a resolution to what is happening here.

I would think that as legislators this is something we would want to do and that we would want to recommend to the Minister of Education. I would think that not to do that would indicate that a confrontation is wanted, that a clash is wanted.

An independent facilitator will bring a breath of fresh air to this process, I believe will recreate trust and confidence, and, as in many other situations like this in the past, may be able to find a good resolution to the process which both sides can agree with, which both sides may not be 100% happy with but can agree with, and thereby a confrontation can be avoided. So I would hope all members of the committee would want to vote for a process which has the potential, at least, to avoid a confrontation.

Mr Boushy: Speaking against the motion, to me it seems the resolution of this would be to have total respect for this hearing and what we have been doing for the last week or what we will be doing for the next week. The teachers or the federation should wait for the results of the hearings and then make a decision.

Another thing, the minister himself asked for time. "What's your hurry?" he said. "Why are you putting a deadline?"

So the resolution is for the federation to call off the strike and indulge in some kind of discussion, and wait for the public hearings. That's what the hearings are about, isn't it? Isn't that what the system is all about?

Mrs McLeod: Not when the bill is on the table.

The Vice-Chair: I call the question. Would you want a recorded vote?

Mr Lessard: I'd like a recorded vote, yes.

Ayes

Hoy, Lessard, McLeod.

Nays

Boushy, Froese, Martiniuk, Smith.

The Vice-Chair: I declare the motion lost.

This hearing of the justice committee will stand adjourned until October 22 at 10 am in Sault Ste Marie.

The committee adjourned at 1712.