STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, SAULT STE MARIE UNIT
ALEX MUIR PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
SAULT STE MARIE WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
BAWATING COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, NIPISSING ELEMENTARY UNIT
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, MANITOULIN DISTRICT
MANITOULIN WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISION
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 30 (ALGOMA)
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, CENTRAL ALGOMA DISTRICT
SAULT STE MARIE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, SAULT STE MARIE DISTRICT
CENTRAL ALGOMA WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
SAULT STE MARIE DISTRICT ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, SUDBURY DISTRICT SUDBURY WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 40
SAULT STE MARIE BOARD OF EDUCATION
LOCAL ACTION CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION MICHIPICOTEN SCHOOL DIVISION
ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS ÉLÉMENTAIRE, SAULT SAINTE-MARIE
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2251
SARAH HUCKSON JASON NACCARATO PETER KORAB
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Monday 27 October 1997
Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, Mr David Johnson /
Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation,
projet de loi 160, M. David Johnson
Mr Bob Jacques
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Sault Ste Marie Unit
Mr Art Callegari
Ms Cheryl Fabbro
Alex Muir Public School Parent Advisory Council
Ms Leslie Uhlig
Mrs Leslie Cassidy-Amadio
Sault Ste Marie Women Teachers' Association
Ms Loretta Harrison
Community Living Algoma
Mr Don Edwards
Mr Lorne Carter
Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School
Mr Vincent Greco
Mr Howard Whent
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Nipissing Elementary Unit
Mrs Anna-Maria Aquino
Mrs Susan Van Schaayk
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Manitoulin District
Mr Jack Mallette
Manitoulin Women Teachers' Association
Mrs Wendy Gauthier
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario Division
Mr Henry Rowlinson
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 30 (Algoma)
Mr Jim Agnew
Mr Wayne Jackson
Mr Geoff Shaw
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Occasional Teachers' Unit, District 30
Ms Janet Telford
Mrs Pat Mick
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Central Algoma District
Mr Andy Jones
Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council
Mr Dan Lewis
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Sault Ste Marie District
Mr Mike Patriquin
Mr Bill Clarke
Central Algoma Women Teachers' Association
Ms Heide Marrato
Sault Ste Marie District Roman Catholic Separate School Board
Ms Karen Fata
Continued overleaf
Continued from overleaf
Mr Watson Slomke
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Sudbury District;
Sudbury Women Teachers' Association
Ms Donna Cresswell
Mr Laurie Rowlandson
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 40, West Parry Sound Division
Mr Bill Webster
Franco-Ontarian Teachers' Association /
Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens
Mr Paul Charron
M. Guill Archambeault
Sault Ste Marie Board of Education
Ms Margaret Roch
Mr Bill Hall
Local Action Co-ordinating Committee, Ontario Teachers' Federation,
Michipicoten School Division
Mr Terry Switzer
Mrs Marny Chauvin
Mrs Jane Laframboise
Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens
élémentaire, Sault Sainte-Marie
Mme Hélène Groulx
United Steelworkers of America, Local 2251
Mr Ronald Bouliane
Miss Sarah Huckson; Mr Jason Naccarato; Mr Peter Korab
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 31, Sudbury;
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Sudbury Secondary
Mr Joe Meuleman
Mr Roland Muzzatti
Sudbury and District Labour Council
Mr John Filo
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
Monday 27 October 1997 Lundi 27 octobre 1997
The committee met at 0958 in the Holiday Inn, Sault Ste Marie.
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, lady and gentlemen of the committee and ladies and gentlemen of the audience. This is a sitting of the standing committee on administration of justice and a continuation of the consideration of Bill 160. The committee is most pleased to be in the city of Sault Ste Marie and welcomes the sitting member in this area, Mr Tony Martin.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you very much, Mr Martiniuk. I want to welcome all of you to the Sault and thank you for coming so that you might hear from my constituents re this issue. I'm just disappointed that we couldn't have presented you with better weather, but in keeping with the gravity of the issue that we deal with here it might be a bit Shakespearean that in fact this is what we are experiencing. Welcome, none the less, and I'm looking forward to what will probably be a very fruitful day. I hope you're all ears to hear from my constituents.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. The committee also welcomes Mr Bartolucci and recognizes Ms McLeod.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I do have a motion that I want to place before the committee before we have our first presentation. In respect of the fact that we have a number of people who are here to present, I won't speak at any length to the motion. I present it, I guess, with some hope that it might be considered seriously by the committee.
My motion is that this committee be empowered to meet at 9:30 pm in Thunder Bay to consider recommendations to facilitate a resolution of the current confrontation between teachers and the government.
Mr Chairman, it won't come as a surprise to you that I am feeling truly dismayed that we have 2.1 million students who aren't in their classrooms this morning, but that I am even more dismayed that the government appears to have been determined to pursue its fiscal agenda and that they have made their need to make cuts to education more important than the wellbeing of those 2.1 million students.
I had hoped over the course of the weekend, with the appointment of Chief Justice Charles Dubin as a facilitator, that there was a serious interest in resolving this, but it became apparent last night when I heard the Minister of Education speak on the breakdown of the talks that the government's position has not changed on the essential issues one iota.
I also heard the Minister of Education say that he and his government continue to be at the table through these hearings, and that's why I place my motion today. There are no teachers at this table, and the government is not sitting down with teachers through this committee process. I am frustrated that this committee has been given a mandate to listen to the concerns and we are here today because we believe it is still important to give teachers and parents and students a forum in which their concerns can be heard, but although we are here to listen, the Minister of Education is not here to listen and the minister does not appear to be listening to whatever comes through from these hearings.
We have had in the course of the first three full days of the hearings a number of recommendations that have come not solely from teachers but as well from parents and students, and I would say particularly from school trustees, and there is a very high degree of consensus as to the very immediate steps that could be taken by the government in withdrawing just certain clauses of this bill that would ensure that our teachers could be back in their classrooms and that this committee could proceed to deal with the rest of Bill 160, which the government needs to have by January 1.
I think, if there is any willingness left on the part of the government to see our students back in their classrooms, the government would be prepared to give this committee the power to sit and at least debate the recommendations that have been made to us that I believe could end this confrontation and get our students back in the classroom. That's why I've placed this motion.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I too will be moving a motion after Ms McLeod's has been dealt with, but I want to say that I support the motion by Ms McLeod and I will very briefly express my reasons.
I understand that over the weekend the facilitator, former justice Dubin, broke off the talks after some considerable length of discussion last night, indicating that he did not think he would be able to bring the sides together, that the government left the table. However, this morning I heard in the media that the Minister of Education and Training has stated that he has amendments to present on Bill 160. Both sides, the teachers' federations and the government, are saying that they are willing to talk, continue discussions. We are in an unprecedented situation today where I understand all of the schools in Ontario, Catholic and public, are closed, or if not closed, not operating, and the education of our students across the province has been disrupted.
This committee has been charged by the Legislature and by the time allocation motion that the government moved to close off debate at second reading with the responsibility of dealing with Bill 160 and making recommendations to the House. Since Bill 160 is the centre of the controversy that has led to the disruption of education for our students, I think it is really incumbent upon this committee to try to come forward with some proposals that might lead to a resolution of what appears to be a very difficult impasse.
The committee might consider suggesting to the government that the government stand down Bill 160 and not proceed further in the legislative process with that legislation pending some suggested changes that might resolve the dispute. For instance, if the government were to make a commitment to reinvest any savings that accrue from restructuring of school boards in classroom education, that might be a first step to resolving this impasse and in truly dealing with the quality of education, as Bill 160 purports to do.
I support the motion by my colleague the member for Fort William and would urge all members of the committee to support it and have the committee sit to discuss proposals that might be made to resolve this current impasse and move towards a resolution of the very serious issues that relate to the education of Ontario students.
Mr Martin: I certainly support the move too. In Sault Ste Marie we have people on a list who would have liked to have presented today, but the time isn't sufficient to hear them all. After I have supported Mrs McLeod's motion, I will be asking the committee's consideration to hear at least one other group, because there is a slot that's apparently open at 4:30 this afternoon. In the audience here this morning, I have at least three groups: all of the secondary school student presidents from across the city are here and want to make a presentation; there's a grade 8 student representing elementary schools here who would like to make a presentation; and there's a parent representing parents in the city, Cynthia Zalewski, here who would like to make a presentation.
However, I would be pleased, given that there's only one -- actually, I'd suggest that we hear from all of them and that we take our lunchtime to do that, because this is such an important issue that we need to hear from as many people as we can and in particular, being a bit parochial, in Sault Ste Marie hear from my constituents. But if the noonhour request isn't going to be accepted, I would at the least expect that you would hear from the students, because, as you and so many have said throughout this piece, students are key in all of this, are the focus of all of this, and they would like to put on record their concern re this issue. So this afternoon and after we've passed this motion, Mr Wildman, who is officially representing our party, will be putting a motion on the table to at least hear from the students this afternoon in that 4:30 slot.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I'm pleased to respond to the motion that Mrs McLeod has presented. I will be speaking in opposition to it. I think it's important for the committee to remain mindful that certainly this particular committee has been charged by the Legislature to deal with Bill 160, and I think we've had some very constructive and valued input with respect to the bill itself.
With respect to hearing from teachers, I would simply remind the committee that in Chatham nearly 50% of the presenters or deputants were representatives of the teaching profession, of various affiliates, and, although I've just scanned the presentation list today, it would seem that over 50% of the presenters today will be speaking on behalf of teachers in this province. Certainly the message is one that has been clear, concise, and there has been some common messaging throughout the entire process. I can assure the committee as well as others in attendance that those viewpoints are being articulated to the minister and he's aware of the viewpoints being expressed before this particular committee.
I will be speaking in opposition to the motion. I think, in fairness and to the credit of this committee, by and large we've been able to focus to date on the issues contained in Bill 160. The issues concerning labour negotiations or issues related to collective bargaining have been left at Queen's Park under the responsibility of the Minister of Education and Training and the affiliate presidents and their negotiating teams, and I think that's the appropriate place for that discussion to take place.
I'm anxious to hear again today from the deputants here in Sault Ste Marie with respect to this bill and, on that basis, will not be supporting the motion as presented by Mrs McLeod.
1010
Mrs McLeod: Again very briefly, Mr Smith, I do not believe that this committee has been dealing with the bulk of Bill 160. I believe that the majority of the presentations almost totally have been dealing with what you have described as the collective bargaining issues. In fact, changes in the collective bargaining are a part of this bill that we haven't spent much time on.
The concerns have focused around the sections of this bill that had been inserted by the government, that are totally unrelated to the amalgamation of school boards or to the transitional issues around the amalgamation of school boards and, that are related exclusively to the fact that the government wants to take dollars out by cutting teachers. They are the clauses specifically around the allowing of non-certified teachers to teach, the ability of the government to cut some 10,000 teachers by cutting preparation time and the ability of the government to -- what it calls -- control class size. But without any funding, in fact with funding cuts, the control of class size will mean the stripping of virtually every other support that students need for learning.
I believe those are not collective bargaining issues, that they are, however, crucial issues in terms of the intent of this bill. They are certainly the focus of confrontation. They have been the focus of these hearings. They belong here, and teachers, while they are presenting their concerns, don't have a vote around this committee table. That's why I think we should be empowered to be able to really discuss the recommendations that would affect those clauses and would allow some resolution of the current situation.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, I'll put the motion. A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Bartolucci, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Beaubien, Guzzo, Rollins, Smith, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: I believe the motion fails.
Mr Wildman, you had a motion?
Mr Wildman: I'll deal with the matter that my colleague from the Sault mentioned in a moment, but first I'll move this motion and then I'd like to speak to it briefly.
In light of the comments of the Minister of Education and Training reported in the media this morning to the effect that the provincial government has amendments to Bill 160 to bring before this committee, I move that the committee request the parliamentary assistant to table the Conservative government's amendments now and that the committee not proceed with further public hearings on Bill 160 until these amendments are tabled and made public.
The reason I'm moving this motion is that we, as has been said, are in a very grave situation in Ontario education today, an unprecedented situation. We're at an impasse, and yet the minister has said he is prepared to move amendments, the government is prepared to move on this bill. If we proceed without knowing what those amendments are, then deputants are in the ludicrous position of making comment on Bill 160 without knowing what changes the government already intends to make. Surely they should know what the amendments are so that they can comment on those amendments in making their presentations.
These amendments, hopefully, will meet the needs of many of the students, parents, ratepayers and teachers who are concerned about the quality of education. If so, we might be able to reach some consensus. If these amendments fall short, however, those same deputants should be able to comment on them and to indicate why they don't meet their concerns. It would seem to me just a bit of the theatre of the absurd if we were to proceed hearing presentations on a bill, unamended, when the government already knows what amendments it intends to make. Surely the committee and all of the members of the public should know what those amendments are before we proceed.
Does the government really intend to reinvest the money it saves in education or does it intend to take another 4% or 5% out of education, about $700 million, over and above the $500 million to $800 million already removed from education? Does the government intend to have more teacher time with students or does it really mean that there will be fewer teachers in Ontario teaching more students, meaning less individual time for students with teachers?
We need to know what these amendments are so that we can proceed in an orderly, sensible fashion on this committee and make recommendations to the assembly on whether or not the amendments are adequate to meet the concerns of everyone who is interested in quality education. I urge the members of the committee to support my motion so that we can see what the government's intentions are with regard to changes to Bill 160 and so that we can proceed to have hearings on those changes as well as on the original draft of the bill.
Mrs McLeod: I will support the motion to see the amendments before any committee hearings proceed. I think it would be one small step in getting some greater public disclosure of the government's agenda with this bill, because up to now the only public disclosure of the agenda behind this bill has been through leaked documents like the deputy minister's performance contract, which shows the government's intent to cut $667 million from the education budget.
I wonder if Mr Wildman might accept a friendly amendment, because I think any amendments put forward by the government that don't have the funding formula attached to them become virtually meaningless. I know, Mr Wildman, we've both urged that the financial realities of this government's agenda be put forward as part of the discussion on the bill, so if you'd accept that as a friendly amendment.
Mr Wildman: Certainly, as I said, we need to know whether the government intends to reinvest or to take another $700 million out. In order to know that, we have to know what the total amount is and what the funding formula is.
The Chair: I take it, then, the motion would be amended somewhere after "The parliamentary assistant to table the Conservative government's amendments" --
Mr Wildman: "Including the funding formula."
Mr Smith: Again I would simply respond to the member for Algoma, who obviously has considerably more experience than I in the committee process, and I respect that, that I think one thing he would recognize as part of this process is that there is in fact a period of time between the expiration of these committee proceedings and the time frame by which amendments have to be tabled, which will be November 5.
As parliamentary assistant, I have insisted as well that clause-by-clause consideration be delayed until such time as the Legislature reconvenes on November 17 and 18. From my previous experience in committee structures, too often in the past we've been concluding presentations on a particular day and moving into clause-by-clause consideration the following day. Quite frankly, that's inappropriate in terms of giving any consideration to appropriate amendments to any legislation that's before a committee. So those items have been taken into consideration.
I recognize that your motion speaks to our request to have the minister table the amendments that are being considered. The position is such that we would continue with this process, that we give full opportunity to all people to exercise their input into the committee and provide a complete package of amendments if appropriate under the time frame I mentioned for November 5. From that perspective, I'm speaking against the motion again.
With respect to the funding formula, we've had considerable discussion over the last six days about this particular issue. Many times you've accused us of moving too fast on issues, and the funding formula is a critical piece to the future of public education in this province. We are taking our time to get the funding formula right so that it's responsive to all needs, not just the needs of average students but those students who have special needs, those who are learners at risk, so that we can ensure we have the appropriate amount of data in place in order to move ahead with the funding formula in September 1998.
From two perspectives I recognize your position on the funding formula. I also have indicated the position with respect to the time frames this committee will be responding to in terms of tabling amendments and responding to clause-by-clause consideration of the legislation.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): A question I have, since Mr Smith gave his November 5 date, is it, then, the government's intention to keep the students of Ontario out of school until November 5?
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): You are no longer a school teacher.
Mr Martin: And you're no longer the judge.
The Chair: Mr Bartolucci has the floor.
Mr Bartolucci: Well, listen, it's a simple question. Mr Guzzo from Ottawa may have some trouble with kids being in school. I have a great deal of difficulty when a government member will laugh at the prospect of children being in school.
1020
Interruption.
Mr Bartolucci: I ask the question again --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Bartolucci. Members of the audience, this is a sitting of a standing committee of the Legislature. I am bound by the standing orders. The standing orders provide that there are to be no demonstrations. We're attempting to hear from 33 people today and we've already lost 20 minutes. It's going to be very difficult. No demonstrations are permitted, and if they continue I will merely adjourn for a said period of time, which means that certain people may not be heard. I don't want to do that, I really don't, because I think it's important that we hear from each and every one of them. So I'd ask you to restrain yourselves.
Mr Bartolucci: Again, Mr Chair, I would ask the question, then, is it the government's intention to keep the students of Ontario out of school until November 5?
Mr Smith: The government of Ontario does not support illegal strike action by the teachers of this province. If that was not occurring, the students of this province would be in school today. I am not going to speculate on November 5. My responsibility is to proceed with public hearings and to secure the input of people in this city, in Thunder Bay tomorrow and Ottawa. So the question concerning where students are or are not would be better positioned to those individuals who are taking illegal strike action.
Mr Bartolucci: Just to follow up on Mr Smith's answer to the question -- and I appreciate his answer -- you must, then, appreciate the intent of the motion. All of this may be for naught, if the government amendments were tabled, as Mr Wildman and Mrs McLeod have stated.
Again, I will be supporting the resolution, but I guess I'd ask one other question: Why will you not allow every opportunity for the students of Ontario to return to the classrooms, when this may be a stellar opportunity for the government to show its good faith in bargaining by tabling motions and amendments that could very well allow the students to go back in Ontario? Why will the government not do that?
Mr Smith: I think I responded to the previous question that that responsibility lies with teachers in this province. It is not the government of Ontario that has undertaken illegal strike action. Students would return to the classroom if teachers returned to the classroom. I am charged with the responsibility of completing the public hearing process that we have before us and providing input back to the minister in order that we provide quality amendments to the legislation if appropriate. That is my responsibility, and I believe I answered your first question in my first response.
Mr Bartolucci: If I may make one final comment, I believe the responsibility of this government or any government is to use everything in its power to ensure that quality education takes place. By not tabling the amendments, they are showing, as they did this past weekend when they walked away from negotiations, that they are not acting in good faith to ensure that the students of Ontario get back to school.
Mrs McLeod: I would say to Mr Smith that it is the Minister of Education who last night on television was leading the public to believe that he has proposed amendments to this bill that he believes might make a difference to this situation. Mr Smith, you know full well that there is nothing prohibiting the government from presenting the specifics of its amendments before November 5, by which date amendments must be presented. If the minister was serious last night in what he was saying to the public, then he should demonstrate that seriousness by tabling his amendments now so they can be the focus of public comment and public debate.
To suggest that we hang on to technicalities of the last date by which amendments must be received by this committee, when you have 2.1 million students who are not in class, in a situation in which the government can resolve this, is truly playing games with our children.
Mr Guzzo: There might be one issue here that has some merit. Representing the Ottawa view, the member for Ottawa South, as he then was, now the leader of the Liberal Party, in 1992 had a private member's bill before the House, which I understand was supported by the Liberal caucus of the day, including the then Liberal leader, Ms McLeod. That was a private member's bill that called for changing the legislation to prohibit teachers from the right to strike, taking away the right to strike.
If that is one of the amendments that we are thinking of bringing in -- which I have never heard, but if it is -- in light of the fact that the Liberal leader, Mr McGuinty, moved a private member's bill in 1992 and Ms McLeod supported it, to save further embarrassment in causing another reverse backflip, it might be worthwhile to indicate now if it's our intention that that's one of the amendments to bring in.
The Chair: I remind the members of the committee that the time is now 10:28.
Mrs McLeod: I am in no mood today to have more fuel thrown on this fire by members who are continuing to state what are simply lies. I cannot believe -- and I understand Mr Guzzo walking away, because there is no defence.
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms McLeod, I believe that is unparliamentary.
Mrs McLeod: I will withdraw that statement, even though the statement made by Mr Guzzo does not in any way relate to the facts of a private member's bill that was indeed presented by Mr McGuinty and which dealt with, first of all, the protection of the right to strike -- it in no way eliminated the right to strike -- and which, secondly, protected the existing collective bargaining climate and strengthened the role of the Education Relations Commission, which could serve as a facilitator not only to avoid confrontation but to deal with the issue of students in jeopardy.
If we had anything resembling a reasonable collective bargaining process for the issues currently creating a confrontation between teachers and government, then we would not have the situation that we're in right now. The reason we're in the situation we're in right now and the reason 2.1 million kids are not in school today is because this government is using its power of majority to give itself, through its cabinet, absolute control over every decision that is made in education in the first place, and part of what they are doing with this bill is abrogating every contract that was arrived at through the normal collective bargaining process.
That is a totally misleading and inflammatory statement. If that's the way we're going to spend the day, Mr Chairman, let's get on with it.
Mr Smith: Just in response, and I don't want to continue the debate, because Mrs McLeod and I have had this discussion over the past six days, but just to clarify the issue for my colleague, very clearly at the outset the government of Ontario indicated that it was not removing the right to strike for teachers in this province. We heard from principals and vice-principals in this province about their collegial responsibilities, their professional responsibilities and their school communities. We've respected that and not removed them from their collective bargaining units. The third item of contention originally was the elimination or choice of affiliation by teachers in this province. Once again, we clearly indicated as a government as well that we would not be removing that choice.
Those are three key areas that the leadership of teachers' unions in this province identified and we responded to and supported their viewpoints.
Mr Wildman: To close off debate, I must say I'm disappointed. For clarification, to be fair, the private member's bill did not eliminate the right to strike; it limited the times of the year that would have allowed strikes. Our caucus did not support it, but I don't think bringing that up helps to resolve this matter.
I must say I'm disappointed. We're holding hearings here today, in Thunder Bay tomorrow, Ottawa on Wednesday, and that's the end of the committee's public hearings. If the public is going to have an opportunity to comment on the government's proposed amendments, we have to have the amendments now. If we don't have the amendments before the end of the day on Wednesday, there will not be any opportunity for the public to have input in this committee on the amendments that this committee has to deal with.
There is nothing in the rules to prevent the government from tabling or publicizing their amendments at any time. They don't have to wait until the deadline which the time allocation sets, which is November 5. I fear, as my friend from Sudbury, Mr Bartolucci, has said, that not tabling the amendments may mean that students may not have classes from now until at least November 5, when if the amendments do respond to the concerns of the teachers, they could be back in school this week. I really don't understand that. I fear that we may not be here just until November 5 with this disruption of classes. It may be until we actually get to clause-by-clause, which is November 17.
1030
It was my hope that we wouldn't deal with this bill in a particularly confrontational mode. We are in a serious confrontation in this province. If this committee can help to bring the sides together to try to cool things out, to look for ways of responding to the concerns of the teachers, the parents, the students, and dealing with the government's agenda, we should be trying to find it. One of the ways might be looking at ways to amend this bill, and not waiting until November 5, after all the public's comments have already been heard.
My really great fear is that the teachers may be out of classes for some time. The students will not be in class where they should be, where their parents want them to be, where the community wants them to be; that the teachers will not be in class where they want to be. I think it's really a responsibility of this committee to deal with that.
If the government is simply determined to centralize all of the power over education in the cabinet, where decisions can be made behind closed doors by regulation, without any public input, surely the public should have input now. Surely the public should have an opportunity to say whether or not these amendments go far enough to deal with their concerns, whether they be parents, students, teachers, trustees, taxpayers or ratepayers.
We need to know what these amendments are. We need to know if the government is going to allow for local decision-making over education. Or, if they are going to centralize decision-making in the cabinet, whether or not they will put it at least in legislation so that the Legislative Assembly, we as MPPs, will be able to have input into changes rather than having decisions simply made behind closed doors in secret.
Despite the comments of the parliamentary assistant, I urge the government members to support this motion. I urge the government to make it absolutely clear that Mr Guzzo's comments were perhaps made somewhat tongue in cheek, and that the government does not intend to move in any way to limit the right for teachers to withdraw their labour in the collective bargaining process.
Mr Guzzo: That's the Liberal 1992 position.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Guzzo.
Mr Bartolucci: That's incorrect.
The Chair: Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Wildman: I want that to be clear. If the government can make that much clear, surely it can make its other amendments clear.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Let's get on with business. Let's hear from these people.
Mr Wildman: I want to hear from them too. But I want the teachers to know that this government and the parliamentary assistant have said the government initially threatened to bomb their house by taking away the right to strike and taking principals and vice-principals out of the federations and taking out the requirement to be members of the federation to teach in the province. Then they came along and said, "Oh no, we won't do those things. We're just going to throw a rock through your front window," by centralizing all power at Queen's Park and ensuring that teachers have no say over education in this province and that boards have no say over education in this province. "Because we only broke your front window instead of bombing your house, you should be happy." No wonder they're out of their classes right now.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wildman. If there is no further discussion, we have a motion on the floor which has been amended. Is a recorded vote requested? A recorded vote has been requested. I call the question.
Ayes
Bartolucci, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Beaubien, Guzzo, Rollins, Smith, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Bartolucci: I have a further motion. In light of what I've heard this morning and in light of listening to the parliamentary assistant, who says he wants to hear from the people of Ontario, and in light of listening to what the government members have said with regard to getting on with business, the following motion is presented for the committee:
Because of the importance of communicating concerns regarding Bill 160, the committee favours continuing committee hearings for the duration of the political action by the parents, students and teachers of Ontario, and that these hearings be held daily in different cities across Ontario.
I submit the motion because I believe I heard there is a willingness for the government to continue listening to the concerns and the possible avenues of resolution from the taxpaying public of Ontario. You can't do that if you're only going to have two more days of hearings, one in Thunder Bay and one in Ottawa. Both opposition parties have said that you didn't spend enough time on public hearings with regard to Bill 160. At that time we weren't in a situation where 2.1 million students in Ontario are not in school, in their classrooms. If this government is truly interested in finding a resolution to this, you may find that resolution by listening to what the students, teachers and parents across Ontario are saying.
I would suggest to you that it is imperative that this committee continue public hearings. It is imperative that at these committee hearings, at some point in time, the amendments be tabled, so that the people of Ontario will have input into what the final version of 160 would be. If you feel that there is common sense in listening to the people of Ontario, I find it very, very difficult for you not to support this resolution.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bartolucci. Is there any further discussion? If not, is a recorded vote requested?
Mr Bartolucci: Absolutely.
The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested. Mr Bartolucci's motion is on the floor.
Ayes
Bartolucci, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Beaubien, Guzzo, Rollins, Smith, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Wildman: I have another motion.
The Chair: The time is nearly 10:40.
Mr Wildman: I won't prolong this. I move that the committee invite the Sault secondary school councils' presidents and Sarah Huckson, representing secondary and elementary students in this city, to appear before the committee in the available time slot this afternoon.
The Chair: Does this condense Mr Martin's request?
Mr Wildman: Yes.
The Chair: I would point out that the clerk would have to determine whether it has been filled. It shows as not filled here; however, his staff is phoning. Could we deal with that later on? He will determine whether it is open.
Mr Martin: We have the students here this morning waiting to hear if they're going to be presenting this afternoon. The sooner we can make that decision the better. It seems to me that we, as a committee, have the power to determine who appears. These folks are ready, they're anxious, they're waiting, and I would prefer that we make that decision right here and now.
The Chair: If it has been filled, Mr Martin, it would mean withdrawing an invitation. That's our difficulty. I'm going to ask the clerk to determine, within the next half-hour, whether it has been filled, and then we'll deal with that motion.
Mr Wildman: That's fine.
Mrs McLeod: I just wanted to remind the committee, because there are some members who were not with us last week, that the precedent for accommodating a group of students who are not on the list was set in Chatham when Mr Carroll came with a group of students and asked the consent of the committee to have those students appear. We most certainly were anxious to have the voices of students at every opportunity so we did accommodate that group, although they were not on the list.
Mr Smith: I recognize the point of view that the clerk has expressed through you, Mr Chair, but I would speak in support of this motion. We would welcome the input of this particular delegation, so at whatever point in time it can be accommodated, we'd appreciate it.
The Chair: Fine. The motion will be tabled until the clerk reports to me on the allocation of that time spot.
Mr Bartolucci: Just a comment in passing. It's very, very interesting that the government would support having one presenter today -- and I agree with that -- yet they refuse to have continuing presenters on an ongoing basis while this political action takes place. Somehow there's an inconsistency that the people of Ontario must find disgusting.
Mr Guzzo: One is against the law and the other isn't.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Guzzo. Thank you.
1040
BOB JACQUES
The Chair: I believe we're ready for our first presentation, Mr Bob Jacques. All members of the committee should have received a written brief dated October 27 by Mr Jacques. Welcome.
To Mr Jacques and all members who will be making presentations here this morning, the time allocations are 10 minutes. Contrary to my nature, sometimes I have to be rather abrupt and cut the time off so that all persons who are scheduled to make a presentation can make that presentation. So you'll understand. Sir, please proceed.
Mr Bob Jacques: To the members of this committee, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear at these hearings and make this presentation. My name is Bob Jacques.
During the 27 years I've been a professional educator, I've been involved in many executive positions within my own federation. I've been involved in curriculum development, teacher training, educational finance and a number of other extracurricular activities. It's because of this sense of involvement and duty that I appear before you today to respond to portions of the proposed act which address matters related to instruction in Ontario schools.
In our negotiation of contractual agreements, ambiguity produces a variety of interpretations which result in mistrust. Attention now is directed at Bill 160.
In clause 58.1(2)(q)(i), the wording allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council some extraordinary powers. The interpretation: It is impossible to predict the powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Any and all matters can be changed without discussion in Parliament. The usual way of doing business is no longer applicable.
This apparent contradiction is resulting in a mistrust of government intentions. The membership of the provincial teacher federations is led to believe a power grab is being hidden in legal wording. If the government does not intend to circumvent the right to strike, it is absolutely necessary to provide clarification, in writing, to uphold the integrity of this government.
Section 58.1 states: "A person's employment shall be deemed not to have been terminated for any purpose by anything done under this part." The interpretation of this clause suggests that the forthcoming amalgamation of school boards would not result in loss of jobs. However, the Lieutenant Governor in Council could change this and a number of teaching positions would be lost.
There is great fear among teachers that their seniority rights will be totally ignored and that an amalgamated board could fire employees at will without just cause. Does this proposed legislation guarantee job security of current employees of the transferor boards?
The ambiguity of this section leaves the government's intentions to be suspect after negative interpretations are applied. A position paper outlining the scope of this legislation as it would be applied needs to be published to allay fears and put to rest all the preconceived suppositions that greet these initiatives of change.
As for school advisory councils, having served on a council for my children's secondary school, I believe that initiating parent advisory councils is a very positive step towards enhancing student performance in our schools. The roles of all involved need to be firmly established so that these groups cannot simply be dismissed or bypassed. Where disagreements arise, a mechanism needs to be in place to allow the council to resolve differences and to move on to matters relating to improving student learning. I strongly urge the government to introduce province-wide dispute resolution mechanisms.
Professional development: The Education Improvement Commission has been given the task of conceptualizing the future look of education in Ontario. Its report The Road Ahead: A Report on Learning Time, Class Size and Staffing has very capably addressed the issues specified by the Ministry of Education and Training and very clearly is reflected in Bill 160.
With the introduction of Bill 160, the government has extended the length of time teachers and students spend in educational learning activities. During such increased time, students will be presented with opportunities to conference with the teacher and solidify knowledge and skills being presented. While this is a worthy measure to improve the overall quality of education, we must not forget the reality of the situation. The human brain can be bombarded with content, but is capable of absorbing only certain amounts before requiring rest. The length of each individual class needs to be reviewed in an attempt to create maximum learning conditions.
I am dedicated to the proposition that we can become more proficient and more efficient in the delivery of education to our students. We need to heighten our awareness of the body of knowledge embraced in recent research. Only through the combination of several change agents will we achieve the optimum potential of our teachers and our students. It is not good enough simply to alter time and load variables without focusing attention on enhanced performance.
To quote Dave Cooke, co-chair, Education Improvement Commission: "If we are truly concerned about the quality of education Ontario students receive, we must be prepared to tie various reform initiatives together."
The current climate of educational change is being interpreted in very opposing ways. We need to be clear and concise in communications being sent and received by all parties.
If we say there is no need for as many professional development days as in the past, then the message received is, "We don't need to promote excellence in Ontario schools." If this is the case, there is no need to encourage teachers to grow professionally and there is no need to establish standards which can be achieved only through the efforts of a well-qualified, dedicated teaching force. I do not believe for a moment that this is the goal this government has to achieve in education. But I caution the use of professional development days as being restricted to any one week or block of time. Rather than de-emphasizing the role of professional development in the learning cycle, we should be clearly defining the needs of Ontario's educators. Preferably, we should design a continuous, systematic program to enhance the skills we already possess.
We are presented with an opportunity to embrace change, but we need to identify what will assist us in our arrival at this end. Professional development, according to Ann Vanstone, co-chair, Education Improvement Commission, that is practical, current and developmental is most successful.
Teachers' qualifications: I am compelled to comment on the issue of using non-qualified staff in certain situations as provided for in section 81, section 170 of the act. This issue alone strikes fear in the hearts of teachers, and I cannot emphasize that strongly enough. It needs to be carefully considered.
I fully understand and appreciate the controversy. In certain situations isolated communities or specialized programs may be at risk of not being properly staffed due to circumstances beyond their control. If it can be shown that qualified teachers are not available to assume the duties for a designated position and public advertising fails to address that deficiency, a letter or letters of permission should be offered to the best available candidate, but such an offering should be limited.
It is imperative that those who teach are capable of assessing learning, modifying program expectations and designing the methods of delivery best suited to the needs of the classroom. This is the role fulfilled by a fully qualified and trained teacher.
Regarding education finance, the amount of dollars spent per pupil in this province has been out of balance for several years. The result is that some schools have greater resources than others. I applaud the initiative of the government to bring about a sense of fairness and equity to the students of this province. The government should move expeditiously to fund the education of each child on a cost-per-pupil basis. We cannot afford to perpetuate a system which spends varying amounts of financial resources and expects to achieve equivalent results.
Consideration should be given to addressing the gaps which currently exist across this province. This equalization effort is necessary for the government to establish its true concern for the students. At the moment, through Bill 160 and its regulations, there is a window of opportunity to prove the critics were wrongfully saying the government is just interested in saving money. The winners in this scenario are the children who sit in the classrooms lacking adequate resources to compete not only against their counterparts in Ontario but against those internationally as well.
1050
In closing, I'd like to give credit to the Ministry of Education and Training for the initiatives already in effect at the elementary school level. As a professional educator, I welcomed the opportunity to participate on the writing team which created the language expectations for the new Ontario Curriculum, 1997. I believe in learning outcomes and in standards identified by grades. My colleagues have expressed favourable acceptance and appreciation of an improved organization of curriculum.
The establishment of the Education Quality and Accountability Office is a very positive step in tracking the progress of our students' march towards the year 2000. Provincial testing and the sharing of results will help us to focus on the needs of our students and the development of realistic goals and expectations for future growth.
The new standard report cards were long overdue. They help to develop a clear, concise picture of the individual progress a student is making and where he or she needs to go in order to improve. It's user friendly and includes curricula expectations, descriptors for learning skills. It is especially appreciated that earlier drafts were field-tested and drastically changed because it would result in a better product. This is the essence of a quality education system.
In addressing these matters related to instruction in Ontario schools, I have attempted to provide a fair and balanced view of the issues included in and arising from Bill 160. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee hearing. I invite you to take the time to review the summary of key points included in this brief. Once again, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jacques. You've used all of your time, but I'd like to thank you for a very thoughtful paper this morning.
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, SAULT STE MARIE UNIT
The Chair: Our next presentation is OECTA, Sault Ste Marie branch, Art Callegari. Good morning. I'd ask you to identify yourselves for the purpose of the record and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Art Callegari: Good morning, Lyn, and the rest of the members of the committee. My name is Art Callegari. I'm the president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association unit here in Sault Ste Marie.
Ms Cheryl Fabbro: Good morning. My name is Cheryl Fabbro. I'm a classroom teacher at Mount St Joseph College in Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Callegari: The Sault Ste Marie unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association welcomes the opportunity provided here today to appear before this committee to address our concerns concerning the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. Our concerns are rooted in the contradictions we observe within Bill 160 itself, a bill which purports to be about educational quality but is in fact a legislative tool for extracting resources and expertise from the educational system.
Bill 160 indicates that the proposed legislation will result in an extraordinary degree of centralized control by the province while at the same time leaving all the implementation problems at the local level. Under Bill 160, the province assumes all the authority but accepts no responsibility. The claim that Bill 160 is an Education Quality Improvement Act, to me, is an illusion and an example of political doublespeak.
The government states its goals are lowering costs, raising student achievement standards to the highest in Canada and improving the quality of Ontario's educational system. As a teacher, how can I argue with the goal of continually trying to improve the quality of our educational system? I believe that most of the government proposals have much more to do with reducing costs than with quality education. As a parent, I ask you, how does eliminating thousands of teaching positions, which will be the end result of Bill 160, improve the quality of education?
As a member of the board of directors of the Sault and Area Hospitals, how can I believe you after what you have done to our area hospitals and health care?
I believe, as do teachers, that many of these changes are really about two issues: the loss of local accountability in favour of a massive transfer of power to Queen's Park and the extracting of a further $1 billion from Ontario's educational system to pay for the promised tax cut.
I ask you to answer us in clear and exact words. What level of funding will you guarantee for Ontario's students and when shall we hear of it? Will you reinvest any efficiency savings back into the education system or will it be similar to the promises made to our health care system? Being a member of the board of directors of the Sault and Area Hospitals, your government's much-promised reinvestment has not materialized. You asked me, as a board member, to trust you. We were reassured of future reinvestments. Well, where is it? How will decisions made at Queen's Park be better than those made by local school boards, classroom teachers and school councils?
Change is not new to the teaching profession. The Royal Commission on Learning, 1994, states: "Attempts to reform the system seem to go on non-stop.... The truth is that for decades schools have done nothing but change.... But real change, fundamental change, cannot occur without the enthusiastic participation of the teachers of this province."
I believe it is time for a reality check for this government. Instead of moving education in the direction of constructive and positive change, this government's entire approach has done little more than demoralize teachers and devalue their contributions to Ontario's students. That is the reality. Somehow this bill does not reassure me that anything will get better.
This portion of the presentation I'll turn over to my colleague Cheryl Fabbro, a classroom teacher. Cheryl will relate to you how this act will affect her on a daily basis.
Ms Fabbro: In 23 years as a classroom teacher I have never encountered such a threat to the very fabric of education as I have this year with the introduction of Bill 160.
Education was, is and always will be the "developing of the innate powers of the individual mind." As teachers and students spin into the 21st century with its information highways and technological advancements, at no other time in history has the education of young minds, indeed the education of the whole person, required the teamwork, the time and the expertise of qualified teachers, teachers who are one on one with students, delivering education not only in the classroom but also in the computer lab, the library, a conference room, the auditorium, the gym. It may be before the first bell in the morning, at lunchtime, during the teacher's preparation time or after school. In other words, teaching students today occurs at any given time, in any place, for any number of reasons and in any number of ways.
However, Bill 160 intends to take away the time, time that I have difficulty finding enough of in a day now, time that I need to keep abreast of the changes in educating young minds for the future.
Then there are those young people who, for any number of reasons, have difficulty learning. I need time for them. Never in 23 years of teaching have I seen more support staff and literature in our schools than I have in these past few years. Parents, alcohol and drug abuse counsellors, family services and attendance counsellors and children's aid society workers are just some of the people to whom I need to speak concerning my troubled students. There are safe schools policies, health and safety policies, emergency procedures, child abuse policies. There are more people to talk to and more issues to deal with. Bill 160 will not give me enough time to do what I must do for my students.
I need the support of my colleagues on staff. I need the support of my administration. Bill 160 tries to separate wherever it can. In taking control of teachers' seniority rights, the bill pits teacher against teacher, raises stress levels and demoralizes the entire profession. Besides, how does this attack on the seniority rights of teachers improve the quality of the education of our students? In fact, how do non-certified people. who according to the bill can be introduced into teaching positions, improve the quality of education over those teachers who not only have qualified degrees and are certified but who have also spent thousands of their own dollars taking additional courses so that they can be best trained to deliver education in today's fast-paced information age?
Don't insult me and my colleagues by telling us that we are North America's best teachers and then state that education in Ontario must improve. Don't pretend that cutting millions of dollars from education is going to make my students better learners. Don't insult my students by telling them they are not up to snuff with the rest of Canada. They can compete nationally and globally. Where was Roberta Bondar educated?
Bill 160 will not cultivate education in Ontario. It will not improve education. Rather it will stunt its growth and slow down the harvest. Thank you.
Mr Callegari: In conclusion, your government claims "putting students first" is a new goal. I also remember your government's goal in health care when you said the quality of health care for the people of this province will not diminish. As a member of the board of directors of the Sault and Area Hospitals, I say shame on you. You lied. Your treatment of health care is despicable.
As a teacher in this province, I state to you that I have always put the interests of students first. It is what teachers always do. How can I trust you when you ask us to accept the Education Quality Improvement Act? You are well down the road in making health care a two-tier service and now you are trying to create a two-tier educational system -- nothing more, nothing less.
That concludes our presentation. We'll answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. There really is no time for questions. You've got about 30 more seconds. Is there anything you'd like to add to your presentation here this morning?
Mr Callegari: No. I think we said it all.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this morning.
There will be a five-minute recess. We will reconvene at 10 after 11.
The committee recessed from 1103 to 1109.
The Chair: I have an announcement. Assuming there is no objection by any member of the committee, we can accede to Mr Martin's request that the students be heard at 4:30 as that time slot is not filled. We will proceed on that basis.
ALEX MUIR PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Alex Muir School Parent Advisory Council. Welcome and please proceed.
Ms Leslie Uhlig: My name is Leslie Uhlig. I am present and speaking on behalf of the parent advisory council of Alex Muir Public School. I wish to relay to the committee some of the concerns which we parents have with respect to Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act. We fail to understand how it will be possible to give students more time in contact with teachers if there will be a loss of 10,000 teachers across the province. Similarly, we also fail to understand how further cuts to the education budget for the province of Ontario will help to improve the quality of education in Ontario.
I might add that the newsletter which the government sent out to us, which stated that there would be the same funding for education in 1997-98 as there was in 1996-97, seems to be patently false since another $667 million is going to be taken out of it. These additional cuts are currently estimated to total $1 billion. We have all seen how much less the health care industry is capable of doing as a result of funding cuts. Proposing to do more for education with less money and fewer teachers does not add up; in fact it seems to be an oxymoron.
Mr Harris seems to be fond of comparing Ontario's elementary students to students from other countries in order to illustrate the need for educational improvement. He has neglected to mention, however, that he is essentially comparing apples to oranges. The foreign students he uses in his statistics have been culled from a streamed, university-bound subset of those countries' student population. On the other hand, the Ontario students' results used for this comparison came from the entire non-streamed population of elementary students. Ontario does not stream students before grade 9.
This unfair comparison seems intended to shame our educational system and the teachers within it. Is this really setting a good example to our students? Is this going to help to improve the morale of our teachers? Does Mr Harris feel that by reviling Ontario teachers he will improve either the morale or the confidence of students across the province? In fact his continued insistence that he cannot "trust" the teachers and school boards to administer a quality education to students in this province is arrogant, inflammatory, derogatory and perhaps even libellous. As a parent who feels that my own children, both of whom are currently in elementary school and one of whom is present here today, are getting an excellent education, I feel it is Mr Harris that I cannot trust, not the teachers. After all, he repeatedly assured voters that he would not cut funding to education or health. We have seen the veracity and quality of Mr Harris's promises.
The transfer of power outlined in Bill 160 will give the provincial government -- behind closed doors, as Mr Wildman stated -- rather than the school boards the ability to regulate class sizes. As a parent, I feel this is an undesirable change. At no time has Mr Harris, Mr Snobelen or Mr Johnson specifically stated what limiting class size actually means. Does this mean that all classrooms in Ontario will now contain 35 or 40 students? This would be an increase in class size for many, many classrooms. It seems that since 10,000 teachers will be cut from the system over the next year or two, it will not be physically possible to limit the class size to 18 to 23 students per class, even though that is what might be considered beneficial.
Over the last decade, several extensive and rigorously scientific studies of the benefits of small class size have been done. One example of such a study occurred in Tennessee, the student-teacher achievement ratio or STAR study. Charles Achilles, a professor of educational administration at Eastern Michigan University, was one of the investigators in this study. He found that for students in grades JK to 3 a ratio of one teacher to 15 students, as opposed to a 1-to-25 ratio that was closer to the norm in most schools, provided the following benefits: higher test scores were obtained by students; students participated more in school; students demonstrated improved behaviour. Many of the above benefits were also retained well into the later years of schooling.
It seems that Mr Harris has not investigated any of these types of studies before making his pronouncement that through Bill 160 his government would now take on the responsibility of determining class size. He has not stated clearly what the size of classes will be nor whether they will be subject to continual change. This ambiguity is causing a great deal of suspicion on the part of parents.
Bill 160 will also give the Minister of Finance control of the educational portion of our property tax bill. The stated goal is to provide fair and non-discriminatory funding of education, yet there is absolutely no clear information given by the government regarding how this change will be instituted. Will our property taxes go up significantly? Will our property taxes, as ratepayers in Sault Ste Marie, be affected by the desire of a school in Toronto to provide a computer for every student? Will our taxes go up due to the wishes of a school in Ottawa to have a school band? Might they increase because a school in Thunder Bay needs a new gym floor? Local needs cannot be assessed or met by an absentee landlord. In effect, by centralizing the control of educational taxes in Toronto behind closed doors, the government is proposing to become just that: an absentee landlord.
Bill 160 also proposes to give the provincial government the power to determine the length of the school year. Initially Mr Snobelen proposed that the school year be increased, specifically during the summer months. I am a parent of two students who will be facing increasingly high costs for post-secondary education. I am also a post-secondary educator, so I know whereof I speak. To parents it is imperative that the current break for the months of July and August be maintained. This will allow students to obtain employment for as long a term as possible during the summer months in order to save towards the future costs of their post-secondary education. It also seems entirely contradictory of Mr Harris to propose an increase in the length of each and every school year, implying that the students need more instruction, while concurrently eliminating an entire year of instruction at the OAC level. This strikes us as yet another oxymoron.
Bill 160 contains changes to the former Education Act that will also allow the government to arbitrarily set the amount of non-instructional time provided to teachers. The emphasis seems to be on reducing the amount of preparation time allotted. We feel this is also a negative change. As a post-secondary educator myself, I know that it is essential to be given an adequate amount of time spent outside of the classroom, preparing to do an effective job inside the classroom. Setting curricula, contacting colleagues and/or parents, volunteering to coach sports teams or head up special interest clubs, grading, filling out report cards, these are some of the activities for which teachers require preparation time.
All of these activities are defined as non-instructional. However, can any parent question the benefits of their child receiving instruction for the playing of a sport or in the endeavours of an environmental or math or chess club etc? Without the willing cooperation of teachers, many of these enriching experiences will become completely unavailable to our children. Any reduction in the amount of non-instructional time currently given will also negatively impact a teacher's ability to do their in-class job effectively. This in turn will certainly have a negative impact on the education received by students. This hardly qualifies as an education quality improvement.
Another worrisome aspect of Bill 160 is the government's intention to use instructors who are not specifically qualified as teachers. Although many of us have special skills that may make us recognized as experts within that field, only fully trained, certified teachers are experts in teaching. Knowing or having a skill and being able to pass it on to others effectively are two completely different talents.
The Chair: Excuse me, there is only one minute left.
Ms Uhlig: It is not enough to have one without the other. Many teachers use the time outside the classroom to upgrade their own skills, both as instructors and as experts in a particular skill or topic. Diluting the quality of our teaching staff by replacing certified teachers with persons lacking these credentials will definitely have a negative impact on our children's education. It seems that this change has been proposed mostly in the interests of cost-cutting. Therefore it is difficult to imagine how an improvement in our educational quality can be an outcome of this strategy.
The government's own summary of Bill 160 states that the Education Quality Improvement Act is needed to empower the new boards. We fail to see how this bill is achieving the above-stated goal since most of the powers of the former boards to negotiate various aspects of the conditions of work and pay for teachers within those boards will be repealed. This gives the boards less empowerment, not more.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mr Harris claims he is committed to improving the quality of our children's education. If so, he will not simply dismiss our objections to the sweeping changes encompassed by Bill 160 with the same arrogance that he has shown to the people of Ontario recently in repeated statements by himself that he does not care about demonstrations made in opposition to his policies; instead he will honour our own commitment as partners in our children's education by responding honestly to our concerns.
The Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation here this morning.
1120
LESLIE CASSIDY-AMADIO
The Chair: Leslie Cassidy-Amadio.
Mrs Leslie Cassidy-Amadio: I had to bring my children with me. I should introduce myself. I am Leslie Cassidy-Amadio and I'm a parent. As you see, I have currently six children in the education system.
First and foremost, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill 160. I had been hesitant about speaking on this bill because of my friends and family members who are teachers. I certainly did not want to hurt any of them with something I might say, but after a lot of thought, the one element I kept focusing on was the children, and once I focused on the children, it became easier to speak about this bill. I feel the children should be the number one priority of Bill 160.
I have six children in the education system, an education system that is in definite need of reform. I have read about the government's proposed changes and agree with most, but with all due respect, I would like to offer some suggestions, ask some questions and state a few concerns.
I think standardizing the curriculum, report cards and testing across the province is a great idea, especially the back-to-basics curriculum plan. I would like to see simple tools such as phonics and multiplication tables reinstated.
With regard to increasing class time for students, I would like to see the elimination of professional activity days during the school calendar. These days are beneficial for the teachers, but our children are losing class time. If I may suggest, they may be taken in August, thus answering both concerns.
I welcome the government's idea with regard to non-teacher instructors in certain areas such as library, guidance, music, coaching etc, as long as the instructor has experience or training in dealing with children. I feel the students will be richer for this. Who is to say an individual is more qualified to be a teacher just because they have a certificate and another individual without a certificate is unqualified to teach? I would like to see teachers more accountable, because even with a certificate, some individuals should not be allowed to teach.
I agree with equal opportunity for each student across the province. I do have a concern with its being based on funding on a per pupil basis. For example, if computers are needed as part of the curriculum, it is going to cost the same whether you have 50 students or 500 students. On a per-pupil-based funding, the 500-student school will receive more money. Therefore schools here or further north will be shortchanged in comparison to southern Ontario. The government must not ignore the unique and special circumstances of northern Ontario schools in comparison to southern Ontario schools.
Bill 160 states limiting class size, which in theory sounds great and is much needed. I am, however, greatly concerned that no number has been stated. If it is 40, which I personally feel is too large, does this mean that current classes of lesser size will be increased?
I have a concern with the government giving parent councils too much responsibility in decision-making. The government must remember that these individuals are volunteers, some of whom have neither the expertise nor the resources to properly deal with such decisions. In all practicality, how is a parent council from a small, remote community going to be heard at Queen's Park?
I would like to see teachers allowed to retire earlier with a secured pension. This would open the door for new teachers to step in, bringing along with them their energetic ideas.
With preparation time being a contentious issue, the main concern I have is teachers using important class time to make up for lost preparation time.
I agree that school boards should not be in the taxing business. Some have proven to be irresponsible in their spending, so much so that our schools cannot afford simple supplies such as glue. I am concerned about total power going to the government. What if the present government is not re-elected? Assuming we can entrust this government with our children's education, what assurance do we have that we can trust the next?
Having said this, I would like to state that I feel it is wise to remove decision-making powers about education from the unions. They are too self-serving. I am appalled that my children are being used as pawns in this power struggle, which is a sound reason why teachers should not be allowed to strike. The children are the ones who will suffer.
There are many good teachers -- my children have been lucky to have great ones -- and I truly believe that the majority of teachers have their hearts in their profession. I am concerned that these individuals are being demoralized because of lack of communication, or miscommunication, and political manoeuvring.
There are many points of the bill I have not mentioned. I have placed my trust and the future of my six children in the government's hands. I hope and pray it will do what is fair and right. I ask that the government stand firm and not back down from beneficial changes to the education system, but that it also remember that the quality of education in this province should not be up for sale. We, the public, have voted this government into office and hold you accountable. If this trust is broken, the public can answer it at the next election.
On a final note, I would like to stress that everyone should remember that the quality of education should be paramount and financial considerations secondary, because our children are the future. Thank you.
The Chair: We have one minute per caucus and we'll start off with the opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: Mrs Amadio, thank you very much for your presentation and thank you to the kids for being very, very, very attentive during your mother's presentation. I respect your opinion. I would just ask a few questions of you in the one minute I have. One, are you in favour of this government taking $667 million more out of education? Second, do you realize that if the government withdraws this money, plus the $553 million it has already withdrawn, the chances of junior kindergarten in most boards will not be possible?
Mrs Cassidy-Amadio: With junior kindergarten, I would have preferred that it was not even in place, because I would like to have my children home longer. Once they enter the school system, they're gone. The time just flies by.
With regard to taking additional moneys out of the educational system, what the government has not stated is how they are going to take this money out. The school boards take off more at the top, where we have too many administrators, with assistants and secretaries and high salaries in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars. How is that benefiting our children? If that is where they're going to cut out the moneys, then, no, I do not have a problem with that. But yes, if they're going to take the moneys out where it's directly going to affect the children in the classroom, then I do have a problem with that. But they have not stated that.
Mr Wildman: Thank you, Leslie, for your presentation. It was very balanced. I note particularly your concern about not having numbers about class size, which I think is very important, and your concern about the changes to prep time and what it might mean in terms of how the class time is used.
I just want to point out to you that the government has indicated that restructuring of school boards and cutting administrative costs will save about $150 million out of the total amount spent per year in education in Ontario of $14 billion. That works out to about 1% on those high administrative salaries.
My question is really related to the comments you made right on the last page where you said the government must remember that the quality of education in this province should not be "up for sale," and your concern about control of education by the government and what could happen because that education is controlled at Queen's Park. You say financial considerations should be secondary. What exactly did you mean by that?
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Wildman, your one minute is up.
Mr Beaubien: Mrs Amadio, first of all, I'd like to commend you for having the guts to speak today. Kids, you should be proud of your mother. I think in your presentation, when you mention that you kept focusing on your kids -- I don't have a question; I just have a statement to make -- it is quite obvious that in your presentation in regard to Bill 160 you certainly focus on the kids. I commend you for that. I think your input in this presentation is important and I'm sure many of us will take it into consideration because there's valuable information, and I admire you for being so objective in the way you looked at Bill 160.
The Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation here along with your children.
1130
SAULT STE MARIE WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presentation is Sault Ste Marie Women Teachers' Association, Loretta Harrison. Good morning and welcome.
Ms Loretta Harrison: Thank you very much. I'm so pleased to be speaking after another mother.
The Sault Ste Marie Women Teachers' Association represents approximately 300 women who teach children in the public elementary schools in this city. We take pride in the partnerships we have with parents, children, school support staff and community agencies to provide a high-quality, publicly funded education for all the children in this community. We want to be in our classrooms today. We want to be there with the necessary resources to maintain the high-quality programs that the people in Sault Ste Marie call "Excellence in Action." That's where we want to be.
How is Bill 160 going to affect the quality of education in this city? It will mean a limited ability to continue to provide high-quality education, loss of our local voice and change without a plan, without partners and without money.
Bill 160 will severely limit Sault Ste Marie schools in their ability to provide quality education tailored to the needs of the children in Sault Ste Marie. Trustees, the duly elected representatives of the people in this community, will have no power to translate ministry guidelines and local concerns into viable local practices because they won't have the power to tax. Bill 160 will dictate funding priorities at the local level.
Sault Ste Marie has been a leader in special education programming. The primary intervention program offers alternative and intensive reading instruction for children at risk in the primary grades. With reduced funding and an inability to set local tax rates, we will be forced to make difficult choices at the expense of award-winning programs like this one, at the expense of our children and at the expense of quality education.
Can Queen's Park answer to the people in Sault Ste Marie how funding can be cut and still offer innovative programs which meet the needs of this community? Bill 160 centralizes all the power over children, schools, teachers and financing, placing absolute control in the hands of the cabinet. Bill 160 proposes that the methods of school funding and the education tax will be decreed, not debated in a public forum, neither at local levels by elected school boards nor by the provincially elected representatives. Bill 160 castrates the taxpayer, the Legislature, the school boards, the teachers and leaves in its wake a dismantled system.
Education in Ontario has always been about partnerships, within a democracy which recognized the legitimacy of all the voices -- the children, the parents, the taxpayers, the boards, and yes, the ministry. Bill 160 is about the unilateral dissolution of these partnerships, partnerships which have created many quality programs in Sault Ste Marie.
The Algoma Fall Festival is a collaboration with the local arts community, local businesses and boards of education to bring arts and culture not only into this northern community but also into our schools. The Lake Superior basin project, an award-winning innovative project, is an example of another partnership forged locally.
These partnerships which exemplify quality in education will be at risk without strong local voices. How can Queen's Park make decisions without including all the partners? The centralizing of power and the removal of local accountability intended in Bill 160 will further isolate the parents and the children in Sault Ste Marie.
Who is a parent in Sault Ste Marie, Heyden, Searchmont or Batchawana going to call if they have a concern about funding when trustees have been reduced in number and are spread over a large geographical area? Will parents and taxpayers be forced to air their concerns through another 1-800 number? We're getting very good at 1-800 numbers.
Bill 160 thrusts change upon the education system with no consultation. This cannot be considered accountable. The mission statement of Bill 160 indicates that it is "an act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability."
With partnerships denied, where is the enhancement of accountability? Where are the checks and balances inherent in democracy to ensure the children in Sault Ste Marie will receive adequate programs and funding when only the cabinet will make monetary decisions? How will the cabinet be accountable to the public when so many decisions will be made with regulations and not debated in the Legislature?
We have received no assurance from our provincial government that savings achieved through reform will go to the improvement of our system. Cutting the cost of education has already had damaging effects in Sault Ste Marie.
Over the last two and a half years we have seen junior kindergarten programs compromised, loss of support staff, larger class sizes, diminished programs in libraries, music and adult education, and the loss of programs and services for students with special needs.
Cutting more money from our education system, whether it be $1 billion or $667 million, will not improve the quality of education. Our students deserve resources, programs and qualified teachers. Our students deserve the best. That's what they're used to.
The Chair: One minute left.
Ms Harrison: Look at the ad found in the Sault Star on Saturday. This ad implied that Bill 160, also known as the Education Quality Improvement Act, is a reform that will give more teacher time with students, understandable report cards, an end to larger classes, province-wide testing, more parental involvement, and a back-to-basics. Four of these elements of reform have already been implemented in this city. The remaining two elements, more teacher time with students and an end to larger classes, are not ensured in Bill 160. Bill 160 will result in less time and less individual attention for students.
We say that Bill 160 has no plan to ensure quality education. Teachers have learned to plan for change. The best reforms come when we plan with partners, with a realistic timeline, with a clear vision, and adequate resources.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms Harrison. Your time has elapsed. I thank you very much on behalf of the committee for your presentation here this morning.
1140
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I have a request of the parliamentary assistant, please. Since the ad that was just referenced is one which seems to be running on an almost daily basis concurrently with our hearings and putting out a message that I think has some relationship to the hearings, I think it's appropriate to ask the parliamentary assistant to provide the committee with information as to the daily cost of running that ad.
I know that in seven communities that we were able to investigate, the daily cost for that ad in seven communities was over $93,000 a day. I would be interested in knowing the total cost on a daily basis that the government is putting into its efforts to communicate a message to the public --
The Chair: Thank you, Ms McLeod.
COMMUNITY LIVING ALGOMA
The Chair: Our next presenter is Community Living Algoma, Don Edwards.
Mr Don Edwards: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and welcome to the committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to bring some of our concerns to you about the proposed Bill 160. My name is Don Edwards. I am a volunteer member of the board of directors of Community Living Algoma and serve as chairman of the education committee. With me is Janice Martineau, the executive assistant of Community Living Algoma who is assigned to the education committee.
We are an association that provides services and supports to people with a development disability across the district of Algoma. Our education committee has community members from north Algoma, east Algoma and central Algoma as well as members from the city of Sault Ste Marie.
We would like to share our concerns with you about some problems we can foresee with some parts of Bill 160. The package we have supplied to you contains documents of our concerns. These documents have been expressed to the local education improvement committee, our three area MPPs and chairs and superintendents of all boards, both public and separate, across the district of Algoma.
Six public boards are being combined into one public board and five separate boards are being combined into one separate board. The vast geographic areas involved will present probably the biggest obstacle when we consider services to the students we serve who have a development disability or, sometimes, several disabilities.
I will try to highlight the problems contained within our documents without reading those documents to you.
The Sault Ste Marie public school board budget figures for special education programs last year are contained to show the committee that this board spends approximately $6 million on special needs students with approximately $4 million coming from local property taxes and approximately $2 million from provincial grants.
Bill 160 will remove the rights from trustees to raise money from local property taxes. Will this government guarantee that the total of $6 million that is needed will be supplied in the future to maintain these much-needed programs?
The present Education Act calls for special ed advisory councils for all school boards. With combining six boards across the district of Algoma, will there be only one special ed advisory council? With only one SEAC spread across such a vast area, the problems of just attending meetings could be insurmountable.
Our present Sault Ste Marie Board of Education SEAC, which I am most familiar with, has volunteer representatives from 10 or 12 agencies, such as the blind, the hard of hearing, the learning-disabled, the gifted, just to name a few. A combined SEAC of six boards will not have representation from many agencies in the district of Algoma who can express the need for services for many of their clients who are unable to represent themselves. This will be a tragic loss.
Since this government has already chosen to make funding cuts to local boards, there has been a significant impact on existing special ed programs. Our documents contain testimonials from parents and students who verify the impacts of those cuts. If these cuts continue, our special needs students will suffer even more.
As an agency concerned about special needs students, we are concerned that the quality staff and teachers who are presently being used in their programs will be eroded if Bill 160 allows unqualified teachers to be used. We suggest that our students need the highest quality of skills that can be obtained and we believe the qualified teachers have those skills.
We believe that teachers of special needs students require extra time to plan and develop their work to adequately educate our clients. We wonder how less preparation time can assist these people, as suggested in Bill 160.
We believe in equality of education across Ontario but we have to ask how services across such a large geographic area as the district of Algoma can reach the desired equality for all students and especially students with special needs. We are certain that many students in remote places like Chapleau and Hornepayne will not get equal programs, for example, as to what the Sault gets.
Bill 160 talks about equalized funding, but we would like to point out to you that special needs programs, by their very nature, require extra funds to support these programs. We want a guarantee written into Bill 160 that sufficient extra funds will be made available to support these special needs programs.
We believe there is a role for non-teaching professionals to assist in the identification of those with special needs so that these students can get remedial help. Bill 160 indicates that non-teaching staff are not part of classroom services, but we maintain that these non-teaching services are vital to those with special needs, and cutting back in this area will harm those who need it most.
We believe there needs to be some regulation of class sizes, as indicated in Bill 160, but we want to remind the committee members that a student with special needs cannot merely be counted as just another student, because teachers need to spend more time with these students and numbers have to be different when a class contains several students who need extra help.
We believe that the best results in education will be attained when the government and education experts such as teachers can agree on working together to help all students, and confrontational clauses contained within Bill 160 should be modified to obtain the support of these experts so that all of the education system can move forward to give Ontario students, including those students with special needs, the best education possible. Only then will Ontario become the best in the country in education results.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to present our views and opinions to you, and we wish you well in your endeavours to put all our students at the head of the class.
Mr Martin: Thank you very much. You make the point at the end, "put all our students at the head of the class." One of the concerns that certainly I have, and others who have looked at the track record and the intention of this government have, is that all our students won't be at the head of the class. There may be a small number of very gifted, élite students who will make it, primarily on their own, but so many other students that we in Ontario have chosen very deliberately to educate and to put in place for them those special supports that are necessary may fall by the way.
To ensure that doesn't happen, and in light of Bill 160, what would be the primary recommendation you would make that they do or not do to leave you less anxious this morning?
Mr Edwards: First of all, we agree that we cannot get equal education, because there's no way that people in northern Ontario can get the same education they can in southern Ontario. The facilities just aren't here. But in terms of special needs students, more money has to be put into the special needs programs because it requires more help. It requires aid sometimes. It requires extra teachers and more planning. You can't remove that type of thing -- fewer aides, less planning -- and get the desired results to educate the special needs students, who will fall through the cracks if they don't get the supports.
1150
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. I was particularly interested in your comments around SEAC and your concerns regarding geography. I fully understand that. The bill allows, as you've clearly indicated, the ability to establish regulations governing SEACs. I would welcome any comments you have stemming from page 39 of the bill, which deals with issues of composition, establishment, practice and procedures, so that we as a ministry have a clear understanding of the concerns you are fearful of.
Mr Edwards: Someone who represents the learning-disabled in Hornepayne, just by the nature of the distance, will not be able to come to Sault Ste Marie, especially in the wintertime. If they serve on a SEAC, some method has to be produced so these people can participate and offer their advisory counsel to this board. I don't know how that's going to be done. Certainly, there's a lack of communication. We have already told the government that we need more communication so these people can participate.
Mrs McLeod: I want to focus for a minute on some of the inherent dangers in the regulation of class size if it is done without adequate funding. I know one of the concerns obviously is that the boards would be mandated to provide the average class size, but without funding that would mean there might not be any support personnel for special ed students within an integrated class, or any withdrawal opportunities. The government has said there will be no new dollars for 25,000 new students a year who are coming into the system, and on top of that the clear intent is to take $667 million out. What does that do to special education in the Sault?
Mr Edwards: Special education has to suffer. There have to be more children identified. We haven't identified all the children who have special needs. We certainly have to have more. If one classroom has, say, six or seven special needs students, the other 18 or 20 who are in that classroom are going to suffer because the teacher has to spend more time with the special needs students.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Edwards, for your presentation here this morning.
LORNE CARTER
The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Lorne Carter. Welcome, Mr Carter. I believe members of the committee have a written presentation by Mr Carter.
Mr Lorne Carter: I'm a citizen of Sault Ste Marie, a parent with children within the system currently. I have had a fair amount of exposure over the last 20-some years to our education process, having been involved in bits and pieces of it in different capacities, one being a past school board trustee.
Effectively implementing efficiencies in our systems should be the focus of every Ontarian, not just of the government. Things are broken, in a mature state or not in tune with the times. We in Ontario have to break out of our paradigms. We need to get constructive, be our best critics and do away with the attitude that, "We need changes, but not in my backyard." The education system is no different, and in an ever-changing economy it should be the first place for change.
Picture this if you will: a time in the past when Ontario had an education system which was the benchmark for all others, an accountable standard here in North America and very definitely meeting the needs of a growing economy. What happened to those Utopian times when a quality education was a given?
I dare say we have taken our system for granted. We have allowed our system to fall into decay and to accept an education that isn't even second-best.
We have taken the first steps to correcting, and this means change, unfortunately a lot of change.
The move in previous bills to overhaul the centre of our mediocre educational thinking, that being the school board restructuring, was in my estimation a giant step in the right direction. Let me say this: I'm not 100% sure the new system of representation is the answer, and we may still in years to come have to massage and modify that structure, but I do know that something that is accountable has to be better than what we have at present.
Now more specifically to the issues of the hearing: The commitment by my government is to have the highest student achievement in Canada. Nothing I can say can be more noble than that, and in tune with the future. You, the people of our Legislature, have been empowered to make the changes necessary to bring us closer to our goals. I can't emphasize enough that these also have to be our goals as citizens and teachers.
We need reforms that address standardized province-wide curriculum, staged testing and reporting. In private industry we would not stand for 60-some divisions all moving in different directions, so why would we allow our most sacred institution, education, to be so ill-structured?
We need a four-year high school program consistent with the standards elsewhere in Canada and the rest of the world. We place our students at a disadvantage, insisting on another year of schooling, only to move on to post-secondary training matched up with those of other realms on the same level. Where is the sense in that?
We need a school year and instruction time that meet the needs of students. Schools are here to meet the needs of students, and if more time is required for us to meet our achievement goals, then so be it.
We need to expose our students to the innovators and professionals of our society, for they are the ones who embrace change, whether certified or not. I want my children exposed to people like John Snobelen. They make a valuable contribution to our society, regardless of educational backgrounds. Whether certified or not, they are the doers.
We need regulated class sizes and funding based on student needs, not work days. The ways of old are under review and change is inevitable. Let's embrace the new century with new ways and a fresh approach.
We need input from the parents and community to help our school managers with feedback directly from those who are directly affected. In the past we elected school boards because we knew the system had to have community direction. Somewhere on the journey they lost the way; somewhere our voices, as parents and community, fell short of the mark. Bill 160 addresses these fundamental needs and more.
In closing, I want to clearly point out that change is needed if we are to meet the challenges of today, and it is our absolute responsibility to not pass on an inept and unaccountable education system, because the challenges of tomorrow are far greater than today.
Thank you again for this opportunity to take part in the debate on these changes in Ontario. I wish you well in your due diligence.
Mr Bartolucci: Thanks, Mr Carter, for your presentation. Though we don't agree, I certainly respect your right to voice your opinion. Could you please explain to the audience and to the committee what you feel will happen when $667 million is withdrawn from the education system?
Mr Carter: I can only accept the fact that you have some particular numerals, as you've spoken of there.
Mr Bartolucci: Mike Harris said it.
Mr Carter: Thank you very much for the information.
Mr Bartolucci: What do you think will be the result of withdrawing $667 million from the education system of Ontario?
Mr Carter: In restructuring our education system, we should actually focus on what needs to be done and not necessarily on the dollar amounts. The dollar amounts will follow if we determine that we need this or that within the particular system.
Mr Bartolucci: Who said that? Because no one in the government is saying that. Bill 160 certainly doesn't say that. Where are you getting your information?
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bartolucci, your time is up. We go to Mr Martin.
1200
Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Lorne, for your presentation. You certainly this morning make quite a judgement on the effort of -- I think in your last comment you said teachers, parents and the community fell short of the mark. We've all, in your opinion, failed in our effort to try and maintain a first-class education system, but this morning you're saying, because we've all failed, to turn this over to John Snobelen, Mike Harris and the present government at Queen's Park. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Carter: I'm saying that we elect governments, as we've elected you, to act on our behalf. You have a whole pile of portfolios that you obviously take care of. I am of the firm opinion that if I elect you to do the job, then I want you to do the job and I'm not going to get in your face all the time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carter, for your presentation here today.
Members of the committee, if the checkout time is 1 o'clock, you can bring your bags down here if you get an opportunity because we're going to have a very abbreviated lunch hour today.
Mr Beaubien: How abbreviated?
The Chair: It's going to be just over a half-hour at best. We have made arrangements for seating you in the dining room for that half-hour.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Will there not be some discussion of the length of time that we have?
The Chair: Yes, if you wish to raise it now. We are past 12 o'clock, which the motion of this committee states is the termination time this morning.
Mr Wettlaufer: I feel that the motions that were brought this morning were done for rhetorical purposes only. I feel that the members of the committee who brought those motions knew full well what the effects were, that there would be a delay in time and that it would cause a restriction in the amount of time that the delegations would have to present, and they did so in order to embarrass the government. I personally feel that we do need a minimum of 45 minutes, preferably an hour, in order to have time to check out and to have our meal.
The Chair: We can debate this one too, but we do have five presentations slated before our lunch-hour.
Mr Bartolucci: I don't want to prolong the argument, but I can't believe that anyone would suggest that filling their stomach is more important than filling their heads when it comes to the importance that should be attached to Bill 160. I would suggest to you that we continue working through the entire lunch-hour. If anyone is going to be so famished that they may starve to death, we might want to get some food to that individual or those individuals. I'm prepared to stay here and listen to the list of presenters and anybody else who wants to be heard.
I suggest that the motions that were presented this morning may have hastened the return of the students to the classrooms of Ontario. They weren't done for any political gain.
I suggest to you that 45 minutes or one hour can best be used listening to what the public has to say, either pro or con, as opposed to eating our lunch. I suggest to the committee that you disband the resolution, not follow it today and listen to the presenters.
Mr Beaubien: Mr Chairman, I'll move that we break at 12:50 and come back at 1:30. That'll give us 40 minutes for lunch and I think that is adequate, reasonable. That's more than half of our time that's allocated for lunch. I don't think we need an hour and a half today. I somewhat agree with Mr Bartolucci. However, Mr Bartolucci, I would like to point out to you that I'm concerned about my health and I like to eat in the morning, in the afternoon and at suppertime. If I'm requesting 30 minutes to eat, I don't think that's unreasonable, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: We can bring you the food.
Mr Beaubien: Plus the fact we have to check out.
The Chair: What was that, 12:50?
Mr Beaubien: Yes.
The Chair: Is there any disagreement with that? We can debate it. We're just debating into time of our presenters.
Mr Bartolucci: I am just disagreeing. You asked for any disagreement. I disagree.
Mr Martin: I just think that we should hear these people. They've come a long way. This is part of the process of being government. When you take this job --
Interjection.
Mr Martin: Could I have my time, Marcel? I listened to you. When you take this job on, it comes with the territory. We have some people who have come a long way, have worked very hard in preparing presentations. We'd like to hear them.
Mrs McLeod: I hope we will sit until we have heard all the presenters. If we don't debate it much longer, we would be able to hear them all and I think still have the time to meet our needs for sustenance. I am concerned, quite frankly, about the health of my daughter who's six months pregnant and on a picket line in a blizzard today. I'd like to hear from the public who have concerns about this bill.
Mr Beaubien: I suggest 12:50. We are five presenters behind. If we vote on it immediately, I think we can hear the five presenters we are behind during that time period.
The Chair: The motion was that we sit till 12:50. All those in favour? All those against? The motion carries so 12:50 is the termination time.
BAWATING COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
The Chair: Bawating high school, Vincent Greco, principal.
Mr Vincent Greco: I'm vice-principal at Bawating, not principal, but thank you for the promotion.
I'd like to thank the committee for being offered the opportunity to address you today. I've been a teacher since 1966 and for the last 12 years I've been a secondary school vice-principal. Throughout my career, I've been concerned with being able to offer education of a very high quality to the learners of Ontario. I have chaired the research committee of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and I've served as president of the Ontario Educational Research Council.
There are many issues in education today, and there always have been. There is room for improvement, and there always will be. Undoubtedly it is a function of a responsible society and a responsible government to be attentive to the needs of students and the character of the educational system. However, it is critical that the decisions made and the approaches taken be determined with integrity and honesty. Good education, not the priorities of politics or business or any other interest, must be the sincere end of all our effort and deliberation.
I have deep concerns and fears with respect to Bill 160. The first is rooted in the very nature of the legislation. Ours is a democratic society. While governments are elected to govern, to legislate, the expectation is that the principles of democracy will be preserved and respected. Bill 160 moves deliberately and dangerously away from those ideals by vesting in the Minister of Education the power to put into law changes in education regulations without debate and without appeal. Whether those decisions are good or bad is irrelevant. There are no checks; there is no balance. The potential for abuse is enormous.
With regard to education, Bill 160 legitimizes a totalitarian approach in government. We cannot risk having any political group, simply on the basis of being elected, free to change and enact law independent of legitimate public debate, most especially in our elected assembly. It has been said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bill 160 gives the ministers power far, far beyond the healthy limits good government requires.
I have also been frustrated by the absence of fair and deep analysis regarding the impact of this legislation. The issue of prep time is a good example. That secondary teachers in a semestered school teach for three and three quarter hours a day is true. How that compares with the national average for secondary teachers can be considered, but to blithely presume that cutting prep time and having teachers spend more time in the classroom will bear positive results is simplistic at best. To suggest that the teacher would automatically be spending more time with his or her students is misleading and perhaps dishonest, because unless classes, already an hour and 15 minutes long, are extended, the teacher would be spending that additional time with more students, not with the students in the three classes they currently instruct. If this is the case, the reduction in prep time would result in teachers teaching more classes, having more preparation and marking and having less time to prepare for it. Will this improve the quality of education?
1210
There can be other scenarios, but they could easily require a major overhaul of the way our schools are organized. The impact of Bill 160 is largely unknown because it has not been analysed in any thorough or thoughtful manner. We should not be proceeding with legislation as controversial as this when we really don't have a fully fleshed-out understanding of its consequences. Do the claims made by the government stand up to analysis? How can we know, when that analysis has not been made, or if made, not disclosed?
The need for Bill 160 has been cultivated by the government largely by claiming that our students have not been performing well on national and international tests. There are serious issues with the manner in which the government has manipulated data from these tests, as the Alex Muir school parents' association pointed out earlier today.
For example, in the pamphlet Putting Kids First the government only reports the province's standing to the extent it suits its purposes, cutting off the balance of the chart which shows that Ontario students finished ahead of students in 27 other countries or provinces, including the United States, Great Britain and Germany. As far as our finishing behind provinces like British Columbia goes, there are legitimate explanations for this, having to do with the construction of the tests and with the nature of our curriculum, which stresses problem-solving rather than strictly content. We believe this approach makes our students better learners and that the content aspect is addressed later in our schools. Our students don't study linear equations in grade 8, yet they were on the tests. We study that in grade 9. That can be changed, but let's understand what we'd dealing with.
Dr David Ireland, a respected educational researcher in Ottawa, has studied the results, and before we condemn our teachers, our students and our system, we should consider his findings seriously. We have far more to be pleased with than we do to be ashamed of. Honest government does not distort information to justify its initiatives, and honest government would not proceed with legislation the efficacy of which is so suspect, based as it is on distortion.
The Premier, admitting his decision to remove another $600 million and more from education, vaguely indicates an intention to "do more with less." Before we give him the carte blanche of ultimate power this bill provides, we need clear and direct specifics of just how this miracle will be accomplished. When we see the reduction in special education services and in support services such as school libraries that have already been made in response to the last round of educational cuts, or the increase in class sizes that have been agreed to in some jurisdictions to protect program in the face of these cuts, we must demand that the government be accountable in the legislation it proposes before we can put our students' futures into further jeopardy.
If we are all committed truly to better education in Ontario, we should be able to withdraw this bill and find a more reasoned solution. Perhaps an independent panel of educational experts could be given the task to develop a new educational model for our province, top to bottom, one that applies the best principles of pedagogy and learning, one that recognizes how the pieces will all fit, one that has a clear conception of how students graduating from our schools will be truly prepared to handle the future in an informed, creative and competent fashion and one for which all the costs are known and for which, as a people, we are prepared to pay the price. If it's worth doing, and it is, it's worth doing right.
The poet William Stafford wrote in A Ritual To Read To Each Other that it's important that "Awake people be awake: the darkness around us is deep."
Last week, Premier Harris invited teachers to defy their union leaders and not to go on strike. I would respectfully invite the committee to be awake, to show courage and true common sense by defying Mike Harris. Please recommend that Bill 160 be withdrawn and reconsidered. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins): Thank you very much. You have exhausted your time.
HOWARD WHENT
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter will be Howard Whent.
Mr Howard Whent: Thank you very much. I know the rules. I believe you have two documents; one is a copy of the brief and then there's a yellow sheet.
My name is Howard Whent. I'm from the town of Wawa. I'm a parent, taxpayer and educator, and I have two kids in the system. I was at the Bill 104 hearings in Thunder Bay, did it at my own expense, and here I am again.
On April 11, I sent a letter to every member of the Conservative caucus; you all got one. In particular, I was incensed at the now minister's, then government House leader's, comments to pass any bill without amendment. I don't know if that's what's happening now or not. A number of your colleagues personally responded and I appreciated that.
I also want to publicly acknowledge that the former Minister of Education, Mr Snobelen, answered almost every letter I wrote to him. The present Minister of Education has never done so. But I think it's like a play; we've got to go backwards to Bill 104. The news release of April 21 sent to me by the Premier said, "The intent of Ontario's Fewer School Boards Act is to reduce the number of major school boards and trustees and streamline administrative overhead to ensure," and I'll repeat, "to ensure more resources are focused on the classroom."
Let's continue on. Bill 104 got passed. All of a sudden its reference totally disappeared. We now have the term "adequate funding."
September and meetings with the teacher federations: Two non-negotiable items: first, improve quality. No one in this business argues against that and no one is for the status quo as the Premier said the other night, and I object to that strenuously. The more important one was reduce funding, reduce spending to no more than some faulty national average. There are no government proposals about quality, simply a list of proposals of how to cut money.
October: The cast changes. Mr Johnson is now the minister. I want to remind you after your policy convention last week, which was meant to deal with re-election rather than education, Mr Eves stated a week and a half ago that there was no plan to cut $1 billion, that the funding might increase.
October 21: the leaked document that confirmed plans for reductions are there. At first Mr Johnson said, "I don't know anything about this document," but two days later on provincial television he said, oh, he'd known about it for some time.
The Premier went on TV Wednesday night and talked about the status quo. I have stated my objection to that. Not a comment about more resources in the classroom as promised during the 104 times; no comment about the planned reduction in spending.
Thursday: Both the Premier and Minister Johnson talk about how there are savings possible because of school board amalgamations. A letter from Mr Snobelen dated July 21 makes it clear that you can't even pay for the transition costs with what you're saving.
Friday: The Premier now changes the script again. We now have to pay for the deficit, and you have broken a major promise of school board amalgamation about more resources in the classroom.
1220
But you really have to turn back to January and the Who Does What situation, the absolute promise that it's going to be revenue-neutral. We all saw Al Leach and you people in the House. I watched it being said on TV and followed with great interest, but the municipalities calculated there's hundreds of millions of dollars short and they still believe that's true. So the script changed.
What's really interesting, and I haven't heard anything about this one, is that the number of dollars the municipalities calculated being short is somewhere around the number of dollars in that leaked document. What's really happening? To pay for the download, guess what? You're going to rob education and Bill 160 provides the tools to do this.
I want to focus on one section, division C, taxes set by boards. That's where the boards are given the power to raise money for their own purposes through local taxation. That's made inoperative, but why is it there? You know full well that the cuts are not sustainable, that there's going to be a piling list of needs, year by year, month by month, and somewhere down in the future, lo and behold, section 257.1 will be withdrawn and guess who's going to pay for the damage? The local taxpayer.
There are lots of concerns. They're in that brief and, Mr Smith, if I may ask you personally, I have a binder here of copies to Mr Johnson. I'm pretty sure when you get back to Toronto, you'll find a copy there.
I will not apologize for my concern for the schools in my community. You've got a major political problem. I believe this committee has a role to play so this whole thing does not end in a disaster. No one can win. I am appealing to your common sense. Rise above the powers in politics. I was going to propose these alternatives, but from what I heard this morning, I don't think this government is interested in alternatives. I beg you to consider them.
In closing -- and this is a personal one -- what would you say to a young child in Wawa, Ontario, who said this: "I work hard. Mr Harris, why do you think I'm such a bad kid?" Your public relations campaign is destroying the psychology of kids in this province and I ask you to stop. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: We have approximately a minute per caucus, starting with the Liberals.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much for a very, very good presentation. I'm concerned about class sizes, as you know. You know I submitted a private member's bill, Bill 110. The government is addressing class sizes. Which one do you think solves the problem and where is there an assurance in Bill 160 that class sizes will be at a reasonable level?
Mr Whent: I think the whole issue -- it's not power. It was very interesting to listen to Dave Cooke on the radio this morning. What the government has done is centralize the issues to the point -- and when you talk about collective agreements, that issue, when 98% are solved without any kind of labour stuff at all, what you have done is you've now made it one of two numbers, either zero or 100. I have worked hard and long for 25 years at the local level, bargaining with our board, sometimes disagreeing, but we've worked it out locally. Mr Smith asked the question of the SEAC people about needing local input. For goodness sake, write it in the bill so that's ensured and we can have it at the local level.
Mr Martin: You make reference in your presentation, which was very good, to something I've been thinking of and actually shared with my caucus a couple of weeks ago, which is the belief that this exercise may be very directly connected with the download on municipalities in that the figures are very similar and that by taking control of the tax base and not releasing the funding formula before all of this falls into place, they're waiting to see ultimately what will be the cost re the download and to take that directly out of education by way of the money that they're going to get re this new taxing power they have. Would you care to elaborate a bit further on that?
Mr Whent: First at the local level, and again in material I sent to the previous minister and to Mr Johnson, there's a lot of numbers there. I know that the tax impact in our community of Wawa, and I don't think that others are much different up north, between the download and loss to our schools in a town of 4,400, we're looking at about a $4-million or a $5-million hit in our local economy --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. That's the time. From the other side, Marcel Beaubien.
Mr Beaubien: Mr Whent, in your presentation do you equate quality education with the amount of money we spend on education?
Mr Whent: I think the problem is, if you want to turn it the other way, the government's starting with a number that is a set target for spending and working it backwards. You're asking me, do I equate it? No, but you can't start at a budget number and say, "This is what we're going to spend." You talked about adequate funding and I'm simply saying to you, make sure the process is in place that people not just within a select group in Toronto -- because you've already centralized that. We need input at the local level into that decision-making with whatever measure. I'm simply saying, give it the time to do it. There is a suggestion to split the bill. I don't know if you're willing to do that or not, but do something.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That exhausts our time.
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, NIPISSING ELEMENTARY UNIT
The Vice-Chair: We call on the next group, which is the OECTA, Nipissing elementary unit. If you would come up and introduce yourselves for Hansard, we'd appreciate it.
Mrs Anna-Maria Aquino: Good afternoon. My name is Anna-Maria Aquino. I'm a parent, a teacher and vice-president of the Nipissing elementary unit of OECTA.
Mrs Susan Van Schaayk: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Van Schaayk. I'm a parent of three children who attend our local separate schools in North Bay. I also teach kindergarten and grade 1 at St Joseph School in North Bay.
Mrs Aquino: The Nipissing elementary unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association welcomes the opportunity to appear before the committee to address our concerns about Bill 160. Bill 160 proposes to establish centralized control of the education system, to enact radical changes in current education labour practice and to diminish the significance of existing professional teacher qualifications. The proposals contained in this legislation will have a profound impact on the delivery of educational services for northeastern Ontario communities.
The Nipissing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board presently serves communities over an area that extends from Huntsville to North Bay and from Mattawa to Sturgeon Falls. The schools have served Nipissing by emphasizing the cooperation between church, home and school, which is vital to achieving the educational outcomes valued by our community.
The teachers in Nipissing are proud of the quality of education that has been offered in our communities. We are proud of the education programs and initiatives that began in North Bay, of the Nipissing educators who have been identified as leaders in education, of the students who have graduated from our schools and become the citizens, the professionals and leaders in Ontario's communities.
The success of our schools in Nipissing has been based on the cooperation of church, home and school working together to provide the best possible educational services to our students. Catholic parents, teachers, support staff, administrators and trustees have worked together to identify the needs of our students and to provide the services that are deemed essential.
The largest component of our success has been based on the reality that the individuals involved in providing educational services -- educators, support staff, administrators, trustees -- are part of that community. We are citizens, voters and ratepayers in our communities. We live in the community. We belong to a large variety of community organizations, including our local churches. Our families are raised and educated in Nipissing.
The Nipissing Catholic community has advocated for equality and equity in educational funding for many years. The principle that a community should receive the same amount of funding for their students, regardless of whether the school community is in southern or northern Ontario, or is within an urban or rural setting, or is part of a separate or public system, has been a basic tenet of social justice.
It is difficult to assess the future of education funding when the government has not yet presented a funding model. However, some principles should be considered. The average amount spent per student in Ontario does not necessarily indicate that it is the best bang for the buck. Too often, that amount represents only the officially recognized portion of education costs. Over the past decade, parents, students and educators in Nipissing have augmented the basic funding amount per student through fund-raising, user fees and donations to the classroom. The continued reliance on such activities will in itself create new inequities between schools. Education funding should rely on the principle of complete funding per student based on the needs established by the local community.
Ontario has evolved an education system based on local community wishes, direction and control. One of the most fundamental aspects of Roman Catholic denominational educational rights is the right to elect trustees from individual Catholic communities, to tax within its community, to manage the business functions of local school boards and to engage in meaningful contract discussions. The separate school system in northern Ontario must be controlled by, and be responsive to, the wishes of the local Catholic community it serves.
There are several aspects of the proposed legislation which are troubling. Sections within the proposed legislation firmly establish central control of education financing based far from the local communities. The authority to set education taxes would rest with the Minister of Finance rather than the local community. The expenditures within the proposed framework would be established on a provincial rather than a local basis. There seems to be no provision which would allow for the local community to provide meaningful input concerning the needs, expectations and demands of the students, parents or educators in local community schools. A provincial funding model, as proposed by Bill 160, would not seem to be responsive to the local needs and wishes of the local community. The success of the schools in Nipissing has been based on the consensus reached by the stakeholders in the local community. The effective dismantling of this process will not serve the students, the parents or the community well.
1230
A collective bargaining agreement in the education sector has always reflected the consensus of the community in regard to the classroom expectations for both students and educators. The establishment of teacher working conditions has always reflected the student learning conditions within the community. The checks and balances present in Bill 100 allow for the development of mutually beneficial agreements that served the community, the students and the teachers well. The communities in Ontario have benefited from the stability and the equity found in that collective bargaining process. In 96% of all teacher collective bargaining sessions, agreements were reached without the use of job sanctions. There does not need to be a limitation on the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike. It is a response to a problem which does not exist.
Teacher collective agreements were reached by the stakeholders who lived in Nipissing, who recognized the needs within the community and understood the implications of those arrangements on the community. Local ratepayers, parents, students and educators have an interest in ensuring that the classroom learning conditions are well addressed. Removing such issues as class size from the authority of local stakeholders to address through consensus reveals a disregard for the value of democratic input by all members of the local community.
The success of schools in Nipissing relies on the stability of the community within the schools. Relationships between parents, students and educators are based on trust. That trust is established over time. The minimum amount of time necessary to ensure continuous student progress is a school year. Additional time is required to allow parents to be comfortable with the expectations of the school as their child moves through the grade levels.
In a larger context, the statutory rights of teachers are, in reality, provisions to encourage stability within the school community. The requirement for probationary contracts, existence of statutory contracts and the current transfer provisions should be regarded as stipulations made by the community to ensure the continuity of education services in the schools. A classroom which can be continuously disrupted by an arbitrary process of uncertainty, transfer or dismissal is an environment where the best learning will not be available to the students. A school which does not have the opportunity to develop the teamwork which is crucial in education will not be able to support essential parental involvement. A school system which is not able to promote a consistent vision of education among all of its employees will not be able to prepare for the changes in information and technology in society.
The stakeholders in the Nipissing community have committed themselves to ensure that all parties to the education process can be assured of fair, consistent treatment. Bill 160 does not facilitate this process. In fact, it will create tension, anxiety and stress within the local community.
The Chair: There's one minute left.
Mrs Aquino: In the past, the government recognized the need to encourage the professional development of education workers to allow for the provision of trained, qualified experts at all levels of education. Teachers were encouraged to seek specialties in all education fields to allow expanding information and technologies in our society to be incorporated into the classroom. Educators have become lifelong learners who are highly qualified and highly trained to manage the challenge of today's classroom. Bill 160 would allow for the provision of untrained specialists to enter the classrooms of Ontario. These individuals would face the same students, curriculum and challenges which are present in every classroom but would not have the same training in child development, curriculum programming and teaching methodology.
Research has clearly indicated that teachers do not confine their work to the time period between 9 and 3:30. Reputable estimates place the amount of work-related time completed by teachers at between 40 and 60 hours per week. In Nipissing, before-school and after-school work periods are expectations which teachers have always met as part of the teaching assignment. That time is devoted to developing materials to prepare for the needs of the students in the classroom. Additional time is devoted to professional upgrading during evenings, weekends and summer vacation period.
The Chair: I apologize for interrupting, but the time has elapsed. I thank you very much for your presentation here this morning.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, MANITOULIN DISTRICT
The Chair: Our next presentation is OSSTF, Manitoulin district, Mr Jack Mallette. Welcome.
Mr Jack Mallette: I've been a resident of Manitoulin Island for 16 years. During this time, I've taught in both the federal and provincial school systems, for six and 10 years respectively. I'm currently employed by the Manitoulin Board of Education. The Manitoulin board has four elementary schools and one secondary school with a total population of about 2,000 students. Our education system is very lean, having no consultants or superintendents. Needless to say, when funding cuts are experienced, they tend to impact more severely on smaller boards like our own. Let me begin by sharing with you today some of the more apparent local effects of cuts already imposed by the Harris government.
In June 1996 our board of education was struggling to come up with ways to deal with less money from the provincial government. The elimination of the junior kindergarten program was considered as a means to adjust to the fewer dollars coming from the province. Going to the taxpayer was not an option since they were directed by the then Minister of Education not to increase taxes. The program was cancelled at the monthly board meeting. Only after considerable public outcry was the board decision eventually reversed. However, the return of the program was conditional upon finding ways of raising extra dollars by extraordinary means. The board agreed to run the JK program if a group of kindergarten parents would raise a substantive amount of money. The fund-raising committee met its target and the program has managed to survive. I wonder if this is the government's idea of a quality education system? I have some very serious concerns when I hear about such fund-raising schemes that are beginning to replace the use of education grants in support of school programs.
My children attend Central Manitoulin Public School in Mindemoya. This school has a very dedicated and talented staff which has provided my children with a full range of programs and varied educational opportunities. Recently they have lost their music teacher due to funding cuts. Three of our other elementary schools have seen their music programs downsized or eliminated altogether. Our students have benefited greatly by having such programs. These are not so-called extras. These are the programs that keep our children motivated and inspired.
Many of the states south of the border are now taking a second look at similar cuts made to such programs over the last decade. Some US state legislatures are now increasing education budgets to compensate for the loss. We should learn from their experience.
Cuts to programs such as music, art and programs for special needs students have already had damaging effects. At Assiginack Public School, where I teach, our special education program has been cut in half. Other schools across the island have had their special education programs reduced as well. We must put a stop to these cuts and provide for the needs of our children with a well-rounded curriculum.
The issue of increased class sizes is also of great concern to me. The government has claimed that lower class size does not significantly improve student learning, and then they proceed to blame unions for negotiating larger class sizes for their personal gain. This government seems to take on whatever argument serves them best in any given situation, regardless of whether one statement totally contradicts another.
Is reducing or limiting class size a priority for this government? I would suggest that the government has the opposite goal in mind.
During the previous three years, the Manitoulin school system has experienced a staffing reduction of 5%. When there are fewer teachers in the schools, administrators are quick to point out the only two realistic options: (1) increase class size or (2) eliminate programs. Neither of these options serves our students well and runs directly counter to the stated goals of the Harris government, that being improving the quality of education in this province.
Through formal and informal bargaining, both at the local level and provincially, class sizes decreased from 1976 to 1991. Since that time, it has increased back to its 1988 level. In my 10 years' experience at the negotiating table as a federation representative, we've always fought for lower class sizes. Bill 160 will do nothing to reduce or limit class sizes. In fact, I would suggest that the outcome will have an opposite effect
The larger Manitoulin community has been busy discussing the possible ramifications of Bill 160 during the past several weeks. Three of the four elementary schools have had Bill 160 information nights for parents hosted by local school councils.
1240
During these meetings parents expressed many serious concerns about the impact Bill 160 may have on the future of education. One of the most frequently raised issues dealt with the potential use of non-certified teachers in schools, as proposed in section 81 of Bill 160. Parents were unanimous in their objection to this part of the bill. They are confident about the education, training and abilities that are required of their children's teachers. Parents will have severe difficulty accepting these so-called community experts as school teachers. They, the parents, recognize the importance of teacher training and feel the current standards expected of their teachers cannot be compromised. Outside specialists are not to be confused with or used in lieu of properly certificated teachers.
Local autonomy was the subject of much discussion at these information nights. The director of education, Mac Hall, made it very clear at one such meeting in particular that decisions made in the future may not come with the best interests of the Manitoulin community at heart. He noted that local control will fall into the hands of Toronto politicians. Decision-making powers which had been held by locally elected and accountable trustees would be legislated over to the politicians at Queen's Park.
Local autonomy in education has been an important principle since the days of Egerton Ryerson. Mr Hall mentioned what I believe clearly points to the merits of local decision-making. The Manitoulin board had been agonizing about the decision to proceed with what they felt was an important and much-needed addition at Central Manitoulin Public School. In order to go ahead with the project, taxes would have to increase. After lengthy and often heated debate, the board finally decided to see the school addition through. Bill 160 will effectively kill this type of productive and democratic process. Our trustees will be nothing more than pawns of the provincial government as this power shift evolves.
Shortly after these information sessions, the school council at Central Manitoulin Public School sent Premier Harris a letter outlining their position on Bill 160. It reads:
"Dear Mr Harris:
"We, the Central Manitoulin Public School (CMPS) school council, do not support Bill 160. We stand with those who oppose it. We are against the government taking control of the education system as Bill 160 dictates."
Of particular interest to the proceedings on Bill 160 is a meeting which took place at Manitoulin Secondary School on Thursday, September 18, 1997. This forum included students, staff, board administrators, trustees and parents. Local politicians were also invited, as well as any member of the Harris government willing to defend the merits of Bill 160. The government did not respond to the invitation and a representative was not made available for these discussions. To my knowledge, Manitoulin was the only jurisdiction across the province to organize such an event. Our secondary students organized this panel discussion through the school's ethics committee, and in my view should be commended for their leadership and civil responsibility.
Secondary school students had many questions and concerns about Bill 160. The panel discussion group presented possible implications of this legislation and student reaction was considerably negative. There was an obvious air of disbelief among those in attendance. One such student, Brock Case, stood at the microphone and asked, "If this is what the government is planning, why don't we walk out now?" During this same session, another student, Amy Skippen, remarked, "This government sounds like a dictatorship." These types of comments are indicative of the overall view of Bill 160 in general and of the Harris government in particular.
In my view, the proposed legislation contained within Bill 160 is nothing more than an attack on teachers. It is an unprecedented power grab by a government desperate for control over all matters concerning education. The unlimited powers this legislation gives the minister and his appointees on the Education Improvement Commission are undemocratic. As a grade 8 history teacher, I can't help but wonder if we have really learned the lessons of the past. It would seem to me that giving such powers to a small, select group of people was the cause of great public discontent and insurrection during the 1830s. Centralization of power is not better; it is simply a better forum for corruption. The government needs to back off on Bill 160.
Ontario educators are not afraid of change. We welcomed provincial testing, along with more accountability. We were full participants in the creation of the Ontario College of Teachers. The new report card: We're using it. The new K to 8 curriculum: We've implemented it. These new initiatives are under way with our full cooperation, without any in-service provided by the ministry, and in spite of their short time lines. What we do fear, members of the justice committee, is a collapse in publicly funded education in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mallette, for your presentation. Time has elapsed.
MANITOULIN WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We'll move to the next presentation. I remind members of the committee that our presenters are our guests and should be treated as such. Manitoulin Women Teachers' Association, Wendy Gauthier.
Mr Bartolucci: While she's getting ready --
The Chair: She is ready. Please proceed.
Mrs Wendy Gauthier: Good afternoon. I'm Wendy Gauthier and I am a teacher. For 21 years I have taught grades 7 and 8 at Little Current Public School for the Manitoulin Board of Education. There are four community-based elementary schools and one central high school on the island. In January my board will become part of an amalgamated board which includes Sudbury and Espanola. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my colleagues today.
When Adam and Eve were driven out of paradise, Adam is believed to have remarked to Eve, "My dear, we live in an age of transition." Change is an important part of our profession. As our society changes, so do the children we teach. Teachers welcome change. The profession has been required to respond to a myriad of changes in the last decade. I feel like an oldtimer when I say that I have seen changes in education come and go like fashions. They can be studied, tried on for size, bought, go out of fashion, shelved for a while, or they can be valued and saved. We recognize the need for new curricula. We study new teaching methods and embrace new technology.
Bill 160 means change, drastic change. The scope and the magnitude of changes proposed in Bill 160 appal my fellow teachers. The government is trying to seduce the public under the false banners of quality, accountability and equity as it attempts to sell Bill 160. If the bill was truly about quality, accountability and equity, teachers would welcome it. Bill 160 threatens the quality of education that teachers will be able to deliver to their students. The bill will create fundamental changes in virtually every aspect of the delivery of education in this province.
I will centre my discussion today around funding and the centralization of power, two areas of concern that I have with Bill 160.
It was confirmed to the public Friday that a minimum of $500 million per year will be eliminated from the provincial education budget. Presumably there is still 4% to 5% of the money budgeted for education wasted. Boards will have to cut out this "waste." Yes, Mr Harris, you can take another billion, but it would be like the old and the now not-so-funny joke, "The operation was a success, but the patient died."
Since this announcement, I've been left to wonder where cuts could be made within our board without touching the classroom. In our board, the fat outside the classroom has long since gone. Ours is a small board with less than 2,500 students. Busing is required for 75% of our students. There is no public transportation system to provide an alternative means of busing students. There is no other board with whom to share transportation costs.
We have no consultants. School budgets have been frozen for three of the last five years and reduced the other two. My school operated $4,000 over budget last year. For several years now, our students have been required to purchase their own pencils, notebooks, paper and other classroom equipment. New texts are required. The science and history texts presently in use were purchased before 1985.
Some 50% of our school's computers use 1987 technology. What they can offer our students is very limited. We are rapidly falling behind. If current government computer grants continue, they will allow for five of the 15 computers to be replaced next year.
The amount of fund-raising has increased in the last few years. Over $30,000 is raised by our staff and students in our community annually. This money is used for student trips for out-of-class learning experiences, and materials and equipment for the school. In addition, the local Lions Club and our home-and-school generously support our school through their donations of money to fund such things as professional development opportunities and equipment. Just how much fund-raising can be done by a teacher before it interferes with the teacher's main responsibility, that of teaching her students?
The board is providing what it can for our schools. It has worked with its teachers to limit the negative effects of previous funding cuts. Teachers have accepted larger class sizes to prevent the loss of junior kindergarten in our schools. They have accepted larger class sizes to prevent split classes. Our teachers' salaries have only increased by 1.25% since 1990.
Important changes such as new curricula and new report cards require the support of resources and knowledgeable resource people. New curricula, no matter how well written, always require careful study in order to be implemented successfully in the classroom. In the past, when a new curriculum was introduced, a teacher representative from our board, along with others in the region, would meet with regional ministry officials to review the new document. Following this, our board representative would meet several times with other teachers in the board who would be using the new curriculum. This process would provide for a smooth and standardized implementation of the new curriculum board- and region-wide. The process was both effective and efficient.
With funding cuts, this process has been eliminated. Now there are no available regional ministry officials with whom teachers may consult and there is little funding for the board's teachers to meet. There will be little outside support for the implementation of new documents. How will this result in a standardized curriculum for children from school to school and board to board across the province? The frightening thing is that new funding cuts allowed for in Bill 160, along with a reduction in professional development days, will increase the difficulties teachers will have in implementing new and potentially good changes. The students will suffer.
Teachers have worked hard to deliver the best programs they can. The thought of more cuts frightens us. How can we maintain quality programming for our students from JK to the OAC level? There is nowhere left to cut. Cuts will affect the classroom, our students. They already have. I say to Mr Harris, you cannot get more for less. Rather than being worried about how much education costs, you should think about how much it is worth.
I won't pretend to understand the implications of Bill 160 fully. To do that, one would have to know what the government actually plans to do with the bill once it becomes law. Key provisions in the bill will be left to regulations: regulations which will be identified later and determined by cabinet outside the normal legislative process at Queen's Park. The bill provides for centralized decision-making by the minister and the cabinet, effectively shutting out the public, parents, teachers, and taxpayers alike. Where will the accountability be?
Like my fellow presenter here from Manitoulin, I was teaching grade 8 history last week. How ironic that just last week I was teaching my history students about the causes of the 1837 rebellion in Upper Canada and the struggle for responsible government. Government in the 1820s was controlled by the colony's élite, the Family Compact. Power was centralized in the hands of a few who neither invited nor accepted input from the people.
As I was teaching, I was thinking: "Wow. Is this a case of history repeating itself?" With Bill 160, the Minister of Education and his chosen few, his very own Family Compact, have almost limitless power to make decisions without input provided from the people through legislative debate. By its very nature, Bill 160 threatens everyone's sense of democracy. The greater the power the more dangerous the abuse.
Presently, there is a balance of power in decision-making between school boards, teachers, parents and government. It is a healthy situation with its own checks and balances. Local needs can be addressed. Parental involvement in education has increased. We have active home-and-school groups as well as parent councils.
Bill 160 gives extensive new powers to the Minister of Education to override collective agreements. Collective bargaining is a means of guaranteeing working conditions for teachers. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society for employees to be able to negotiate all terms and conditions of work with their employers. As you've likely heard countless times, our working conditions are our students' learning conditions. Manitoulin's elementary teachers have traded off, time and time again, more direct employee gains in order to achieve more student-centred elements in their collective agreements. Manitoulin's elementary teachers' wages are proof of that. Our salaries are low in relation to others in the province.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mrs Gauthier. I'm going to have to interrupt because the time has elapsed.
Mrs Gauthier: Thank you for listening to me today.
The Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation.
We are adjourning to 1:30.
The committee recessed from 1254 to 1331.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISION
The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Our first presentation this afternoon is CUPE, Henry Rowlinson.
Mr Henry Rowlinson: Good afternoon. My name is Henry Rowlinson. I am president of Local 3152, a separate school board local, and I also represent 2,400 CUPE members in the city of Sault Ste Marie and Algoma district as district CUPE council president.
On behalf of the 180,000 members of CUPE here in Ontario, and in particular the 40,000 school board workers we represent in this province, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on Bill 160.
Let me begin by saying that the timing of these hearings is indeed ominous. I believe I can say without argument that it is precisely because of this legislation that Ontario today is witnessing its first-ever province-wide teachers' strike. This single, indisputable fact is proof that opposition to Bill 160 is sweeping and it is community-wide.
Teachers, school board workers, parents, students, parents' associations, school boards themselves, all are united in their belief that this bill has nothing to do with improving quality in education and everything to do with this provincial government's attempt to seize control over virtually every aspect of public education in Ontario.
The implications of this bill for Ontario's teachers will no doubt be covered at length in presentations from our sister unions, so we will confine our comments to simply stating to the committee, as we have stated publicly, that CUPE is solidly united with the teachers' unions in their defence of quality public education.
We have asked our locals in the education sector to respect the teachers' picket lines should they be forced to take job action to fight this legislation. We fully expect they will do that.
Let me now turn to the underlying objectives of Bill 160. Our analysis of Bill 160 concludes that they are fourfold:
(1) Pulling up to $1 billion out of the system, a position the government now seems to be backpedalling on.
(2) Downsizing education in dramatic fashion by merging school boards and gutting our system of elected trustees.
(3) Laying the groundwork for full-scale privatization, so-called outsourcing, of school board services and jobs.
(4) Centralizing control and funding of school boards by removing control of education spending and taxation from school board trustees.
Let me address these issues directly.
On funding cuts to education, this government was elected on a platform which stated quite clearly, "Not one penny would be cut from the school system," and yet to date you have cut hundreds of millions of dollars directly from education while slashing funding for junior kindergarten and special needs classes and much more. Your now demoted former education minister is on record as saying an additional $1 billion in cuts would be needed. Your new minister is now trying to distance himself from this statement.
While Ontarians may be looking for sensible, progressive changes to the education system, they are not looking for, nor do you have a mandate for, wholesale gutting of the public education system, which belongs to the people of this province.
On merging school boards and virtually dismantling our system of elected, accountable trustees, let me remind the committee members that, as we speak, communities across this province are actually having trouble finding candidates to even run for school board trustee positions. This is because your government has made them virtually meaningless positions. As a result, on November 10, when Ontarians go to the polls in municipal and school board elections, they will effectively be witnessing the death of democracy in the school boards. I suspect this may have been your intention all along.
On the question of school funding and taxation, again this bill gives the minister complete control of the method of calculating what individual boards should get, and yet it provides no further details on how this will be done. Surely, given its dismal record of consultation thus far, this government does not expect the people of Ontario to simply trust them on the critical issue of school board funding.
Equally disturbing on the question of taxation powers, the bill states that the minister is now in charge of setting tax rates, wrestling control away from local taxpayers on how much they pay in school taxes and how much money their board will receive in turn.
Probably most disturbing to us as the province's largest union is the way in which this bill opens the door to widespread privatization and outsourcing of our publicly funded education system. Let me state categorically that CUPE is adamantly opposed to any such move and will fight to ensure that public services in this province are delivered by public employees and not turned over to private companies whose only interest is in making a profit.
While I know this may come as a shock to some of the Reformers in your caucus, our education system is not for sale. This bill is in fact the government's third attempt to deunionize the public school board sector, the first two attempts being Bill 104, which tried to mandate outsourcing of non-instructional work, and Bill 136, which tried to eliminate collective bargaining and the right to strike for school board workers. Education workers fought successfully for amendments to Bill 104 and Bill 136. They knew the government's attack on unionized school board workers was a direct threat to the quality of education.
If Bill 160 is enacted as is, school maintenance staff and custodians, cleaners, administrative and clerical staff, educational assistants, foodservice workers, technicians, bus drivers, library technicians, ESL and adult education instructors and other school board support staff who are now public employees could soon be working for half the wages they currently earn. Those who may still have their jobs will see their working conditions altered dramatically.
It is not only morally unacceptable for a provincial government to be promoting such an agenda, it will also mean more bad news for struggling local economies across Ontario which are still trying to recover from years of recession and job loss.
This province needs good jobs, not low-wage jobs like ServiceMaster jobs that pay $6 or $8 an hour. While this may be the type of Ontario you envision, where workers are in a race to the bottom, we reject this vision outright.
Is this government worried about the impact funding cuts have already had on the quality of education? We think not, since these are the very cuts which have paved the way for privatization, whether through contracting out of non-instructional services, charter schools, leaseback schools or outright diversion of funds to private schools.
There is little doubt that this government believes a privatized education system would be a better one. The reality is the vast majority of Ontarians disagree with them. You don't have to take my word for it. An Angus Reid survey conducted in June of this year for the management consulting firm of Ernst and Young concluded that 70% of Ontarians are opposed to contracting out of services to the private sector.
The outcome of this legislation, Bill 160, will determine whether the high-quality education system we now have in Ontario will be able to continue to meet the needs of all Ontarians or whether the provincial government will get the control it wants in order to use the system to achieve its more narrow objectives.
Bill 160 is not about improving the quality of education. It is about this provincial government taking control of education away from local communities, and no amount of Orwellian doublespeak will convince the people of Ontario otherwise.
Our recommendation to this committee is to stop the teacher-bashing and the school-board-worker-bashing, scrap this legislation and begin a process of meaningful dialogue with parents, school boards, students and school board workers about the real changes that are needed to our education system.
The Chair: We have a little over a minute per caucus and we start with the government caucus.
Mr Smith: Thank you, and I'm sure one of my colleagues might follow up after. Just to provide some clarification, because I know Mr Ryan alluded to the same thing in Toronto, of the 672 trustee positions that were available, only four have been filled by acclamation, so there is interest in trustee positions out there.
I think you alluded quite correctly, though, that the issue of outsourcing is not captured under this bill. It's under Bill 104, and amendments, albeit minor, were made to that. I recognize that CUPE wouldn't be completely satisfied with the language, but certainly there was some amendment to Bill 104 on that issue.
1340
Mr Bartolucci: Henry, thank you very much for a very thoughtful presentation. You might want to tell the committee what you feel withdrawing $667 million from the system, as Mike Harris has said he wants to do, will do to our quality public school education system.
Mr Rowlinson: With the last round of cuts locally here, the separate school board laid off a lot of teachers, they cut back the care staff so that we clean the schools every second day, and this was due to the fact we didn't have the funds to keep our teachers and our support staff working.
Mr Wildman: Thank you, Henry. Why is it that you, as a representative of the support staff of educational workers, are so concerned about what appears to be a battle between the teachers and the government? Why is it you're particularly concerned about this and would come and make what is a very good presentation on the issue?
Mr Rowlinson: For the fact that in the bill it states the government is going to have total control of every employee in every school board in Ontario. What they didn't get in Bill 136 I think they're going to try to get in Bill 160.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Rowlinson, for your presentation here today.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 30 (ALGOMA)
The Chair: Our next presenter is OSSTF Algoma. Welcome, gentlemen. Please identify yourselves for the record and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Jim Agnew: My name is Jim Agnew. I'm president of the Sault division of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Geoff Shaw is president of District 30 (Algoma), and Wayne Jackson is provincial councillor for District 30 (Algoma). I'll ask Wayne to begin.
Mr Wayne Jackson: Thank you very kindly, Jim. Committee members, I'm pleased to be here.
The executive of District 30, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, welcomes the opportunity to address the standing committee on administration of justice.
Too frequently governments embark on initiatives without demonstrating a sensitivity to those concerns that will most dramatically affect groups, without consulting them. The manner in which this bill was introduced, the intention of the government for speedy passage and the unprecedented scope of its contents are matters which should concern all citizens in a free and democratic society.
Furthermore, we're very concerned about the process of establishing the public hearings, part of which we are involved in here today. Our concern is that it may merely be an appearance of consultation. The allocation of 10 minutes before this committee does nothing to dispel our concern about the perfunctory nature of this process. We too are struck by the attempt by the governing party to stack the committee with sycophants who parrot a government line which is anti-government, anti-community, anti-union, anti-worker and citizen.
At the outset, let us communicate to you the fact that our members are very bitter about the way in which the government has treated education and education workers. Our anxieties are further aggravated by actions that assault the very basis of Ontario's system of public education and insult every teacher and student in the province.
The proposed EQIA removes any pretence that school boards, regardless of their numbers, could truly maintain local management and control of school affairs. The provisions of the EQIA also make it apparent that teacher federations are no longer to be treated as partners in the process of establishing optimal teaching conditions for both students and education workers.
Under the bill, Queen's Park will have sweeping and dictatorial powers over every detail of the education system. The bill covers all facets of the education system: taxation, school boards, funding, classroom conditions including length of school day, class sizes, teachers and school councils.
These changes will be made behind closed doors and consequently are subject neither to the scrutiny of the Legislature nor to public debate. The regulatory path circumvents the Legislature, the public and the media.
Mr Geoff Shaw: I'd like to highlight a few items in terms of what we're heading "Tory Record of Abandonment," the Harris government's actions as far as education is concerned.
So far the government has proposed improving literacy by cutting high school English from 550 to 360 class hours.
It has proposed improving rigour by reducing high school credits from 110 to 90 hours.
It has virtually eliminated junior kindergarten and adult classrooms.
It has imposed a new grade 1 to 8 curriculum overnight and demanded instant implementation with no real training or resources.
It has refused to acknowledge any positive accomplishments in public education.
It has wasted over $1 million on political propaganda concerning our education system, and more yet to come.
It has deliberately distorted international test results to make our students and teachers look bad.
It has created mega school boards responsible for huge geographic areas or large numbers of students with no power to respond to local needs.
It has misled the public on the length of the school year.
It has deceived the public by stating that it was not intending to add to its already severe cuts to the education system. It has already taken $800 million out and threatens now to remove another -- well, I keep hearing under $700 million but I think it's going to be closer to $1 billion. I think that figure is still there.
Bill 160 is the blueprint for the privatization of public education and the creation of a two-tier system. Does Ontario want good private schools for the wealthy and impoverished public schools for the rest of our children? That's the question we have to answer.
Teachers are not opposed to change, but they are opposed to ill-considered and ill-advised change. We're committed to change when change will improve the system.
We will have a revised and modernized curriculum in this province, but it will be the result of collaboration among parents, teachers and the government.
Bill 160 states that regulations will be made governing how education is funded. It gives the minister complete control of the method of calculating what boards should get, but there are no details. We're promised they're coming.
The province has been given reports from four panels concerning funding but it refuses to make them public.
How will the new funding model address the disparity in boards, like the new district school board 2 where the per pupil level of funding now ranges anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000? Instead of adequate funding, will a race to the bottom ensue? Will our only equity be the right to share poverty?
Mr Agnew: I'd like to address the collective bargaining issues.
It's clear from reading the bill that the ministry's regulatory scope leaves little, if anything, meaningful to negotiate at the local level. A reading of the bill makes it abundantly clear that every single minute of a working day will be controlled through regulations from the minister. The minister has not in this case provided a toolkit for the boards to wield; he has rather created a toolkit for himself.
The minister is empowered to make regulations, to designate positions that are not teaching positions. The bill places no limit on this authority. The fundamental question is, do we want trained teachers in charge of our children's classes or uncertified specialists?
The Toronto Star states:
"The bill prescribes no limits whatsoever on how the government can change the qualifications required to work in our schools. This or future governments could simply decide that a teaching credential is no longer necessary to take over a classroom. This provision of Bill 160 just doesn't make sense...."
The bill gives the minister the right to control preparation time. Preparation time could be decreased, cut out altogether at the high schools or the elementary schools. The argument is made that somehow this is directly related to improving education. This is nonsense. Less preparation time for teachers will inevitably mean increased workload for education assistants and less time for the teachers to assist in preparing programs for special needs students.
1350
Again, in the Toronto Star: "The Tories also keep saying that cutting prep time would increase the amount of time students spend with teachers." That isn't true. Students will continue to have exactly the same number of classes. The only difference will be that there will be fewer teachers with more duties. This is about teachers spending less time with more students.
I'd like to give you six principles that we think you should use in looking at the restructuring of education:
(1) There should be a guarantee, under the control of local school boards, of funding needed to ensure quality education for students.
(2) The restructuring should guarantee qualified, certified teachers in every classroom.
(3) It should guarantee that teachers continue to bargain all terms and conditions of employment directly with those responsible for teacher working conditions and student learning conditions.
(4) It should minimize the regulatory control at Queen's Park and its provincial bureaucrats.
(5) It should reinstate shared decision-making on educational policies to protect students and their programs.
(6) It should provide the Education Relations Commission or the Ontario Labour Relations Board with the authority, if necessary, to determine the transitional bargaining issues resulting from the merger of bargaining units.
In the end, Bill 160 is not about improving quality, but extracting a further $1 billion from our schools, denigrating public education, eliminating programs, laying off up to 10,000 teachers and replacing teachers with unqualified personnel.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today. Our time has elapsed.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 30, OCCASIONAL TEACHERS' UNIT, SAULT DIVISION
The Chair: Our next presentation is OSSTF, occasional teachers' division, District 30. Welcome.
Ms Janet Telford: Good afternoon. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Occasional Teachers' Unit, Sault Division represents approximately 70 teachers with the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education.
These certified teachers do not have permanent jobs. Approximately five teachers are in long-term assignments for varying lengths of time this semester, substituting for a particular teacher. The majority of the teachers are on an on-call basis. That means these teachers do not know where, or if, they are teaching each day until early in the morning, some time between 7 and 7:45 am. The occasional teachers' unit has a collective bargaining agreement between the occasional teachers' unit and the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education.
As president of the occasional teachers' unit, I would like to thank this committee for this opportunity to comment on Bill 160. The introduction of Bill 160 on September 22, 1997, was touted by the government as "another step towards providing students with the highest quality education in Canada in the most cost-effective manner." It was also stated, "The bill would support a reformed education system that would be better managed, more accountable to parents and taxpayers, and would improve student achievement through their limiting class size and increasing the amount of time students spend with their teachers."
The government is engaged in the restructuring of public education and education finance. Quality education issues should not be decided exclusively by ministerial decree at the provincial level. The teachers of Ontario believe that restructuring issues in the workplace can be resolved fairly and effectively through free collective bargaining at the board level.
For education restructuring to succeed, the following principles must be adhered to: (1) There must be no adverse impact on students and programs. (2) Every student in every Ontario classroom 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.
With the implementation of Bill 160, all of the above principles are violated.
Bill 160 gives Queen's Park sweeping dictatorial powers over every aspect of the education system: school boards, funding, school councils, teacher qualifications, the number of teachers and the amount of time teachers have for each student. As was stated late last week by the Premier, an additional $600 million to $700 million will be saved with the implementation of Bill 160. It begs to be said: Are we improving quality or just saving money at the expense of our students and teachers?
What I would like to focus on primarily is how Bill 160 will impact occasional teachers. The points I would like to address include the definition of an occasional teacher, the status of occasional teachers, the hiring of new teachers, unqualified teachers in the classroom, and callout procedures. The first point of impact is in the determination and definition of an occasional teacher.
The existing clause relating to an occasional teacher is as follows: "'occasional teacher' means a teacher employed to teach as a substitute for a permanent, probationary, continuing education or temporary teacher who has died during the school year or who is absent from his or her regular duties for a temporary period that is less than a school year and that does not extend beyond the end of a school year."
The proposed clause relating to an occasional teacher in subsection (1.1) is as follows:
"For the purposes of this Act, a teacher is an occasional teacher if he or she is employed by a board to teach as a substitute for a teacher or temporary teacher who is or was employed by the board in a position that is part of its regular teaching staff including continuing education teachers but,
"(a) if the teacher substitutes for a teacher who has died during a school year, the teacher's employment as the substitute for him or her shall not extend past the end of the school year in which the death occurred; and
"(b) if the teacher substitutes for a teacher who is absent from his or her duties for a temporary period, the teacher's employment as the substitute for him or her shall not exceed past the end of the second school year after his or her absence begins."
This proposed clause will allow for a term assignment of up to two years less a day. During this time, if present conditions hold, the substitute teacher will be paid on the grid, but have no additional benefits. There is no guarantee that the same occasional teacher will act as the substitute during the entire absence. This would be a stressful time for both the substitute teacher and the students involved. The proposed change would only be a cost-saving measure that is unfair to the occasional teacher. There is no need to change the existing clause of the Education Act.
The second point is the status of occasional teachers. The proposed clause relating to the status of an occasional teacher is as follows, section 277.5:
"(1) Despite subsections 277.3(1) and 277.4(1) and (2), occasional teachers are not members of a teachers' bargaining unit until the second collective agreement entered into after December 31, 1997 for the teachers' bargaining unit comes into effect.
"(2) Occasional teachers cease to be members of any other bargaining unit upon becoming members of the teachers' bargaining unit."
This means that occasional teachers will be part of teachers' bargaining unit for second contract in the year 2000. It is our contention that occasional teachers should be part of that first agreement, effective September 1, 1998. With the inauguration of a unified school board, what happens to occasional teachers in the existing boards of education? Will all occasionals be subject to callout by any school in the district?
1400
The third point is hiring of new teachers. During discussions about the implications of Bill 160, a statement was made by the Minister of Education that all new teachers hired by the boards of education would come from teachers' colleges. In his words, this would lead to enthusiastic, qualified teachers in the classrooms with new ideas. However, I believe he has done an injustice to the occasional teachers of this province. We are the teachers that patiently wait by the telephone day after day for a call. Why should we be denied a permanent position in favour of someone who has just graduated? What signal is this sending to those teachers who believe that a stint on the occasional list is the path to a permanent job? This initiative may be well-intentioned, but it is flawed.
Unqualified teachers in the classroom: In 1996 the Ontario College of Teachers was created by this government to act as a professional agency governing the teaching profession. The chief aim was to make sure only qualified teachers were in the classroom. That seems to be last year's initiative, because now there are statements about having uncertified professionals taking over areas such as guidance, library and physical education.
If this is allowed to start, then what's next? Could it be computer classes or business classes? This appears to be contrary to the initiative of 1996. It is the thin edge of the wedge. There is more to teaching than a university degree and knowledge of the subject area. This initiative is again doing a disservice to the teachers already in the system and those hoping to become part of the system. There are many students currently enrolled in various colleges of education who are pursuing an untenable dream.
It is unfortunate that in the 1990s boards of education will be forced to hire the cheapest teacher for the position, not the best qualified. This will not improve the quality of education.
The Chair: I'm sorry, our time allotted has elapsed. Thank you very much for your presentation; we all have your written presentation.
PAT MICK
The Chair: Our next presenter is Pat Mick.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Chair, about Statistics in response to the CUPE presentation about the number of acclamations: It is my understanding that Ms Mick is a trustee in Sault Ste Marie board. I understand that in district school board number 2, which is the new school board for Algoma district, which covers an area from Hornepayne to Spanish, there have been three acclamations, and two in the French boards, just in this one area. I'd really like to get a clarification of the figures the parliamentary assistant presented for the whole of Ontario, if we've had five acclamations only in Algoma district.
The Chair: He can do that at the end of the hearings. He has noted the question.
Mrs Pat Mick: My name is Pat Mick. Thank you for allowing me to present in beautiful, sunny Sault Ste Marie instead of travelling many hours to the next closest centre.
As a toddler in the small railroad community of Hawk Junction near Wawa, my parents boarded a wonderful couple who were the teachers in the local school. In the evening they taught me how to pick out the letters in my name from the Sault Star. Even at that early age I realized that learning to read would open the door to a wonderful exciting world and the people who held the keys were these amazing teachers.
From those long-ago days, throughout my education, and the school days of my four children, right up to the present, I am continually surprised by the dedication and selflessness of those who choose to teach. Theirs is probably the most important profession in our society, or any society for that matter.
The latest proposed legislation to improve the fate of our children is called the Education Quality Improvement Act. I've read media releases, a legal summary and have actually trudged through the 262-page release. I saw little in the document that would improve my grandchildren's education in the future. What I did read about were many repressive measures that would probably make educators, boards, parents and, most importantly, the children very unhappy. The ultimate purpose of an education bill should be to improve conditions for the students, not to exercise power and control over the people who, day to day, run the system with the ultimate goal of accessing funds directed to the education of students.
When a local resident is unhappy with a board of trustees' decision, they need only phone their locally elected representative and discuss the matter. It seems to say in Bill 160 that the trustee will be held accountable by the Minister of Education and not by those who democratically elected that trustee. School board members could be made liable both jointly and severally for disobeying a government order. Boards are often jointly liable, but as trustees, have no individual authority. Trustee candidates across the province have let their names stand for office, ignorant of the fact that they could be held individually liable for a board decision, and also with no indication from the province as to what the new role of a trustee might be.
Bill 160 gives broad-ranging powers to the education minister and the government to dictate financial and operational affairs of school boards through regulations. However, the regulations have yet to be announced. If conditions are dictated from Toronto, with boards having to carry out the orders, there will be increased bad feelings at the local level. If the minister orders local schools closed and sold, local taxpayers wonder if they will get a rebate on their taxes.
During the period of 1993-96 of the social contract, grants were reduced by $425 million and by an additional $200 million of reductions per year in the same period through the expenditure control plan of the previous government. School boards in the 1996-97 fiscal period incurred further grant cuts of approximately $525 million. During this four-year period, enrolment continued to increase in the province along with inflation, without boards receiving any increased grants to offset such increases.
Locally, boards lost industrial and commercial assessment as well as having mandated expenditures not related to education, and have still managed to keep local education taxes to a zero increase in three years of the last five. The Premier keeps insisting that there is fat and waste to be cut and accuses boards and teachers of being untrustworthy, while provincial governments that have overspent for years download their deficits to the municipal level.
As a parent, I would want to know how the increased use of unqualified instructors would improve my child's education. Bill 160 proposes repealing Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and replacing it with the procedures of the Labour Relations Act. The Labour Relations Act has incurred far more strikes than has Bill 100. In fact I have never seen a strike locally under Bill 100.
Public education mandates that programming for all students of school age, regardless of individual educational needs, be provided. The Sault Ste Marie Board of Education provides an extensive special needs program. Students from other boards and the district are attracted to the level of services. On a per capita basis, special education costs are significant when compared to average costs. The local board spends $423 per capita beyond provincial grants to meet special needs.
As a member of the local community living education committee and a past chair of a special education advisory committee, as well as chair of a local education improvement committee, special education, I can tell you that parents and advocates are very anxious about the future of our local special education and the composition and management of a new district school board special education advisory committee.
Parental involvement in a child's education is very important. But volunteerism in a school advisory council should not be legislated, but optional. Many parents are unwilling to assume increased responsibilities and are concerned about their own students in their own schools, while a trustee has a more global perspective. This perspective will be even more important, as a trustee from Wawa will have to be as sensitive to a student from Spanish as she is to a student from Hornepayne in the new district school board.
1410
Taxpayers who do not have children in school will have less access to an accountable representative; in fact, in many of the smaller communities, when that taxpayer finds out who their representative is, it will potentially involve long-distance charges. This is shabby treatment of people who, like myself, have supported one or more school boards for so many years and are now looking forward to their golden years.
Small communities are worried that the cost savings they have enjoyed while sharing services and buildings with all types of their local boards will be lost because of the rigid establishment of a distinct presence for English public, English Catholic, French public and French Catholic boards in all communities. As a parent and a taxpayer, the establishment of one school system, recognizing differences based on religion and language, would seem to be the largest cost-saving measure this province could make. Neighbourhood schools could be maintained, and transportation costs would tumble.
As a proud Canadian, I know that our most valuable resource is our people, and our children are our future. This is why it saddens me deeply that my government in Ontario has been wasting so much time and so much money in belittling our dedicated educators instead of collaborating with them to make our province even better. Thank you.
Applause.
The Chair: Again, I'd like to remind the audience that demonstrations are not permitted.
Thank you, Ms Mick. We have approximately one minute per caucus.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. Your being here today reminds us that this should not be a power struggle between teachers and the government, that what the government is doing is taking total control unto itself and taking everybody else out of the equation, not just teachers but trustees and parents as well.
The question I'd like to ask you relates to the minister's statements that they need control because they want to do something, presumably beneficial for students, about class size. But given the fact that the government intends to take another $667 million out of education, given the fact that there are some 25,000 new students expected in the system every year for the next five years, what do you do as a school trustee if the government mandates, legislates, a class size but takes $700 million away from you and you have all these new students coming in?
The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms McLeod. Our time is up. We must move on --
Mrs Mick: It'll hurt kids.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We have more, if we can get a question in here. Mr Martin?
Mr Martin: You mentioned in a number of places throughout your presentation the issue of the comments of the government and the Premier about people like yourself and, I guess, myself -- I was a trustee before I got this job -- and so many others in the room today, that they were untrustworthy, that they weren't doing the job and that they were somehow irresponsible and squandered money in the system and have hurt students. Do you care to elaborate a bit more on that, your feeling about that?
Mrs Mick: As an Irishman, them's fighting words. It's very insulting, and a lot of my friends and neighbours and relatives say: "Why would you want to be a trustee? You certainly don't get any thanks for it."
I'm concerned about some of the new trustees coming in. I welcome new faces and I usually am very eager to see them, but I'm wondering what will happen to these people who haven't developed the thick skins that the rest of us have had to develop working with the people we've had to work with.
Mr Beaubien: Thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation, Mrs Mick. Could you tell me why teachers or schools would refuse to send teaching materials along with the students during the illegal strike? If we care about the kids, why would they refuse to send the teaching materials with the students?
Mrs Mick: I hadn't known that they had refused.
Mr Beaubien: Because we received 24 calls this morning in my constituency alone.
Mrs Mick: Maybe it's your constituency that's --
Laughter.
Mr Beaubien: Okay. It's synonymous with southwestern Ontario. That's why I think there is a need for the province to take some action so that all students are treated fairly across the province of Ontario.
The Chair: Ms Mick, thank you very much for your presentation here today.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, CENTRAL ALGOMA DISTRICT
The Chair: Our next presentation is the OPSTF, Echo Bay; Andy Jones. Welcome.
Mr Andy Jones: I'm Andy Jones. Let me begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to make the presentation this afternoon.
I am a parent of four children ranging in age from 16 to 27. I am a taxpayer who has been continually employed for over 31 years and a property owner for 29 years. I am a teacher and principal, have been a teacher and principal for over 31 years. I also hold the position of president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Central Algoma District. My perspective on Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, will reflect every one of those roles.
I honestly believe that the present system of education in Ontario is among the best in the world. This system is based on a balance of power among its partners: the Ministry of Education and Training, the local boards of education, the teachers and their federations, and the parents and the taxpayers. This partnership has evolved over several decades, through good and bad economic times, into what I consider a very efficient and effective educational delivery system. There will always be a need to improve. In fact, change and improvement are constant in the field of education. I just ask you to reflect for a moment on the changes over the last few decades in the areas of technology, society, especially with the family structure change, and the economy. Our educational system has constantly adjusted, adapted, and improved in response to these changes.
The Ministry of Education and Training has decided that our educational system is broken and that the only way to fix it is through Bill 160. According to the Ministry of Education and Training, Bill 160 will enhance the quality of education in Ontario and improve accountability through cutting the funding for education. I don't believe this.
Let me make it very clear at the beginning that I and most of the residents of central Algoma were not in favour of the amalgamation of local school boards under Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. I am extremely proud of the high level of quality of education within the Central Algoma Board of Education. This high quality is a direct result of the partnership I mentioned earlier that exists among the board, the teachers and their federations and the parents and the taxpayers in central Algoma. Bills 104 and 160 will destroy that.
Bill 160 vests considerable power with respect to transitional matters in the Education Improvement Commission, the EIC. The members of the EIC are unelected political appointees who will make very important decisions with respect to the transfer of property, the assets and the employees of these boards. These powers are extreme and are in the hands of non-elected officials. Who is accountable?
The Education Improvement Commission has also been seeking input into the role of the new trustee within the new mega-boards over the last few weeks by holding public input sessions across Ontario. These potential new trustees are presently campaigning for the November 10 election. On January 1, 1998, the successful candidates will be in a position to take on these undefined roles somewhere within the board. Time, or the lack of it, is a major concern of mine.
Bill 160 eliminates the local control and management of education. This bill centralizes the power and control of education in the Ministry of Education and Training. By totally removing the revenue-generating powers of the local school boards, Bill 160 will reduce the role of the new trustees to that of being ministry puppets who will have little decision-making powers but who will be the first in line to accept any blame.
What is the role of the advisory school councils with respect to the new mega-boards? No one knows. Regulations by cabinet at a later date will define their composition and their function. How can anyone possibly make any judgement on the councils at this time?
The definition of "occasional teacher" expands the period during which occasional teachers may be hired to substitute for absent teachers. The new definition in itself is not of concern. However, how this definition is implemented is of concern. In its extreme, this definition would permit boards to have a series of occasional teachers fill a teaching position over a lengthy period of time. Our classrooms could become the McDonald's of the educational field, with part-time occasional teachers rotating through the system on a regular basis. This new definition of "occasional teacher" and the fact that all permanent and probationary contracts are eliminated is of major concern to me.
Now I'll turn my attention to collective bargaining. The transfer of collective bargaining from the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act to the Labour Relations Act is not a major concern of mine at this time, partly because I am not as familiar with the Labour Relations Act as I am with the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. I just hope there is an adequate grievance procedure in the Labour Relations Act to protect teachers.
Collective bargaining with the new district school board will be somewhat limited, since the board's role and power are going to be dictated by the Ministry of Education and Training. Cabinet, through regulations, will have the power to dictate class size, teacher-pupil contact time, preparation time, and the power to designate positions that are not teaching positions and duties that are not teachers' duties. These are areas that are presently often addressed within the collective agreements.
Bill 160 will permit the cabinet to set a limit on class size. To date, no figure for class size has been put forward. If the minister is sincere about class size, I strongly recommend that the maximum class size in Ontario be set at about 22 students. I'd like to clarify that. I do not mean that the pupil-teacher ratio would be 22 and I do not mean that the average class size in a school or in a board or in the province be 22. I do mean that there will be no classroom in Ontario with more than 22 students. This would improve the quality of education.
Let me clarify something else about class size. Unlike the government's media propaganda, teachers have never negotiated larger class size except to save junior kindergarten programs and to meet the requirements of the social contract.
Applause.
The Chair: Excuse me. I asked the audience not to demonstrate. There will be a five-minute recess, and if it continues, it will be 10 minutes. Unlike lunchtime, some people may not be heard due to your behaviour. It's as simple as that.
The committee recessed from 1425 to 1431.
The Chair: Can the committee reconvene, please. Five minutes have elapsed. Could everyone take their place. Mr Jones is going to continue at this time. Could I ask that the conversations cease, please, and we have order.
I apologize for the interruption, Mr Jones. You have two and a half minutes to go. Please proceed.
Mr Jones: The length of the school year and the school day have always been within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and Training. Teachers have some impact through collective bargaining on the placement and number of professional activity days, the placement and number of examination days, especially at the secondary level, school holidays and instructional days. Bill 160 extends the cabinet's authority in these areas, but there's no specific outline of the intent of their increased authority. Will we have year-round schooling in the near future? There are more questions raised than answers given. Future regulations will eventually provide the answers.
Perhaps the factor that will have the greatest impact on collective bargaining is the educational funding model, if and when it is disclosed. Bill 160 gives absolute control over the setting of tax rates and the collecting of taxes to the ministry. Therefore, when teachers bargain for their pay with the local district school boards, the ability to pay will be controlled not by the district school boards but by the provincial government. Again, the trustees will be puppets of the ministry.
As an alternative, perhaps the ministry should consider province-wide bargaining. Why not eliminate district school boards? The province of Ontario could become a province school board. Bill 160 would have to be altered only slightly.
Let me summarize by stating briefly what Bill 160 is about. Bill 160 is about eliminating local control and management of education. Bill 160 is about eliminating the revenue-generating powers of local boards. Bill 160 is about centralizing taxation powers at the cabinet level. Bill 160 is about vesting considerable power in the appointed Education Improvement Commission. Bill 160 is about centralizing control over class size, the school year, the school day, school holidays, preparation time, examination days, instructional days and professional activity days at the cabinet level. Bill 160 is about restricting the scope of collective bargaining immensely. Bill 160 is about transferring the collective bargaining process to the Labour Relations Act. Bill 160 is about instituting differentiated staffing in the educational system. Bill 160 is about redefining "occasional teacher" and "teacher." Bill 160 is about eliminating permanent and probationary contracts.
I believe that Bill 160 will not improve the quality of education as its title implies. Bill 160 has everything to do with putting the control and power over the education of our children -- our future -- in the hands of the provincial cabinet, in the hands of politicians and their bureaucrats. The goals of politicians and bureaucrats are not necessarily in the interests of quality education.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Jones. Our time has elapsed. I thank you on behalf of the committee for your presentation here this afternoon.
SAULT STE MARIE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Our next presenter is the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council, Dan Lewis. Welcome, Mr Lewis. Please proceed.
Mr Dan Lewis: Good afternoon, members of the standing committee, brothers and sisters.
Firstly, I'd like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to present today on behalf of the teachers, parents and all of our children in this province.
The labour council cannot support Bill 160 for one main reason, among many others. This country and this province have had a long tradition in allowing free collective bargaining for Ontario workers. Our country is supposed to be a democratic society, not one with a dictatorship. This proposed legislation goes against all principles of free collective bargaining.
The delegates of our council, which represents approximately 10,000 members, voted unanimously in support of the teachers' unions at our meeting on October 22, 1997. We had seen how Bill 136 could have stripped the rights away from our brothers and sisters from the public sector unions and we stood with them to ensure they would have free collective bargaining. We will stand beside the teachers also so that they will maintain their rights. We cannot support legislation that will strip the rights of teachers to bargain their terms and conditions of employment.
One has to wonder why this government wants labour unrest in this province. The only conclusion we can see is that they want to ensure that their corporate friends benefit. To suggest that we need to take $1 billion out of the education system and not harm our children is ludicrous. This is only so that they can grab the money to pay for the 30% tax cut they had promised, which will benefit the high-income earners, not the average worker. This is not going to improve the education system; this will hurt our children.
In the proposed legislation, the Ministry of Education wants to control class sizes. Why? If you take money out of the education system, then some teachers will lose their jobs, forcing the classrooms to enlarge. I understand that approximately 10,000 teachers will lose their jobs if Bill 160 is passed.
As a parent, I had to lobby the board of education just last year as I saw how my daughter's education was being affected by a class size of 38 pupils. I met with the teacher to discuss my daughter's grades and was told that he just could not spend the time with all of his students individually and that he was stressed out as well. This year the grade 7 class has been divided and now there are about 20 pupils in each. The teacher has assured me that he does have the time to spend with my daughter and her classmates as the class size is now manageable.
The government says they want the best education system possible for our children of Ontario. We believe we already have it. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
In closing, I want to say that Bill 160 must be rewritten before it is acceptable to the teachers and the parents of this province. Bill 160 must be rewritten to ensure our children benefit from the education system like we did. I hope this committee recommends to our government that this proposed legislation cannot go forward as presented.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lewis. We have a little over one minute per caucus.
Mr Wildman: This morning it was reported in the media that the Minister of Education and Training, Mr Johnson, had indicated that there would be amendments to Bill 160. I proposed a motion to this committee that we invite the minister to present the amendments to this committee so that people like you and other members of the public could comment on the amendments, as well as on the original draft of the bill, so that we could get input on those amendments to see if they go far enough to resolve the concerns of the teachers and the parents and others interested in education. The motion unfortunately was voted down by the majority on the committee.
Do you think it would be useful for the government to publish the amendments so we know whether or not the concerns of the teachers have been met? Maybe then we can move to end this disruption in the education of our students. Would you as a parent welcome the publication of these amendments?
Mr Lewis: Certainly. If we're going to go forward in getting our pupils back into the classroom where they belong, getting the education they need, we have to have negotiations, we have to have agreement, just like Bill 136: It was amended, it satisfied the majority of the people who were concerned.
Mr Beaubien: Mr Lewis, in your presentation you mention that last year your daughter was in a class of 38. Who set the size of the class last year? Was it the government or the board?
Mr Lewis: I would imagine it was the board. The parents of the particular school lobbied the board as to the class size and were successful in getting it reduced this year to the manageable amount of 20.
Mr Beaubien: But all day today I've heard that the government has been setting class size and there are 40 students. You just told me that the board sets the class size, so it's not the government up to this date that has set the class size.
Mr Lewis: No, but if you refer to my brief, I've stated that if you take money out of the system, teachers will lose their jobs --
Mr Beaubien: No, no, but I've asked you about the class size, not about the money.
Mr Lewis: If you eliminate teachers, you're going to have to put the students in the other classes.
Mr Beaubien: At the beginning of your brief --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Beaubien, our time is up. We move over to the opposition, Mr Bartolucci.
1440
Mr Bartolucci: It'll be a very, very simple question -- and thanks for your presentation -- so that everyone on the government side can understand. If you have more students coming into a system, if you have fewer teachers in that system, what is that going to equal when it comes to class sizes?
Mr Lewis: Maybe they'll keep the class sizes minimal, but they won't have professional teachers teaching the classes.
Mr Bartolucci: Absolutely. So what we're looking at is increased class sizes or the removal of qualified teachers.
Mr Lewis: Exactly.
Mr Bartolucci: That's what 160 is all about and that's why teachers, students and parents across Ontario are upset. I thank you very much for your presentation.
The Chair: Well, Mr Lewis, I moved them along too quickly. We now have one minute left over. Is there something you'd like to add to your presentation, use your minute?
Mr Lewis: No, I think that pretty well covers it. I wanted to keep it to the point, short and brief. I just thank you for allowing me to present.
The Chair: I appreciate you permitting time for questions. It's quite unusual with 10-minute interviews.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, SAULT STE MARIE DISTRICT
The Chair: Our next presentation is the OPSTF. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I'd ask you to identify yourselves for the purposes of the record and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Mike Patriquin: We'd like to thank you, first of all, before we identify ourselves, for giving us this opportunity to come before you today. A bit of a clarification as far as the agenda is concerned: I'm Mike Patriquin and I'm past president of OPSTF, and with me today I have Bill Clarke, who will go through the presentation. He's president of the OPSTF district.
Mr Bill Clarke: What is Bill 160 about? I have to apologize for my laryngitis. The government would have you believe that it is about improving the quality of education in Ontario. In fact, it has more to do with power and control. The purpose of the shift of power is to get complete control of education. In so doing, this government could make the necessary changes in order to improve education, while at the same time remove money from the system by cutting the quality of education offered to students in Ontario.
There are three underpinnings in our system of education, those being governance, funding and collective bargaining. Through various steps the government has systematically gone about setting up a totalitarian state in so far as education is concerned, as well as in other areas of public service. We have all watched as our former Minister of Education, John Snobelen, went about the systematic procedure of creating this aforementioned totalitarian state.
If you wished a report written that espoused the changes you supported, who would you want to write this report? A friend and long-time business acquaintance would be the preferred author of such a report. Is this what happened? Well, you be the judge. The Paroian report certainly filled the requirements of Mr Snobelen. The report talked about collective bargaining with respect to school boards, the right to strike, the right of boards to lockout, principal/vice-principal membership in the bargaining unit, work to rule, the role of the Education Relations Commission and changes in statutory contracts.
Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, reduced the number of school boards and, at the same time, stripped them of any financial powers. The government took upon itself ultimate authority for all major decisions and took complete control of all education finance in Ontario.
Bill 136, along with Bill 160, will further strip teachers and the general public of their right to have input into the decision-making process. This will ignore the grass-roots concerns in the education system. Teachers will no longer have the right to bargain for prep time and class size.
In this pluralistic society, we all have certain rights and responsibilities. Checks and balances have been built into this system to maintain a harmonious relationship between employer and employee. This is why, in a democratic society, we have unions that represent the individual and management who bargain for the rights of the employer. In this province, this has been a long-accepted practice. This Conservative government is abusing democratic principles through this power grab.
Teachers do not take being forced to demonstrate lightly. Our colleagues fully understand that the issue here is greater than just Bill 160 itself. Discrediting teachers and putting them in a situation whereby they must take job action is reprehensible.
We believe a partnership exists in education between teachers, parents, school boards and the government. Bill 160 destroys this partnership. The monetary cutbacks and emotional wounds that are being created as a result of this bill will be felt for years to come. The educational system that Bill 160 was to improve will require much longer to fix than if efforts had been made to work positively and cooperatively within the already excellent education system.
In disfranchising the public at large and education workers, this government is not only dismantling education, but it is also dismantling democracy. We wonder about the example this sets for employers in the private sector and we are concerned as to what is coming next.
In conclusion, the government must address the following key issues: Guarantee that there is a certified teacher in every classroom; guarantee that teachers continue to bargain all terms and conditions of employment with their employer; keep to a minimum the regulatory control of the provincial government and maintain the ability of school boards to raise revenues through local taxation.
The Vice-Chair (Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins): Is that your presentation?
Mr Clarke: Yes, it is.
The Vice-Chair: We have a few minutes then from each caucus, starting this time with the government.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. As you can appreciate, we've received a considerable amount of input on the issue of differentiated staffing and certainly a different range of views, primarily one of opposition by teachers' groups, recognizing, however, as we all know, that many teachers already supplement their classrooms with outside experts. The whole issue, though -- we've had the Royal Commission on Learning making recommendations to the same. We've had the Education Improvement Commission making recommendations to the same. Are both of these groups wrong?
Mr Clarke: If you notice, on my name on the front I have "SERT" after it. I'm a special education resource teacher. The one thing I look at, bringing in people from outside for certain special occasions is fine, teaching bowling, baseball or some type of sport or art activity is fine, but we have to look at the student who has special needs. How is that outside individual going to implement an individual educational plan for that student who is physically challenged? There isn't anything right now that can answer that.
Mrs McLeod: I regularly remind Mr Smith as parliamentary assistant that if it was a question of having teams and having experts brought into the classroom to supplement the work of qualified teachers, you wouldn't need the changes in Bill 160 because that's happening now. The government is, I think, finding that this is not a popular thing and therefore they're trying to run away from the fact that Bill 160 is there to allow non-certified teachers to replace classroom teachers.
You make the point that teachers have not taken the step they've taken this morning lightly. I know that to be the case. I know that there is great personal sacrifice, as well as risk of the unknown, as well as incredible concern for their students. What do you think has driven teachers to take the step they've taken today?
Mr Patriquin: Teachers have an awful hate on for John Snobelen and I think it's mutual. I think John Snobelen set out to create a crisis systematically. We can see that he systematically went about doing it. For that he's been successful. Just when he's about to take the heat, he's pulled out and we have another fellow in there now. We'll see what he's like. Hopefully, he's a little better. For the last number of years, and I've been a teacher now going on to 32 years, I have never suffered as an individual and felt degraded by anybody outside the education system. Teachers are fed up. We're fed up by this government telling us that we're not doing an excellent job.
Mr Wildman: I was intending to follow along with that. You as professional teachers -- and I can tell from the emotion in your voice obviously this is not a happy day for you or for your students. What do you think it's going to take to get both sides to the table so that we can actually start talking about quality education for our students and move forward in our education system, after what you've described as two years of insult and so on from the education minister?
1450
Mr Patriquin: This government came in with one message to the people in Ontario, and that was that their key platform was common sense. I think a lot of common sense on both sides would be called for here. This issue was not created by the teachers in the classroom, and if need be, the teachers in the classroom, as we're doing today, are trying to force an end to all the silliness that has gone on before this time in education, in the last couple of years.
We would like nothing more than to be in the classroom teaching today. My primary role in life is to teach. I don't want to be out on the bricks, and I don't know of any teachers I've talked to who want to be where they are. The failure to communicate -- I guess that's it. It's a difference of opinion and it's a difference of how you look at what's going to fix this system. If this government thinks it's going to fix anything by what they're doing -- strikes last only a short time, maybe a long time, but anybody who has been through a strike will tell you the wounds last a long, long time. I'm really concerned about the children being affected by this.
The Vice-Chair: Your time has come to an end. Thank you for your presentation. We appreciate it.
CENTRAL ALGOMA WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: I call the next group of people, the Central Algoma Women Teachers' Association.
Ms Heide Marrato: Good afternoon. My name is Heide Marrato, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Central Algoma Women Teachers' Association. My president, Penny Bellarose, is not here. Unfortunately, I only have five copies. If that's not enough, I'd be more than willing to photocopy in the next little while.
I've come to the Bill 160 hearings to speak as a representative of my teachers' union, the Central Algoma Women Teachers' Association. While I hold the position of vice-president of my local union affiliate, I consider myself first and foremost a classroom teacher. I am currently in my 11th year of teaching, and I teach kindergarten at Johnson-Tarbutt Public School in Desbarats, Ontario.
I work long hours for my students and I am proud to be a teacher. I do not now abuse, nor have I ever abused, the Ontario education system, nor have I ever worked with any other teacher guilty of such an abuse. In fact, I consider the teachers I work with to be hardworking, dedicated individuals, concerned foremost with the academic, social, and emotional wellbeing of their students.
Bearing this in mind, I have grave concerns regarding Bill 160 and this current government's agenda for public education. I take offence at a government that precedes changing the Education Act with laying blame for the faults in the Ontario education system solely on the shoulders of the teachers.
As any good parent recognizes, children abide within the rules established for them. Likewise, the teachers in the province of Ontario abide by the Ministry of Education's guidelines and curriculum documents. Within the last four years, one of the Ontario government's mandates was the Common Curriculum, and therefore Ontario's teachers implemented the Common Curriculum. Now the Ontario government has realized that perhaps the Common Curriculum should be more specific regarding student achievement at particular grade levels. At the end of June 1997, new documents for grades 1 to 8 language and mathematics achievement and assessment were distributed and Ontario's teachers once again began to implement these.
As a teacher, I am not against change. In fact, change in my profession is rudimentary to my and my students' existence. I and my colleagues have changed as your government and those governments before you have asked us to.
As a teacher, I appreciate the clearness and conciseness of the new math and language documents. These types of well-defined parameters have been necessary. I also appreciate the provincial standardization that these documents, as well as the new provincial report card and new province-wide testing, are mandating. With these reforms, education in Ontario has become streamlined and updated for all parties involved: students, parents and teachers. The responsibilities of these parties have also become more clearly defined.
However, I am not satisfied with the arrival time of the math and language documents, nor am I happy with the current lack of new documentation this government has provided in such areas as French language, the arts, and kindergarten. Here, I question the value our current government places on these areas of the curriculum. I ask, is French not one of the official languages of Canada? Are the arts not an important part of the development of the whole person? Is kindergarten not part of Bill 160's definition of primary?
It is "incompletes" or questions such as these that made me further investigate Bill 160. To my horror, this investigation led me to recognize further very important incompletes within the bill itself.
First, Bill 160 discusses the new boards' compliance regarding class size. However, it does not establish a specific number for any class or grade, nor does it establish how class size will be determined. Bill 160 does not limit class size as many current teachers' collective agreements already have; therefore, there is absolutely no guarantee that a primary class of 20 will not become a primary class of 35.
Second, the current government mandated the Ontario College of Teachers, such that teachers be more responsible to the public whose children they teach. This is acceptable. However, allowing persons who are not teachers into the schools to teach students is totally unacceptable. Who will regulate the actions of these individuals? Qualified teachers know and use government education documents and abide by government laws and regulations regarding the education of Ontario's students. What guarantee is there that these people who are not teachers qualified by the Ontario government will do the same? Ontario teachers are professionals trained by the Ontario Ministry of Education in student programming, achievement and assessment. These people are not. Ontario teachers are aware of the continuum of Ontario education, from kindergarten through to OAC. These people are not.
Third, Bill 160 places limits on teacher preparation time and suggests that this time would be better spent in the classroom, in front of students. What needs to be clarified here is that teachers are already using this time to benefit their students.
I use this time to give extra help, plan and revise lessons, consult with outside support agencies, contact parents, organize intermurals, clubs and a breakfast program, work with a school team, prepare materials, meet with colleagues, counsel students with personal problems, prepare work for absent students, organize assemblies, trips and guest speakers, solve attendance problems, mark assignments, and update student profiles. In order to be the best teacher I can be, I make excellent student use of my preparation time. This does not include the time I spend before and after school in the evening and on weekends and holidays. Preparation time is not a teacher's luxury but a necessary part of a teacher's day. This must be realized.
Finally, while Bill 160 does not specifically state that there will be more financial cuts to education, the current government's previous agenda has already removed large amounts of money from public education, and I do not believe this will change. I do not revere careless spending, but I also realize that the best education system in the world cannot be achieved without adequate financing. I do not believe that more money can be cut without seriously jeopardizing our students' futures.
The students in central Algoma and in the province of Ontario have already lost too much. In central Algoma, our supply rooms are virtually bare, housing mainly construction paper. Glue, pencils, and paint are a luxury. We have lost all of our teacher-librarians, our primary consultant and our arts coordinator.
Many of our classes have become split grades, from kindergarten right through to grade 8. Class sizes have increased from 18 in grade 1 to 28 in a 4-5 split, and now 35 in grade 6. The kindergarten program has become a full-day junior kindergarten/senior kindergarten split-grade program, running in two groups every other day, due to transportation and staffing cuts.
Educational assistants no longer exist in grades 1 to 8. Special education resources, services and time have been reduced. Assessment reports prepared by outside agencies are severely delayed, and cutbacks faced by these same agencies have further delayed access to professional services for our students.
There are not enough textbooks, such that students in a particular grade must share textbooks and individual students cannot take textbooks home to complete assignments.
Finally, while my school houses an up-to-date computer lab, use of it is limited, not by teacher inadequacies but by lack of service time.
In conclusion, I wish to state that I am not satisfied with section 81 of Bill 160, which deals with class size, unqualified teachers and preparation time, nor am I happy with the current government's probable future monetary cuts. Enough is enough.
Bill 160 is supposed to be an act intended to enhance accountability and regulate class size. As it is unclear and non-specific in these areas, it falls short of achieving these goals. Therefore, I as a teacher in the province of Ontario cannot in good conscience support Bill 160 in its present form.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. You've got less than a minute left if you want to add a couple of more things to it.
Ms Marrato: I'm okay, thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's much appreciated.
1500
SAULT STE MARIE DISTRICT ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Sault Ste Marie District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.
Ms Karen Fata: My name is Karen Fata, and I represent the Sault Ste Marie District Roman Catholic Separate School Board. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for allowing our school board, the Sault district Roman Catholic school board, this opportunity to comment on Bill 160.
It goes without saying that this bill has caused a great deal of controversy in education in Ontario. The changes being proposed are far-reaching, and the centralization of authority with regard to education in Ontario in the hands of the government is unprecedented. I would like to present my board's position on a number of issues concerning Bill 160. I'm encouraged that I see pen in hand; hopefully, that's an indication that you are listening and as messengers you will bring our thoughts back to the ministry.
Dealing with proposed changes in educational financing, the intent of these changes by the Ministry of Education and Training is to provide fair and non-discriminatory funding for all school boards and the students in the province. Our board supports this concept and congratulates the commitment to fair funding of students by this government. However, we, the trustees, are concerned that such a plan would require a three-year transitional period to implement. Our board and many of the other separate school boards in the province have received less funding than our public school board counterparts. In these times of financial restraint, we feel that fair funding should be implemented in the new funding model and take effect in September 1998 in its full form for all school boards and not be spread over three years before full implementation is achieved, as is the ministry's present intent.
Our board also wishes to express its concern regarding the possibility that the new funding model will designate grants to specific areas. It is our strong recommendation that spending priorities for school boards not be established in Toronto for the whole province. We strongly recommend that the ministry ensure that district school boards retain a high degree of autonomy and flexibility in establishing their spending priorities. We're looking at the culture of each individual city.
Concerning the tax default system, for many years separate school boards in Ontario have expressed their concerns regarding the unfairness of the tax default system. Under this system, if a Catholic ratepayer moves from a specific property, that property automatically reverts to public school support. If another Catholic ratepayer moves into that property, he must be aware that he must request that the property be changed to separate school support; otherwise, the property will continue to be listed as public school support.
The position of the separate school board is that every time a property is occupied by an occupant, the occupant should at that time be required to declare either separate or public school support. If the occupant does not declare his support of a specific school board, the property should not automatically be declared public school. Rather, such properties which are not declared as either separate or public support should be placed in a common pool of such properties. Taxes generated from these properties should be divided between the coterminous separate and public boards, based on the ratio of enrolment each board has with regard to the total enrolment of both boards of education. While this may not have a detrimental financial effect on separate boards under the proposed system, it would if the former local taxation system is reintroduced.
On the creation of district school boards, our new district school board number 31 stretches over 600 kilometres from east to west and 250 kilometres from north to south and encompasses many communities. Yet when the regulations were developed to determine the number of trustees who would represent this vast area, the regulations identified this new school board as a high-population-density board. This resulted in only six trustees being allocated to this large geographic school board. We failed to comprehend the rationale behind declaring this area a high-population-density area and petitioned both the ministry and the Education Improvement Commission to revise the status of our new school board in order that additional trustees be allocated. These petitions were to no avail. It is our hope that the ministry will rectify these shortcomings for the next school elections in order that the school supporters in this vast area have better representation on the school board.
I ask you to look at where the problem lies. If it be in Toronto, so be it. Northern boards have had to be innovative and frugal, and I want you to understand the word "frugal," because we have had to be to maintain a quality education delivery. In that innovation, we have developed a good relationship with our employees, and our board has excelled in testing in math and English. That is due to the cooperative efforts of our board and our teachers. We stand proud because we have acted as a team, and the result is that we've given you high-quality education. I suggest that you look at our efficiencies and apply them to what does not work in other areas.
In relation to the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations, this part of the act makes sweeping changes to how working conditions for teachers are determined. Presently, these conditions, such as class size, the minimum amount of time a teacher spends with students, preparation and planning time and differential staffing, are determined through collective negotiations between school boards and teacher associations. Bill 160 removes such items and places them solely in the hands of the ministry. This centralization of authority and governance by regulations enacted by a small group of individuals in Toronto should, in our opinion, be rethought.
These matters are of vital importance to many people and as a result require the involvement of the stakeholders at the local level. These working conditions have been negotiated over many, many years between school boards and their teachers. The sudden removal of these items from collective agreements by this bill is not in keeping with the concepts of social justice to which many of us adhere and to which I hope you would adhere as well.
It is our recommendation that the ministry consider establishing guidelines in these areas, but that the final decisions regarding these working conditions be reached at the local level between school boards and teachers. These guidelines should be developed in consultation with parents, educators, government and ministry staff. The ministry has on many occasions stressed the need to have broad consultations concerning educational matters. Please walk the talk. Consultations to develop guidelines in these areas would be in keeping with the ministry's policies.
Bill 160 provides to the Lieutenant Governor in Council authority to make regulations regarding the role and functions of school advisory councils. In our board, all elementary and secondary schools have operational school councils. These councils, we feel, have an important role to play at the school level in improving education and involving parents in their children's education.
The ministry has indicated its plan to review the function and role of these councils. When the ministry memorandum was first issued regarding school advisory councils, there was little consultation with school boards. We strongly recommend that when the role and functions of the school advisory councils are reviewed in the future, school boards be actively involved in a consultative process.
Presently, there is some confusion -- I think there's lots of confusion -- between the roles and functions of a school board and a school advisory council. If the roles and functions of the councils are to change, every effort should be made to delineate very clearly the differences between the roles and functions of these two bodies. If consultations occur, possible future conflicts can be avoided. It is our recommendation that this need for school boards to be involved in consultations be part of the new Education Act.
In conclusion, the rate of change in education with regard to curriculum development, governance and financing is occurring at a very rapid pace. It is when changes occur at this pace that errors in legislation can easily occur. We would urge the government to be certain it has conducted broad consultations with its stakeholders before enacting any new legislation which affects those stakeholders.
I'd like to thank the committee for providing our board with the opportunity to make our concerns regarding Bill 160 known to you this afternoon.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, and you've used up exactly your allotted time. I appreciate that.
1510
WATSON SLOMKE
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Central Algoma senior citizens.
Mr Watson Slomke: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Watson Slomke and I am an Ontario Hydro pensioner. It is indeed my pleasure to be given this opportunity to express my views here today and as a representative for the senior citizens of central Algoma.
At the outset I would like to state my position on the proposed Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. Bill 160 makes clear that we are now looking to articulate our vision of education for Ontario into the next millennium.
Parents, taxpayers and many teachers in Ontario realized that we pay far too much for a system of education that is producing average to less-than-average graduates on national and international scales. Our job as parents and citizens is to focus solely on creating better schools and better teaching methods so that all students are able to learn to the maximum of their abilities. Bill 160 will pave that way to a more reformed system that would be better managed, more accountable to parents and taxpayers, and would improve student achievement through limiting class sizes and increasing the amount of time students spend with their teachers.
Bill 160 would allow the government to increase the amount of instructional time students receive, prevent school boards from negotiating increases in class size, increase teachers' time in the classroom and initiate a funding model based on students' needs rather than on property values.
To make sure these reforms took place in an organized and careful way, the government established the Education Improvement Commission to work with the local community, including trustees, classroom teachers, parents and other stakeholders in the education community, to guide the process of this change. The Education Improvement Commission recommended that the total number of hours students spend in the classroom be increased. Bill 160 acts on this recommendation.
In the past, school boards and teachers' unions have traded off the pupil-teacher ratio for higher salaries. This has resulted in larger class sizes for our students. Bill 160 would protect children from contract deals that increase class size.
Bill 160 will also allow the government to require that high school teachers spend more time with students in the classroom, as do their elementary colleagues in Ontario or their secondary colleagues in other provinces. Bill 160 would also require secondary teachers to be moved to the national average, four and one half hours a day, of instructional time in the classroom.
The bill will require fair funding of school boards and will establish the authority for the province to control education tax rates. This approach will solve the problem of spiralling education property taxes and will better address the education taxing concerns of the senior citizens of central Algoma. Most of these senior citizen taxpayers are on a fixed income. This legislative strategy will assure seniors the highest quality of education for our children in the most cost-effective way.
The purpose of Bill 160 is to ensure a smooth transition to the new forms of school governance, ensure fair and equitable funding for publicly funded schools, and create an effective collective bargaining framework. These goals can be accomplished in a manner that respects the constitutional rights of all Ontarians.
This province is diverse, and indeed in many existing cases quite unique. Under the old system, education tax rates varied across the province. People's tax burdens for education varied depending in part on where they lived. For a common service that benefits us all, such as education, this just doesn't make any sense. Bill 160 addresses these insensibilities and proposes that funding be allocated on a per pupil basis.
Our focus should be on delivering fair funding for high-quality classroom education right across the province. This would mean that we would be providing an equal opportunity for a quality education for all the students of Ontario, whether they are attending public or separate, English- or French-language schools, whether they live in cities, towns or rural areas or whether they live in northern Ontario. These reforms are about improving fairness, not about favouring any particular school system or any special interest.
Bill 160 is the second stage to education reforms in Ontario. The province has already put together a plan that will strengthen curriculum, establish province-wide standards and testing, institute a standard report card, reduce the number of school boards, eliminate waste and bureaucracy, and reduce the number of school board politicians. The province's goals are to concentrate the resources, expertise and efforts where they belong: on students, on learning in the classroom.
For the new curriculum, there will now be province-wide standards set that will clearly state what students should learn and when they should learn it. Schools will now use easy-to-understand, standardized report cards so that parents can more easily see how their children are doing. The Ontario government's rigorous and demanding new standards will be the first stage in building a complete curriculum that replaces the previous government's Common Curriculum and provides a solid foundation in the basics. The new curriculum will focus on reading, writing, math, science and technology.
Ontario will be moving to a four-year high school program starting in 1998, and the curriculum is being revised for the new four-year program. Courses will prepare students for the future: either for jobs or for higher education.
Working together on Bill 160 and the new curriculum standards, we can build a system in Ontario that gives students the skills, knowledge, attitudes and habits they need to compete, succeed and contribute to society as responsible citizens. With this plan, the Ontario government is stating its commitment to improving the quality of education for every student in this province and to making the system more accountable to parents and taxpayers. We have a first-class teaching profession, and our students are as capable as students anywhere, but reforms to the system are essential if we are going to provide our students with an education that will enable them to compete in today's global economy.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for the presentation. You've used up your allotted time.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, SUDBURY DISTRICT SUDBURY WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Sudbury Women Teachers' Association. For the record, please state your name, and your time has started.
Ms Donna Cresswell: I'm Donna Cresswell and I represent the Sudbury Women Teachers' Association. Thank you for giving us the time today to speak to you.
Mr Laurie Rowlandson: I'm Laurie Rowlandson, representing the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Sudbury District. I also want to thank you for the opportunity to present to you. Please excuse my voice.
We represent 550 public elementary school teachers employed by the Sudbury Board of Education. Our members are caring, flexible educators who have always demonstrated a commitment to the improvement of the quality of education for their students. We are experienced and highly qualified teachers who have throughout our long careers implemented a wide variety of effective teaching and learning strategies, new curricula and report cards as mandated by the governments and/or school boards of the day.
We believe our students are very well served by our excellent publicly funded system of education, but we do accept that change for the purpose of improving the quality of education is necessary if we are to prepare our students for meaningful participation in the ever-changing technological and collaborative society of the 21st century.
This improvement in quality cannot simply be legislated. It can only be achieved through the implementation of carefully planned initiatives that are the result of long-term collaboration among all educational stakeholders, which include, but are not limited to, parents, teachers, students, trustees, school council members and Ministry of Education and Training educational staff.
1520
Bill 160 does not facilitate this collaborative partnership. Bill 160 does not provide the framework for the improvement of the quality of education in this province. Bill 160 has little to do with education and absolutely nothing to do with quality improvement. Bill 160 is merely the much-heralded toolbox that will give the cabinet of the day the unrestricted and unaccountable power to deny stakeholder input into educational decision-making, tear up existing collective agreements that have been bargained in good faith, and reduce funding to education by over $600 million. Bill 160 is a piece of legislation that is large in scope but short on details. If it is enacted in its present form, it will lead to the destruction of our publicly funded system of education.
This proposed legislation is just another piece in the puzzling Common Sense Revolution, a seriously flawed political agenda that will lead to the privatization of our province, a reduction in services and wage-earning potential for the vast majority of its citizens, and the denial of equity and equality for all. We are united in our opposition to Bill 160 in its present form and we urge the members of this committee to heed the warnings of parents, students and teachers and recommend to the government that Bill 160 be scrapped or radically amended and that all stakeholders be given a real opportunity to participate in the development of meaningful legislation that will honestly address the issue of improving education for Ontario's students. They deserve nothing less.
Ms Cresswell: Already the Premier has tried to justify the bill by accusing education authorities of squandering local taxpayers' dollars. "A 120% increase in taxes over the last several years is rationale enough for the bill," said the Premier during his address to the province on the evening of Wednesday, October 22. However, the Sudbury Board of Education budget has decreased by some $20 million over that same period of time, due in large measure to vast cuts to the province's share of the funding formula and to the increased costs of other government-mandated programs, such as workers' compensation and employment insurance.
Tories slashed funding by 11% in 1996, when they first assumed power, and another 6% this year. They have downloaded the costs of education to the local taxpayer and blamed the local boards for the shortfalls. This decrease in funding has had a very negative impact on the extent and quality of educational programs in the classrooms of the Sudbury Board of Education. During the last two years, in order to trim costs, the board has been forced to twin schools so that 19 elementary schools share principals; eliminate special education resource teacher staffing in elementary schools; reduce school budgets by 50%; seriously restrict the use of supply teachers; reorganize busing routes; and reduce and/or eliminate psychometrists, speech-language pathologists and educational assistants.
Again, money is at the crux of the educational agenda when Deputy Minister Veronica Lacey is contractually obliged to remove yet another $667 million from education. While one member of the cabinet states that fiscal savings will be plunged back into education, we find out later that this information was a mistake. In effect, what is taken away now is taken away forever. This further reduction in educational funding will create the crisis.
While Bill 160 suggests the use of unqualified teachers, arguing their use for areas such as junior kindergarten, art, music and phys ed, it makes no provisions for what areas will require qualified teachers. This lack of clarity must not be left for later interpretation. Barely a year ago, the Ontario College of Teachers was incorporated as an act of the provincial Legislature to assure quality and professionalism in education, particularly among teachers. The ink of that legislation has barely dried and the same legislators withdraw their concerns about qualifications and professionalism in favour of cheaper uncertified help.
The government rhetoric states they will reduce class sizes. Specifically, the bill provides unfettered powers of cabinet to set class sizes. Reduce or increase? The government asks the public to trust them -- an agenda which has proven time and again it will sacrifice quality to satisfy its need to save money. Any changes to class size can only be presumed to be for the larger.
Mr Rowlandson: In a democratic Ontario, it has always been recognized that workers had the right to bargain freely with their employers. Bill 160 will basically deny that right to teachers. The scope of bargaining will be seriously limited and teachers will be unable to negotiate many very important working conditions, which in reality are student learning conditions.
One such issue is preparation time. Preparation time was not a God-given right bestowed upon teachers. Rather, it has been negotiated in a free and fair collective bargaining process. Teacher preparation time is essential if teachers are to plan adequately, work individually with students, collaborate with parents and colleagues and evaluate student achievement. Decreasing the amount of preparation time will not increase student-teacher contact time. It will simply serve to decrease the number of teachers within a school to work with students.
Ms Cresswell: Bill 160 removes all democracy from education in the province of Ontario. It removes any decision-making power from those who are devoted to education, like parents, teachers and other education workers, and gives it entirely to the cabinet, a small, élite oligarchy whose wishes we could only hope represent the will of the public.
We in Sudbury are tremendously concerned about the enormous new decision-making control this bill would transfer to cabinet, for already both the Premier and his Minister of Education and Training have demonstrated inconsistencies in their public interpretations of the bill. They say it has nothing to do with money, whereas time and time again the bill is described to the public as a tool with which to extract fat from the system -- a tool which if passed will allow no local education decision-making powers beyond simple recommendations.
Look at the power to decide whether teachers should have time with students outside the classroom. Look at the power to determine class size. Look at the power to decide who should even be a teacher. These decisions are by cabinet alone. Look at the power to levy property taxes for education and remember that they are still going to be 53% of business tax and 27% of residential taxes, and realize that those powers to tax need no bill. They will be a cabinet decision, one which may not even be constitutional. Look at the clause in this bill that gives the cabinet power, if it decides it is necessary for financial reasons, as broadly as that may be interpreted, to take over a school board. Finally, look at the clause that gives cabinet power by regulation to override not only this act but any other act, and ask yourself whether there is any semblance of democracy left in educational governance when this bill passes.
Do you really trust your cabinet colleagues so much? Are you so convinced that achieving the agenda is worth it at any price that you are prepared to give up your elected accountability as legislators?
Given the record of this government to date, no more trust is deserved. When it makes a promise, it is a good bet it will be broken.
To give unfettered, unquestionable power to unscrupulous decision-makers is a dangerous folly. The Toronto Star editorial of October 25, 1997, sums up the credibility of the government and Bill 160 thus: "It's clear this government cannot be trusted to make decisions about our schools behind closed doors."
Interruption.
The Vice-Chair: Please. If we don't want a recess, let's keep the demonstrations down.
That ends the amount of time you have.
1530
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 40
The Vice-Chair: We call on the next group, the OSSTF, District 40, West Parry Sound Division. State your name for Hansard and begin, please.
Mr Bill Webster: My name is Bill Webster and I am president of District 40, OSSTF. I thank you for hearing me today. I'd like to do more talking than reading but time constraints are bothering us all, and this is literally hot off the press, so if I do more reading, I apologize.
Let me begin by saying that I support fully the brief submitted by my provincial body. However, let me bring a few insights as a citizen of Parry Sound and Muskoka, as well as a citizen of the north. No individual is a single dimension. Yes, I'm an OSSTF officer, but I'm also a parent, a teacher, a curler, a skier, trying to be a golfer --
Interjection: A skier?
Mr Webster: Depends on who you ask; I think so. I'm not on crutches yet. I'm even the president of a very tiny company. In short, I'm a citizen. It is as a citizen as well as an educational worker that this legislation, as I now read it, disturbs me deeply.
I would like to concentrate on the arbitrary concentration of power, the resulting loss of democratic input, and a legacy which I'm not sure any of us wants.
My mother was born and raised in Kenora. My father was born and raised in what is now Thunder Bay. I live and work in Parry Sound. I can assure you that the most chilling phrase a citizen living north of Major Mackenzie Drive can hear is, "I'm from Toronto and I'm here to help you." We used to say Highway 7, but you know how things are spreading and I can be flexible. But we haven't really been faced with anything like this.
I've read much of the bill. A copy of it is spread over my hotel room floor upstairs. Again and again and again I read sections and subsections beginning with the phrase "subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council," and "the minister may make regulations." I find these words chilling; certain sections of the bill, particularly subsection 58.3(3), which starts, "In the event of a conflict between a regulation..." and ends with, "and a provision of this or any other act, the regulation prevails."
This bill, as it's now written, is a time bomb and it's ticking all too quickly. With its passage, if you'll forgive the rhetoric, the bastion of democratic debate and decision-making concerning education will be blown into history. Students, parents, taxpayers and educational workers will be held hostage to government regulation. Even as simple a thing as the number of desks in a classroom or as complex a thing as what constitutes a classroom will be decided by government regulation. I really don't care whether one is for or against it, once this bill is on the books, it's on the books.
When I read the word "may" in Bill 160, I know it means "will." To speak personally, I didn't spend all the time I did to get my FAC, my hunting licence, oil up my gun and get all my shells just to frame them and hang them on the wall. No, I'm getting them in place to use them, and that's what this government is doing. To those who are within hearing, let me repeat: When you hear the word "may," it really means "will." This government will use its arbitrary powers to build or destroy, and none of us in this room will be able to do anything about it -- or maybe some of us can -- but so will any government in the future.
In recent years we have experienced wave after wave of immigration to Ontario, many escaping arbitrary governmental control over their lives. They understand and have lived the reality of government by regulation -- ask someone from Vietnam or China -- but not so those of us who have faith in our system of government in Ontario. My family, that's been around for four generations, we're having a hard time with this. I'm having a hard time with this.
Saturday evening a long-time friend and his family were guests in our home. They support this government, and knowing me, they asked me how I couldn't support Bill 160. We spent some time going over Bill 160 and I showed them some of the sections that I referred to before, beginning with the words, "The minister may make regulations," and including the one concerning the length of school day. My friend said, "The government wants to lengthen the school day and I agree with that." I asked him where specifically does it say they're going to lengthen the school day. We couldn't find it. We couldn't find any specific wording for any of the other initiatives my friend supports. They're not there. There are no specifics.
What he and his wife saw were arbitrary powers to make decisions. He and his wife and their families have lived in this province for generations, and they began to think and they didn't like the conclusions that they were coming to. Lengthen the school day, shorten the school day, eliminate the school day, eliminate the school year, make the school year 365 days a year. Arbitrary power is arbitrary power.
Many of us are beginning to realize that this government is changing the rules and passing these new rules on to any future government, and we're asking why. My friend asked, why? It's a good question. I really don't know. Perhaps this government, from the very worst, doesn't know what it's doing, hasn't figured out how to do it and is pressed for time, and well, here we have it. Perhaps they know what they're doing but they haven't figured out how. Perhaps this government knows exactly what it's doing, knows exactly how it wants to do it but doesn't want to face the public or the Legislative Assembly. The effect is the same: The legislator becomes the regulator; rule by law becomes rule by fiat.
You'll have to forgive this analogy, but it's been a long weekend. The butter knife of arbitrary law can be used to do many things. It can scrape off perceived excess butter, but it can also slather on more butter, or jam, or at worst, it can cut the piece of toast to pieces. I don't want to see our education system turned into toast.
This law will be on the books long after this government is gone, a law giving any future government of any ideology arbitrary decision-making power over the cornerstone of any democratic system: education.
Personally, I will not passively sit back and watch my ability to influence educational decision-making disappear.
I ask this rhetorical question to the opposition parties sitting on the committee: How will you use these powers? Begin to search yourselves now. No government will stay in power forever. What will you do? I ask this of the government members on this committee: Is this your legacy? Is this how you want to be remembered?
I believe that, as it's now written, this bill needs to be changed. There is some wording in here that needs to changed, at least some sort of sunset clause. I think there are some options for this government and I trust that some of those will be looked at.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, sir. You've used up your allotted time, pretty near right to the second. We appreciate that very much.
1540
FRANCO-ONTARIAN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS
The Vice-Chair: The next group we call is the AEFO, public schools, Sudbury, and the AEFO, separate schools, Sudbury. Would you please come forward and identify yourself for Hansard.
Mr Paul Charron: I am Paul Charron. I represent the AEFO public schools, and this is my friend Guill Archambeault. He's from the separate schools. We'd just like a slight correction. We are AEFO representatives. Guill represents the new board that goes from Sudbury to Wawa, and I represent the new public board that that goes from Sudbury to Manitoba, so significantly more than just Sudbury. We will be making most of our presentation in French. We will answer questions at the end.
Notre présentation a deux volets. Dans un premier temps, nous parlerons des effets de ce projet de loi sur nos programmes et nos écoles. Ensuite, nous aborderons comment ce projet attaque nos droits fondamentaux comme citoyennes et citoyens syndiqués.
Nous, les enseignantes et les enseignants franco-ontariens de Sudbury à Long Lac, sommes particulièrement inquiets des implications néfastes que le projet de loi 160 aura sur nos écoles. La grande majorité de nos écoles sont de petites écoles qui offrent le plus de programmes possibles avec leurs ressources humaines limitées. Nous n'avons pas d'école de 160 enseignants comme on l'a vu dans les nouvelles ce matin. Si le gouvernement réduit le temps de préparation, ces écoles devront remercier certains de leurs enseignantes et enseignants.
La réduction du personnel enseignant dans les écoles secondaires qui comptent déjà peu d'enseignantes et d'enseignants pourrait entraîner la perte du seul spécialiste dans un domaine particulier. Il faut souligner que 11 de nos 15 écoles secondaires ont moins de 20 enseignantes et enseignants. Plusieurs en ont moins de 10. Quand une école comprend peu de personnel, les activités parascolaires sont difficiles à se partager. La perte d'une seule personne peut vouloir dire la perte de plusieurs activités pour nos élèves.
À l'élémentaire, moins d'enseignantes et d'enseignants veut dire moins de temps pour rencontrer des élèves qui ont besoin d'aide individuelle, moins de temps pour les élèves qui ont des difficultés d'apprentissage, moins de temps pour des élèves qui ont des problèmes de comportement, moins de temps pour communiquer avec les parents. La loi 160, partie V, soussection 81(170.1) donne au ministre le droit de réduire le temps de préparation et met en jeu la viabilité de nos écoles.
Ce même article donne au ministre le droit de désigner certaines matières comme étant propres à être enseignées par des gens non brevetés et aura un effet analogue à la réduction du temps de préparation. Au secondaire, peu d'enseignantes et d'enseignants enseignent à temps plein les matières désignées, comme éducation physique, arts et orientation, dans nos écoles. Si, par exemple, l'éducation physique doit être offerte par une personne non brevetée, la perte de cette enseignante ou cet enseignant dans l'école pourrait occasionner la perte du prof de chimie. Souvent c'est la même personne dans nos écoles, avec peut-être une période d'éducation physique et trois de chimie.
À l'élémentaire, les services d'éducation spéciale ne peuvent pas être offerts de façon adéquate par des personnes non qualifiées. Dans des petites écoles, les sujets tels l'art, la musique et l'éducation physique ne sont pas offerts par une seule personne. Ces sujets font partie intégrale de la tâche journalière de nos enseignantes et enseignants. Nos écoles ne peuvent pas se permettre de telles coupures.
Dans un deuxième temps, ce projet de loi, en particulier lesdites sections, fait en sorte que nous serons le seul groupe syndiqué au Canada qui ne peut négocier ses conditions de travail. Nous croyons que c'est une injustice fondamentale. En plus de placer toutes nos conditions de travail dans les mains du lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil, ce projet de loi va jusqu'à prescrire les budgets opérationnels de nos employeurs. Nos négociations futures sous de telles conditions ne seront qu'une farce.
Nous avons deux avenues à vous suggérer pour l'amélioration de cette loi : retirer les articles qui limitent nos conditions de travail, en particulier les articles partie I, section 7 et partie V, soussection 81(170.1), et redonner aux conseils le droit de percevoir des impôts ; ou retirer les mêmes articles et ensuite changer la loi sur les négociations provinciales. Faites en sorte que les syndicats puissent négocier leurs salaires et conditions de travail au niveau provincial. Chaque conseil scolaire par la suite pourrait négocier des ententes sur l'administration journalière. De cette façon, le gouvernement pourrait garder à Toronto le contrôle des dépenses en éducation, si c'est ça qu'il recherche. Je vais passer la parole à mon collègue.
M. Guill Archambeault : Cent vingt-six mille enseignantes et enseignants, sont-ils dans l'erreur ? Cent vingt-six mille enseignantes et enseignants sont-ils si mal informés ? Mes émotions de la dernière semaine sont passées du plus haut niveau au plus bas niveau de la montagne russe : nomination d'un nouveau ministre, espoir d'un règlement jusqu'à hier soir à la dernière minute. Mes sentiments de ce matin n'étaient pas beaucoup plus clairs que de hier soir.
Ce gouvernement veut usurper les droit des conseils scolaires et des parents. Le gouvernement actuel veut s'emparer de tous les pouvoirs et par le fait même devenir notre employeur. Messieurs les membres de la Législature du côté du gouvernement, quelle sorte d'employeur serez-vous ? Quel employeur dénigre ses employés comme vous l'avez fait depuis votre arrivée au pouvoir ? Si un malaise existe entre employeur et employés, il existe de bien meilleures façons de solutionner ses problèmes que de créer une crise.
Finalement, j'aimerais vous dire un mot sur la désobéissance civile, car c'est de cette façon que les enseignantes et les enseignants de cette province voient cette protestation politique. S'il n'y avait jamais eu de mouvement de groupe, comme l'ont dit si bien certaines personnes en fin de semaine, les femmes n'auraient pas encore le droit de vote, les noirs seraient encore des esclaves et Nelson Mandela ne serait jamais devenu le président de l'Afrique du Sud. Nous ne pouvons pas laisser passer ce projet de loi qui, selon nous, détruira un bon système d'éducation. Nous vous remercions de nous avoir écoutés.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We've got about one minute left, and that is hardly time to divide up between the groups. However, if you people would like, either one of you, to use another moment up for anything, feel free. No? Thank you, then, for your presentations. They were certainly well presented.
SAULT STE MARIE BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education. Would you identify yourselves and please start.
Ms Margaret Roch: I'm Margaret Roch. I'm a trustee with the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education.
Mr Bill Hall: I'm Bill Hall, and I'm the chair of the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education.
Ms Roch: As a member of the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education, I thank you for this opportunity to present our views on Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act. We believe Bill 160 crucially hinders the role of the trustee. It is a fundamental violation of the democratic rights of the citizens of Ontario.
The locally elected trustee is the safeguard of a public education system. The election process allows community members to select trustees who reflect the needs, values and aspirations of the community. Trustees will be held accountable for those decisions by the electorate. A trustee cannot be an advocate to the community without being financially responsible to the community.
The government's reform proposal removing the right of school boards to tax removes all the authority measures of financial guardians and leaves only the accountability and responsibility. Local school boards will still have the responsibility of negotiating contracts and addressing local program needs. How is this possible without some power to tax? We have not been provided with any details of the funding model. How can a bill be passed with details to follow?
OPSBA emphasizes the importance of developing the right funding model from the start. There is concern that the Ministry of Finance, not Education, will set the tax rate. The matter of adequacy must be an integral part of the funding model from the beginning, and it must be monitored closely. The price of failure is too high. It is the future of our students and the economic stability of Ontario that is at stake. The funding model must provide sufficient funds to provide programs and services to meet the needs of all of the students of the only publicly funded educational system that serves every student who enters the door. Any further reductions in funding, as suggested by senior ministry officials, are totally unacceptable.
1550
Bill 160 gives unprecedented powers to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. This allows the cabinet to meet behind closed doors without consultation with opposing views and make sweeping changes to education. For changes that will affect so many, we must have debate. The media, the public and opposition parties must be able to react in an open forum. There should be a chance for people to say, "Wait a minute; we have a better way." There has to be room for dissension, discussion and compromise. We live in a democracy. This power of the LGIC will continue with subsequent governments. We could be in a perpetual state of upheaval as each government makes changes to suit its political agenda.
Unions are legal entities in Ontario. Contracts are legally negotiated. The LGIC should not be able to arbitrarily break or change legally binding contracts. Any changes or revisions should be done with both parties negotiating.
School advisory councils will be mandated for every school with expanded roles. How do you mandate volunteerism? Their roles are through regulation, not legislation. Their roles appear to be what the government of the day desires. The school parent body, not the electorate, elects these councils at large. To whom is the community representative accountable? The school council role will be an insular role without the necessary broad-based community outlook. Schools will not be uniform throughout the district because of differing makeup and dedication of councils. School councils have no legal responsibility to inform the community of their actions or decisions.
As a parent, I wished to become more involved in the education process and therefore ran as a trustee. This option has always been there. As a trustee my current concerns are, as a parent and community member, to look out for the interests of all the students in the board's jurisdiction.
The size of district school board 2 is of great concern. Our small northern boards have very particular needs. Will Chapleau and Hornepayne's interests be met by a single trustee from Wawa? Will member boards be able to be physically present at meetings during our long, harsh winters? What will be the cost of travel and accommodations?
The EIC is an unelected body with seemingly limitless powers. Their powers are to continue for the next three years. The orders of the EIC are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned in any court. This is stated in the bill. These are frightening powers.
Issues such as differentiated staffing and decreased prep time are too open-ended and need crystal clear guidelines as to the government's intent. These need to be resolved with all parties concerned.
We believe in our education system and our teaching staff. We believe in a partnership with boards, parents, teachers, community and government to effect change with open consultation and respect for the democratic process.
On behalf of the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education, I thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns on Bill 160. We thought if it was short and sweet, you'd still be listening.
The Chair: You've left a good time, well over a minute per caucus, for questions.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I'm appreciating the presentations that come from trustees so that we do remember that it's a balance of power, which has been effective in the past, which is at stake here with the government taking total control.
I want to ask you a question I was getting at with a previous trustee. She didn't have an opportunity to answer, so let me place it again. If government gets into the legislating of class size, whether by capping or by maximums, by averages, if they do that at the same time that they withdraw a further $700 million in funding and if they do it without any new funding for the 25,000 students per year who are expected -- and we have been told by the government that there will be no new funding for the 25,000 new students -- how do you as board members manage to implement that class size legislation?
Ms Roch: I can only see it as losing some very valuable programs, especially in our special education area. We have an excellent special education program in Sault Ste Marie and those needs are expensive. I don't see how we can continue providing those if money has to be taken out to cap class sizes without any new money coming in.
Mr Hall: I've always stated that maybe we should cancel grade 4 -- I'm being facetious when I say that -- as a method to save money. If you cap the class sizes, I'm sure there will be a loss of program.
Mr Martin: I want to take this opportunity, because it may be the last I get, to thank you and your colleagues on the board for your service over a great number of years. You're in your last days and that's very sad. You and I and your board have had dialogue over the last seven years. We haven't always agreed on everything, but it's been good. It's been honest, it's been up front and it's been always trying to improve the lot of the students whom you serve and the parents.
You've been, in my mind, insulted deeply by this government, by some of the comments and by Bill 160. What's the feeling around the table among the trustees as they move on now to other things?
Mr Hall: I think they were very hurt by the government charges of the trust. I think some of our trustees were long-serving. We have three or four of them who had 20-plus years' service who are not involved in the new district board. I think they're frustrated and hurt over that allegation. I think they took their responsibilities as trustees very seriously as they did their job -- I'm sure they took them as seriously as you MPPs take your jobs and your responsibilities as members of the Legislature -- to do the kind of job that was necessary for the students of Ontario and especially the students in this community of Sault Ste Marie. It's going to be very difficult for the new district school boards without the experience that these trustees would bring forward. Hopefully they will be available for consultation, but without them it's going to be even that much more difficult.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much for your presentation. This is a matter of interest. I recognize the comments you made about the funding formula, and it's certainly an issue that's been addressed repeatedly through the course of deliberations around this bill. In your best guess, what would be the most reasonable time frame for implementation from a school board's perspective? Working back from September 1998, when would you need that and what time frame would be best?
Mr Hall: What time would we have needed the funding model?
Mr Smith: In terms of implementation.
Mr Hall: I would have assumed last May or April, because we already set the school year budget for January through to June when we set the budget last May. The government has changed the school year, I know, from September around. I would have liked to have seen it now or have it in our hands now so that we can do testing scenarios on it to see whether it's adequate and so that we can get back to the government and say where it is good or bad or where it needs adequate improvement so that we're able to maintain the quality of education to our students. I'm afraid that without it we're not going to be able to do the things that are necessary to ensure the quality of education in the future.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for your presentation here today.
1600
LOCAL ACTION CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION MICHIPICOTEN SCHOOL DIVISION
The Chair: Our next presentation, scheduled for 3:50, is the Local Action Co-ordinating Committee, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, Michipicoten School Division.
Interjection.
The Chair: I'll be pleased if you'll excuse my mispronunciation of the organization. You have 10 minutes. Would you please proceed.
Mr Terry Switzer: Good afternoon. I'm Terry Switzer, a father, a husband, a teacher, president of the OSSTF, Michipicoten Division, and chair of the Local Action Co-ordinating Committee of OTF.
Mrs Marny Chauvin: I'm Marny Chauvin. I'm a teacher and a parent. With regret, today I joined the teachers across Ontario in an action which we feel we have been forced into taking. It's very sad that we have all come to the position beyond compromise. My prayers ask for an equitable solution to the unfortunate difficulties.
On the first page of our submission is a background of the organization for which I speak. I would like to focus today upon how Bill 160 impacts the schools and teachers I represent and suggest ways to make it acceptable, particularly as it affects small schools common in the rural areas of northern Ontario.
I would like to talk to you this afternoon as both a parent and as a representative of all the teachers of my small community about our children. I agree with Mr Harris that regardless of our politics we all want our children to get the best education there is. This afternoon I would like to talk to you about how Bill 160 negatively influences the quality and equality of education for the children in our community.
Small towns in northern Ontario are wonderful places to raise children. Most of the population are there by choice and appreciate the safe schools, the security of knowing the neighbours and the fact that the forests of Ontario are our backyard.
We have a close-knit community of teachers. We have pride in the way we meet the needs of most of the children in our schools and we do nearly all things. We have very limited access to professionals through the education system other than teachers. Speech pathologists, psychologists, psychometrists and other educational consultants are provided to us on an itinerant basis. When not available, teachers do what we can and we do it to the best of our abilities. One of the more positive aspects of the board amalgamations is the potential accessibility to some of these important professionals.
Over the years, services other than education have been provided from distant centres. It has been my experience that although our needs are great, the density of population in the cities does not allow the service providers to justify the loss in time and costs to provide comprehensive services to Michipicoten on a regular basis. Funding removed from the entire Ontario educational system will reduce money available to district board 2, which could negatively impact the provision of these services. Our new school district will face greater difficulties and will require enriched funding for outreach to its more distant schools.
Mr Wildman: The largest in Ontario.
Mrs Chauvin: Yes.
How can our new school boards be expected to extend services beyond the administrative centres without extra money? We are concerned that the funding formula decided by the Minister of Education by regulation will be inadequate. One formula does not fit all.
Will the needs of our schools be heard by distant trustees? The one trustee for the public English system will represent 12 schools from five communities. For the separate English system, one trustee represents three communities. In the French separate system, Blind River, Sault Ste Marie, Michipicoten and Chapleau have one voice, while for the French public system, one trustee represents approximately 100 students. We have lost fair and democratic representation, but more important, the Minister of Education, in distant Toronto, will not be able to address those things that make our schools function in a unique and special way.
There is no need to restrict who can or cannot be trustees. Currently our board members are our neighbours. We all understand the needs of our community and over the years together have negotiated the best conditions possible for the learning environment of our children.
In any small community it is impossible to create a public service board without the potential of conflict of interest. We have all learned to deal with this and have become more understanding of the issues. It is enriching to explore the points of view of all areas within the decision-making body. We all are neighbours, friends, siblings and relatives. It only becomes more evident when living in a small community. This does not cause problems, but increases the feeling of community and of common aspirations for our schools. Limiting who can be a trustee only serves to drastically reduce the pool of individuals who might make a positive contribution to our education system.
The most dangerous and terrifying aspect of Bill 160 is the notion that one person, the Minister of Education, has the power through regulation to make sweeping pronouncements and changes that could devastate our educational system here in Michipicoten, not by any malicious intent but simply by not noticing our small communities and not recognizing their unique nature.
In general, the imposition of the will of an increasingly centralized core of decision-makers makes it impossible to reflect the diverse needs of all the individual children in the province. We do not understand or envision how it is possible to ensure that the children in Michipicoten have fair and equitable access to a quality education through the changes proposed by Bill 160.
Bill 160 stipulates that the seniority list of our new school board will be based upon a common definition of seniority. In addition to the losses due to reduced funding, this could lead to the replacement of many of our teachers by teachers from the large city in our new board districts. As an example, estimates based upon a loss of only 12% of high school teachers through a proposed decrease in preparation time of 50% would result in the direct loss of five teachers currently on staff and, in addition to that, the potential for the replacement of another six by teachers with greater seniority who would be displaced from the Sault Ste Marie board. This represents nearly 40% of the high school teachers in Michipicoten and does not include the loss of teachers in the other schools due to the reduction of funding.
Bill 160 allows by regulation province-wide the establishment of class sizes. We do not have assurances that this government truly wants to reduce class sizes. We believe that, whatever is established by the government, our classes will grow. Historically we have kept the classes smaller because this meets our community needs. It was accomplished through negotiation and local taxation. As a result of this process, the children in our community have greater funding per pupil than in Sault Ste Marie. This is necessary for many reasons, from the length of our cold season to the distance our students live away from the schools.
Bill 160 proposes to remove the opportunity for communities to answer the needs for smaller classes by pitching in through taxes. As well, it removes the right for teachers to negotiate the reduction of the sizes of their classes. These provisions do not favour our community and are contrary to the rights inherent to the collective bargaining process.
If our public high school of 330 students loses 12% of its teachers, it will stand to lose many of its extracurricular activities and jeopardize individual student attention. Unlike city schools, the teachers in our high school do not have repeated classes. Each class that they teach is different from the others in one day and often there are multilevel and multigrade classes. We will have to reduce the course variety offered, especially to our senior students, because there will not be the expertise. The smaller senior classes we often must run will have to go; either that or, to balance out the average, we will have some very large classes. There is no room for a large class in many of the classrooms in the school. If the committee could recommend that class sizes be capped, but not at the exclusion of small classes to meet special needs, this is one part of the bill we could agree with.
The government proposes that an increase in teacher-student contact time will improve quality of education. We believe this translates into more students for each teacher rather than more teachers for any student. It means in our small high school that students may see the same tired teacher for more than one course.
Imagine yourselves reading 100 pages of written materials. How long would that take you? Now think about not only reading it but thinking about what is written, correcting grammar and spelling and making a response. Teachers do this as well as prepare lessons, organize equipment, talk with parents, confer with other teachers, coordinate activities, counsel and sometimes seek intervention in children's social crises -- remember, we do not have access to board psychologists -- and the list goes on. Which of these activities, if lost, will contribute to the improvement of the quality of education?
The number of hours that students see a teacher should not change. The government proposal will create tired, more stressed teachers who will have little energy or enthusiasm to offer extra activities. This will lead to a decline in the quality of education, not to an improvement.
This government claims that the intent is not to increase class sizes but to reduce them. It is beyond comprehension how millions of dollars can be extracted from the educational system and there not be an increase in the size of classes. However, for the sake of argument, we concede that this government has that intent. But what about the next government, or the next?
This brings us back to the most serious cause for concern, and that is the power of the minister to, by regulation, make changes that shall, by imposition of urban and southern Ontario solutions, reduce the quality and equality of education for our children.
In summary, we recommend that Bill 160 be changed: to allow boards to levy taxes to meet local needs; that all individuals, including relatives of school personnel, be allowed to seek office as a trustee; that teachers' federations be allowed to establish their seniority lists and implement the provisions; and finally, that teachers' groups be allowed to collectively bargain their working conditions, which are the learning conditions of our children.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I thank you both very much for your presentation here today.
1610
JANE LAFRAMBOISE
The Chair: Jane Laframboise. Welcome. Could you identify yourselves for the purposes of the record and then proceed.
Mrs Jane Laframboise: My name is Jane Laframboise. I am here as an individual. With me today is Mrs Kime Collver. She is also an educator with our school system in Goulais River.
I intended to have this also addressed or perhaps sent to the attention of Mr Harris, so I formally put his name in as well. Good afternoon, esteemed panellists. I thank you for allowing me this time today to share with you my growing fears and concerns for our current education system.
First and foremost, I am the mother of two small children, presently in grades 3 and 4. They attend a rural school outside these city limits, where I am actively involved not only as a member of our SCAC but also assisting my children's classes once a week.
What I have seen in the past two months of school has made me deeply concerned for my children's futures, for their continued quality of education and their marketability in their future workforce. Based on my personal experience in the past year and now this year, I have seen instances where the quality of education, due to budget cuts, has affected the children's opportunity to learn, and these issues must be addressed immediately. I fear for our children and the challenges being placed on their futures. We feel that the limitations being placed on them today will indeed handicap their imminent endeavours, and this is not acceptable. There are many concerns, but I have come to you with what I feel are several of the major issues and will present them here today.
What I view as my first concern is nearest and dearest to my heart: our library. As in most schools across the province, our library is now staffed one day a week by a qualified librarian. In a school that holds 326 students, the library is our most valuable teaching tool. In our rural community, children do not have access to the city libraries. Parents commute to work, and public transportation is not available. The students in larger class sizes have two computers to share, but not all computers in class are functional for referencing.
Our children rely heavily on a library that is no longer staffed. There is no one there to help them locate information to complete their studies and projects. Our library without a doubt has lost thousands of dollars in valuable books gone missing or damaged. Teachers working on specific class projects have difficulty obtaining information in the library because books are not being put back in the proper areas. I consider this an extreme handicap, one our children are deeply affected by. This is not acceptable and must be addressed. Our libraries must be made functional again to enhance our children's quality of education.
The retention of education assistants is another of my priorities. Without their support and continuing involvement in the education of at-risk children, individual needs have become extremely difficult, if not impossible, to meet. With an increase in class sizes and decrease in education assistants, it is now impacting on the quality of education our children are receiving.
In order to keep the primary class sizes down to recommended levels, it has increased class sizes in the junior grades and upwards. We are seeing as many as 30 children in a grade 4 class, for instance. In this class alone, there is one identified special needs student and approximately four more who either are waiting, or should be waiting, to be tested for exceptionalities. Our testing department saw two qualified people retire this year and not be replaced. These children now have to wait upwards to a year for testing, and with the amalgamation of boards it will take years, and by then it will be too late.
As you are aware, there is a ratio used with special needs students which I believe is three to one. Therefore this increases my daughter's grade 4 class to 33. This is not acceptable to me and must be addressed now. This class gets an education assistant for two hours in the afternoon. The rest of the day -- fortunately, we have an exceptional teacher, I might add, in grade 4, but she cannot provide that quality education these children deserve.
On the same note, our grade 8 class is already at a critical level. This class has 28 students, which sounds light, but five of them have been identified as special needs students and eight are at-risk students, with one teacher. An intervention teacher comes in when she can, but cannot stay to help. There are high achievers in this classroom who need more attention, but the at-risk and special needs students are demanding and require more time. But what of the other 15 average students in this class? Where is their right to education? Where is their quality of education? This is far from acceptable; in fact, it is deplorable and must be corrected now.
Our school accommodates some very large class sizes. This creates other problems and concerns and will be paramount with the continuance of these large class sizes. Some of them are as follows.
Noise pollution: Our children come from a large, spread-out community. It is difficult for them to socialize other than at school. The large class sizes create a noisier environment that is stressful, particularly in the primary grades, to students who are sensitive, have short attention spans or are easily distracted. This will once again create a lower quality of education.
Access to computers: There are only one or two, on average, in classes. In these larger class sizes, these computers will be ineffective if we try to find time to share them equally among all the students in the class.
Ranges of student ability: The more children we have in a classroom, the greater the range of abilities there will be. For example, in a two-grade split, each grade will have three ranges of ability: low, average or above average. It is difficult, if not impossible, to teach six levels in one room. Someone or some group gets cheated. Who? It cannot be the low, because they are many times at risk, so they will receive the attention. Unfortunately the high-average students may receive less time than they deserve. We may never see their full potential grow. With split grades, the education system ends up shortchanging the children. Even report cards will be affected, as it will make it more difficult to grade the children properly in these classes.
Sharing of resources: With larger classes, sharing microscopes, textbooks, readers etc is impossible. In the primary grades it is difficult to send home readers for practice, as we do not have complete sets to accommodate large class sizes. These people, once again, do not have the opportunity to reach their full potential or complete studies to the best of their abilities.
Safety in classrooms: With extra desks being added to an already crowded room, there will be more room, so to speak, for accidents to occur. Some projects may not be able to be completed in class because of space restraints. Young children in the primary grades are not as cautious about how they move around people and obstacles. Larger class sizes and more desks can create more accidents.
Finally, another point would be the JK and SK enrolment. We realize that these classes are not factored into the PTR reports, but this year our school had an enrolment -- and I've changed it on the sheets you've received -- of 33 JKs and 26 SKs this fall. These numbers will continue to create class size problems in the primary levels over the next few years and will once again impact the quality of education that our children deserve.
All of the abovementioned impact on the education of our children. I find it difficult to believe that the introduction of non-qualified teachers, even in non-academic positions, will increase the quality of the children's education. If anything, it will jeopardize the well-rounded social skills that will be a key factor in the future competition for positions they will vie for. This is not an acceptable form of quality education.
1620
With the past budget cuts and two months into the new year, some teachers are already finding themselves funding incentives to motivate students, for art supplies and for resources in teaching units. I fail to understand why teachers now have to use their own out-of-pocket money to supply our children with the materials that are necessary to achieve the high standards of education expected of them. This is deplorable and should be addressed, once again.
I come to you today realizing there are no easy solutions. I am here simply to voice my concerns as a parent and to give you a sampling of what is happening in our school. Based on what I see now, it is obvious that in order to offer our children the right to a quality education, Bill 160 must be revisited. It must have input from parents, such as myself, and teachers, who are in the front lines facing these critical issues. It must change.
I agree that the standards of education need to be raised and monitored with care and concern. But I also know that cutting the budget has handicapped our future working citizens. Rural communities such as mine have felt the impact in the past year and are fast approaching a crisis stage with the continuing cuts.
In closing I ask you, my esteemed panellists, and Mr Harris if he were here, how you could agree that these cuts in education funding have indeed improved the quality of our education system. Considering what I see happening in my particular community, I ask you how you would consider that present conditions in the classroom have increased the quality of education. I ask you what you will do for us. What is your time frame?
The Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation. Your time has elapsed.
ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS ÉLÉMENTAIRE, SAULT SAINTE-MARIE
The Chair: The AEFO elementary, Hélène Groulx. Welcome.
Mme Hélène Groulx : C'est Hélène Groulx, présidente de l'AEFO élémentaire de Sault Sainte-Marie. Je représente les écoles francophones palier élémentaire de Sault Sainte-Marie. La moyenne d'élèves par école est d'environ 140 élèves. Donc, nous voulons attirer votre attention sur le fait que nous sommes de petites écoles à l'intérieur d'un territoire très anglophone. J'aurais aimé présenter tous les points destructifs du projet de loi 160, mais malheureusement le temps ne le permet pas.
Les enseignantes élémentaire de Sault Sainte-Marie croient que le projet de loi 160 est destructif. C'est pourquoi je me concentre sur deux points qui sont pertinents au palier élémentaire : premièrement, comment les coupures affectent directement la qualité de l'éducation en salle de classe, et pourquoi il ne nous est pas possible d'accepter des personnes qui ne sont pas qualifiées pour enseigner dans nos écoles.
Vous affirmez que les coupures financières n'affecteront pas la salle de classe. Vous ne pouvez pas avoir réfléchi à cette affirmation. Déjà à Sault Sainte-Marie, nous manquons de matériel d'équipement pour les élèves. Un exemple concret de ceci est le nombre limité d'ordinateurs dans nos écoles élémentaires. Ceci ne suffit pas à une classe complète et ce sont souvent des antiquités qui ne fonctionnent pas. Les coupures affectent l'enseignement de la technologie qui est de nos jours une nécessité dans la salle de classe.
En enlevant les services d'appui, comme des enseignants ressources aux titulaires de classe, les enfants en difficulté d'apprentissage seront non seulement perdus mais complètement oubliés dans votre système. À Sault Sainte-Marie nous estimons qu'un bon nombre de notre population doit recevoir ces services, dû à l'environnement anglophone. Ces services sont un soutien épuisable au travail du titulaire de classe. Ils ajoutent un renforcement nécessaire dans toutes les matières académiques et rendent le matériel plus accessible aux élèves en grande difficulté d'apprentissage. Ces services trouvent une gamme complète de manipulatifs nécessaires à déclencher l'éclosion pour ces élèves.
Au bout opposé du continuum, ce service ajoute le matériel plus apte à servir de défi à ces élèves. Eux aussi ont besoin de continuer à être motivés dans l'acheminement vers l'excellence. Vos coupures affecteront tout ce petit monde à leur détriment.
Vous exigez que les matières de base soient bien comprises et vous déplorez le fait que les élèves d'aujourd'hui n'ont pas assez de mathématique, de sciences et de langue. Peut-être que, au lieu de faire des coupures financières, vous devriez faire des coupures dans le curriculum. Vous nous avez bombardé dans le passé de programmes additionnels tels que la prévention des problèmes sociaux, l'éducation antidrogue, le SIDA, la prévention de la violence et l'antiracisme, ainsi que le harcèlement, pour en nommer quelques-uns. Ils sont des ajouts au programme que vous avez exigé dans les années passées.
Les effets néfastes des coupures que vous voulez imposer auront encore une fois un double impact sur les écoles de langue française. Les jeunes francophones seront encore une fois les victimes de vos coupures gouvernementales. Rien ne semble vous satisfaire sauf l'effondrement total irrémédiable du système scolaire présent. C'est en effet la crise que vous cherchiez á créer.
D'après le dictionnaire, le mot _éducation_ signifie un moyen d'assurer le développement total de l'être humain. Le vrai pédagogue utilise les données de la psychologie et la physiologie enfantines dans ses méthodes d'enseignement. L'enseignant donc doit être pédagogue. Comment pouvez-vous justifier à l'apprenant en plein développement et à ses parents qu'il est nécessaire de le priver d'une formation de ce genre ? Votre approche pécuniaire détruira avec certitude tous les bienfaits que l'enseignant a implanté pour assurer l'éducation totale de l'enfant. Il va sans dire qu'une aide n'est pas pédagogue. Il lui est donc impossible de transmettre les connaissances qu'elle ne possède pas. Voilà pourquoi l'enseignante qualifiée est l'outil par excellence pour transmettre toutes connaissances, ainsi que son approche pédagogique est absolument nécessaire à l'épanouissement maximal de ces jeunes individus.
C'est bien cette composante indispensable de la qualité de l'éducation que j'ai à coeur, comme tous mes collègues, d'ailleurs. Dans l'intérêt de tout ce jeune monde qui est notre clientèle, et pour le bien-être plus vaste du système d'éducation dans lequel nous oeuvrons, nous vous demandons de remettre en question votre décision et d'abolir le projet de loi 160. Nous voulons sauvegarder l'avenir de tous les enfants de l'Ontario, et surtout de Sault Sainte-Marie, en les protégeant contre les effets néfastes que votre gouvernement est obsédé à leur faire subir pour de simples raisons monétaires.
Ayant oeuvré pendant de nombreuses années dans ce système scolaire et ayant eu le privilège de sculpter, pour ainsi dire, ces enfants, ce poème ci-inclus à l'annexe A va sans doute vous faire sentir ce qu'est la vraie qualité de l'éducation. Lisez-le si le coeur vous en dit et vous comprendrez peut-être ce que veut dire être un vrai éducateur.
Nous avons deux recommandations pour l'abolition du projet de loi 160.
(1) Puisque le gouvernement a déjà enlevé plus d'un demi-million à l'éducation, nous recommandons le retrait du projet de loi 160 dans le but d'arrêter les coupures à un système déjà handicapé par les nombreuses coupures des dernières années.
(2) Nous vous recommandons de retirer les articles 170.1, (3), (4) et (5) afin d'assurer que les postes d'enseignement peuvent continuer d'être comblés par du personnel qualifié pour occuper ces postes. Nous vous remercions de nous avoir écoutés.
The Chair: We have just about 30 seconds per caucus.
M. Wildman : Merci beaucoup.
M. Beaubien : Madame Groulx, vous avez parlé dans votre présentation des petites écoles à l'intérieur d'un territoire très anglophone. Qu'est-ce que vous essayez de suggérer par là ?
Mme Groulx : Que nous sommes de très petites écoles et que l'environnement anglophone a une grosse influence sur nos petits enfants francophones, et que les besoins de l'éducation spéciale, de services spéciaux -- que la formation de ces enfants continue en français.
M. Beaubien : Vous suggérez alors que c'est plus dispendieux de pouvoir --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Beaubien. I'm sorry, we must move on.
Mr Bartolucci: Merci pour votre présentation. I would just like to thank you on behalf of my nephew. I'm from Sudbury, but my nephew lives in the Sault. His name is John David Doan, and he said that you constantly bring in resources that you pay for to make education exciting. I want to thank you on behalf of him and the other students you deal with, and I sure hope that the government listened to your wise words and will read your poem. It is beautiful and very meaningful.
1630
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2251
The Chair: Our next presentation is the United Steelworkers of America. Welcome, sir. Please identify yourself and proceed.
Mr Ronald Bouliane: Good afternoon. My name is Ronald Bouliane and I'm representing the United Steelworkers of America. I'd like to welcome the Chairman and committee members to Sault Ste Marie, however cold it appears to be today.
I'm pleased to be here today to represent the interests of the members of my union, the United Steelworkers of America, Local 2251. As you have already heard, my name is Ron Bouliane and I'm a steelworker. I'm also a parent and a grandparent.
Local 2251 is by far the largest union, association or federation of working people, private or public sector, located within the district of Algoma. As such, we take our appearance before committee hearings like this very seriously indeed. We believe we are not only representing the views and concerns of our members and their dependants but also of those who for one reason or another lack the ability or resources to voice their concerns.
To say that we are upset and angry with the proposed cutbacks to the education system would be a gross understatement. As common, everyday working people, many of us have given up much to ensure that our children have an opportunity to reach for the stars. Their future livelihoods and prosperity are dependent on the quality of education they are able to receive. To see their futures held hostage by the promise of a tax break for the wealthy is obscene and contemptible.
For many parents of modest income, the degree of success which their children exhibit in the elementary and secondary school systems will be a determining factor in post-secondary education. Much will depend on the professional ability of teachers in delivering the information needed by students for successful completion of their learning objectives.
For adequate delivery of information, a certain amount of preparation time is required. Severely restricting that preparation time cannot help but affect the degree and quality of the information to be delivered. It gives the teacher time to better tailor the information to suit individual students within their class. In fact, it is not unlike customizing the product to suit the individual needs of each consumer, only in this case the consumer is someone very near and dear to our hearts. That consumer is our children and they are our future. When you are teaching your own children at home in their preschool years, you don't restrict the time you spend preparing yourself and them for learning experiences. Why would you want to do that to them once they leave the home environment?
Our children's education is not unlike some corporate policy, with the ultimate goal being the successful placement of the student in the workforce, in the field of their choice, with the necessary knowledge and skills. There are unavoidable costs and time requirements involved in the implementation of this policy. Perhaps if John Snobelen had stayed within the school system longer and Mike Harris had taught longer, they might have had a better understanding of the education process. Let's hope that Mr Johnson is a more enlightened and informed person than his predecessor was.
Let's get down to what Bill 160 is all about. It is not about designing and delivering a more responsive, more cost-effective system. I use the term "cost-effective" with some trepidation. It is a term which many of my colleagues in the labour movement have come to suspect. Whenever it has been used in the past it has come to mean fewer jobs, part-time workers earning lower wages, working longer hours with fewer benefits, side by side with someone who has fewer or no qualifications, under more arduous working conditions for a somewhat more hostile employer. Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn't it?
When John Snobelen uttered the infamous statement about creating an artificial crisis and then attempting to solve the problem so the government could be seen as having provided positive leadership, the public should have begun to suspect that this government held the education of their children in low esteem. When the Premier, Mike Harris, stated he was going to implement some cost-cutting programs in education, we should have realized that our children would not be the beneficiaries of enlightened thinking but merely the victims of a scheme that would see the top 10% of the income scale receive 66% of the tax benefit. What we would receive is larger, more inaccessible school boards with fewer members and less accountability; larger classes with less time per student available from their teachers, notwithstanding the promise of more class hours for the teachers; and the introduction of underqualified or unqualified instructors into the classroom.
My own opinion of this whole exercise is that it was a not-thought-out, half-baked response to a totally silly election promise. But what does my opinion count for? I am merely a taxpayer who wants to see nothing more than an education system that provides the best possible education for the young people of this province.
Mike Harris was on television last week explaining that he had to do something about the slipping quality of the education system. To help remedy the situation, he proposed to remove even more funds from education -- at least another $650 million. Mike complained that Ontario was paying too much money for what it was getting and that other jurisdictions had far more successful students.
What he didn't say is equally important: that Ontario ranks 49th in a field of 63 jurisdictions in North America on money spent per student. The Northwest Territories is first on the list, spending $12,423. North Dakota is 63rd on the list, spending $3,489. Even the great, ultraconservative state of New Jersey, which spends $10,426 per student, and Michigan, which spends $7,587 per student, recognize the value and cost of a proper education.
Where does Ontario stand in this list of comparisons, you might well ask. Well, Ontario ranks behind Manitoba, which spends $5,241 per student, and above Alabama and Louisiana, which spend $5,123 and $5,119 respectively. Ontario spends just $5,224 per student per year. When you complain about your students ranking on international test scores but are unwilling to pay for their education, it smacks somewhat of hypocrisy.
There is truth to the old adage that you get what you are willing to pay for. If you want to prepare your children and yourself for the 21st century, then you've got to pay the cost. Failure to do so is condemning our children to the role of also-rans. But if you are trying to create a Mississippi North, with low wages, low expectations and high unemployment, the current path would be quite acceptable.
If you have not already done so, I recommend that you read the paper entitled Recipe for Success: Implementing Secondary School Reform, which was authored by the OSSTF. It provides a framework on which to make constructive and effective changes to the secondary school system and make it more responsive to the needs of students and the public. I have included them in the paper in a somewhat briefer outline than I was provided with, if you wish to go over it. I'll not take time for that but I think it would be helpful if everybody read them at some point.
I believe that this document provides the blueprint which will make our secondary school system among the very best. It certainly deserves serious consideration by the Ministry of Education.
1640
I have said this before to different committees and I will repeat this statement again, and Lyn McLeod knows this, Bud knows this, Tony knows this and Mr Bartolucci is probably fairly cognizant of this: People residing in northern Ontario have a different philosophy and a different way of dealing with problems than people residing in Southern Ontario. We try to find solutions which benefit to a greater or lesser extent as many people as possible. We try to accommodate and incorporate as many people into our solutions as we can. Maybe this occurs because of the vast distances, relative isolation or because we try to treat people as we would wish to be treated: with respect, concern and courtesy. We have yet to experience from the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario any of the above in any measure.
We have seen our health care decimated, we nave seen our social services cut, we have seen our labour laws scrapped, and now we are witnessing the system which educates our children and gives us hope for the future being torn asunder.
If it is true that for every tax dollar collected here in the north only 55 cents is returned, then the approximately one million residents of what is considered northern Ontario have to ask themselves whether or not they are getting good value for their money.
Are we being governed in a way which is mutually beneficial to our residents, and in a cost-effective manner? Are our interests and concerns being addressed in a way which we find acceptable? If the answer is yes, then we have truly gotten the type of government we deserve. If the answer is no, then perhaps it is time the people of northern Ontario seek autonomy within Confederation and end the colonial, patriarchal relationship we've experienced at the hands of Queen's Park and strike out on our own to create a system which responds to our needs.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Our time has elapsed.
SARAH HUCKSON JASON NACCARATO PETER KORAB
The Chair: We'll proceed to the students. Would you please approach the table. Five of you can sit down, in any event. I would ask any of you who speak to the committee to identify yourselves before you speak.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Just before the students make their presentation, I have delivered from central Algoma a large number of petitions which I've been requested to table with the parliamentary assistant to deliver to the minister.
Mr Martin: On the same point of order, Mr Chair: I have a whole bunch of petitions as well from high schools across this city, and also from teachers in the city, that I'd like to table and give to the parliamentary assistant to bring to the minister.
The Chair: I don't think they're points of order. However, you have expressed that desire and I'm sure my friend the parliamentary assistant, Mr Smith, will accept them.
Ms McLeod?
Mrs McLeod: If I can just have your attention for a second, Mr Chair: As you'll recall, the last time the committee had a delegation of some 10 students we had asked that they be allowed to record their names for Hansard in writing so that it didn't take up the 10 minutes they have to present, because identifying themselves would take all their time.
The Chair: I believe only three will be speaking. However, you could make out, if you wouldn't mind, your names and addresses, and if there's any reply that could be given to you, the parliamentary assistant could possibly do that. In any event, who's first? Just identify yourself.
Miss Sarah Huckson: My name is Sarah Huckson. I am 13 years old and I am in grade 8 at Our Lady of Lourdes separate school in Sault Ste Marie.
I believe that everyone here has heard everything both the teachers and government have to say about Bill 160. My aim in asking to talk to you is to allow a student's view on Bill 160 to be heard. I believe this is important and necessary because we are the ones who will be affected the most by this bill.
We are the future. We are the doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, secretaries, engineers of the future, and we will not reach our goals and dreams without a quality education. We want to succeed and we deserve that right.
I believe that you cannot remove millions of dollars from education and still provide a quality education. As a student, I don't believe this government promises that quality education is their goal. They can't be trusted.
This government has already made cuts to the schools in this city and across the province. If they made more cuts, we would be left with a skeleton school system -- no special teachers for art and music, librarians, junior kindergarten teachers, guidance counsellors and more.
The government says it will limit class sizes, but they intend to cut 6,000 to 10,000 teachers. You can use any kind of math you want. The point is, fewer teachers equal larger classes.
This government intends to replace qualified teachers with unqualified people. Students do not want this. We want teachers who know what they are doing and have experience and training. We want the best, not replacements.
In my opinion, this government is making wrong changes to improve education. I don't think they care about the students. They only care about saving money. I think what the teachers are doing takes a lot of courage and I support them. They are the teachers of Ontario's future.
Please take what I have to say seriously and let us all work together to save education before it is too late. Please don't let Bill 160 become law.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Next.
Mr Jason Naccarato: Before I start, I'd like to thank you for allowing us the time to speak today. I'm Jason Naccarato. I'm from St Basil Secondary School. Also with me today are Peter Korab, from St Mary's College; Brady Dunne, from Bawating; Adam Kates, from Sir James Dunn; Sarah Cameron, from Mount St Joseph; Amanda Schwind, from Korah; and D.J. Lehto, from White Pines.
As student council presidents, we feel it is our obligation to express the concerns of our fellow students. We'll begin by addressing the key points of Bill 160 that affect the students primarily.
The first point is the power to determine class sizes. If class sizes are in fact made bigger throughout the bill, this will mean less time that a teacher can spend one on one with a student. I don't believe this will improve my education.
Also, to get to specific special cases, in our community right here at St Basil, we had an elementary school which was faced with a discipline problem where an adequate education environment could not be obtained. To correct this problem, class sizes were made smaller. By doing this, the students are now in an environment where they can learn. These students now have a better education. They're now learning at a better rate. If Bill 160 was in place, this move could not have been done.
I'll now call upon Peter Korab.
Mr Peter Korab: Thank you. Throughout all the events over the last few weeks, we students have heard a lot of information on the government's Education Quality Improvement Act. There have been all types of political opinions and fact manipulation, and a public address by the Premier that left me wondering if the thought police were going to be called in.
Students as a majority, though, recognize the need for a balanced budget and physical constraints. We must also ask ourselves, what does this have to do with quality education? Former Education Minister John Snobelen, at a forum in the Sault last spring, said the government was going to increase funding to the Ontario student assistant program. Under Bill 160, OSAP funding will be cut by $80 million this year. We hate to think that slowly these cuts will lead to a post-secondary education that's only available for society's upper class.
On the issue of uncertified teachers in art, music and gym, we have to wonder how uncertified teachers will directly help the learning process of students. They may be able to cite personal examples on a subject, but that doesn't make them experts in teaching methods or in interacting with students, which we know is so important at the elementary and secondary school levels. As students, we experience real-life examples in education through guest speakers and school field trips.
Bill 160 also amounts to cutting student support staff such as guidance counsellors. We have to wonder where Premier Harris would be without his support staff.
1650
The government has said they will place a limit on class sizes. Unfortunately, they haven't found the time to say what the limit will be, nor have they said whether it will be a quota. By placing this sort of thing on classes, you could guess that a school like Mount St Joseph in the Sault where, because class sizes are smaller, they wouldn't be able to meet the quota and those students would be transferred to other schools and the Mount would close.
We have a hard time believing the government is an authority on education when the Education Improvement Commission they hired to help formulate Bill 160 said increased classroom funding was needed to improve the education system in Ontario. Bill 160 does not invest money into the classroom, nor does it reinvest savings from other areas in Bill 160. We, as students, must ask ourselves, where is the money going?
Bill 160 also puts the education system in the hands of the education minister, who would control the education system through regulations. These regulations would only have to be signed by himself and two other cabinet ministers. This would go on with no Legislature discussion, public hearing and without teacher involvement, let alone student involvement. In this the type of procedure that's being used, you would have to think that education is something more important when you consider that it's shaping the youth and future of our fine province. Bill 160 allows Ontario's education system to be subjected to a War Measures Act-type power on a daily basis.
With $500 million to $700 million being cut this year, and total power, we the students are left to wonder where the cuts will end and how they institute quality education.
Mr Naccarato: The Ministry of Education has already removed $600 million from the education system. Their goal is to remove another $1 billion. This goes against the recommendation of the Education Improvement Commission. It recommends reinvesting back into the system. These are people whom the government hired.
Growth in our system has gone up. More money is needed in the system. More effort must be made to determine what the system needs rather than what it can live without.
This bitter dispute has gone back and forth between teachers fighting for their jobs and rights and the government fighting to save the almighty dollar. I believe it's long over due that some students start fighting to save education for themselves. The true focus of education has shifted in a dramatic way. It's time to start thinking about what is best for the students.
The leaders of our government must stop trying to abolish problems and start solving them. Our school system is being treated as a business. Any time you take money out of a business, the quality of the final product decreases. We as students are the final product.
Without a shadow of a doubt, no one is affected more by Bill 160 than we, the students. This factor has been ignored. We will no longer be the silent party. We refuse to stand by and let our education fade away to a skeletal version of school. But, most of all, we will do what we have to do to let our voices be heard and let the government know that we're not going to take it. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We only have about 30 seconds per caucus. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I guess just a quick question to Jason. I would be interested, because we've had a lot of input from students with respect to increased desire to have comment on issues, how does the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association go about securing your input on policy-related issues? Do they, as the parent organization, contact you? Have you been contacted by them?
Mr Naccarato: There are the meetings and the meetings are open. If we wish to attend, we can.
Mr Smith: So they are in contact with you fairly regularly then?
Mr Naccarato: The suggestions are open, yes.
Mrs McLeod: A quick question. If the government went ahead and cut 50% of secondary school teachers' prep time, what would happen to extracurricular activities?
Mr Naccarato: If the prep time was moved to at the end of school, a lot of extracurricular activities do occur at the end and a lot of them are managed or coached by school officials. If this happens, they won't be able to supervise us. If the time is moved, a lot of us don't have transportation to go home and come back and therefore a lot of us won't get the opportunities we do right now.
Mr Martin: Thank you for being here all day then and being so attentive to the presentations that were made. As you know, today is a very tense day in terms of the strike that's happening. The teachers are out and you're not in school. What's the general feeling among the students you represent re this strike?
Mr Korab: It's getting out that some people are saying, "Oh, the teachers aren't going to be included in what goes on in the education system in Ontario." People say to me, "Well, what makes you think the government is insincere about what they're trying to do in the education system?" I always say to them, "What makes you think the teachers are insincere about what they want to do to the education system and having their involvement?" I think I speak for the majority of students when I say that students are given every opportunity by teachers. They've never let me down. Throughout student council activities we always need their help and assistance and no student's ever been let down by any teacher at St Mary's College. I've been given every opportunity through enrichment programs, athletics and theatre. I have nothing bad to say about the teachers in Ontario and I stand by them.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all of you for your excellent presentation this afternoon.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION DISTRICT 31, SUDBURY ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION SUDBURY SECONDARY
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 31, Sudbury. Mr Bass, I assume. In any event, please identify yourself for the record when you make your presentation, and proceed.
Mr Joe Meuleman: My name is Joe Meuleman. I am representing Sandy Bass from OSSTF Sudbury, and I'll let my colleague introduce himself.
Mr Roland Muzzatti: My name is Roland Muzzatti. I'm a member of OECTA Sudbury secondary and I'm here representing Nina Stapleton, our president, who was unable to be here today.
The education workers, both teachers and non-teaching support staff whom we represent, welcome this opportunity to appear before this committee to address some of the problems we see with Bill 160. While this bill purports to be about education quality, a reading of it leads us to believe that it is just a thin disguise to allow the government unlimited control over all aspects of education in Ontario. We contend that this legislation has as its main purpose the establishment of a regime that will allow the government to further strip the education system of Ontario of the personnel and resources it needs to adequately do its job.
Details of specific clauses in the bill and teachers' views on them have been addressed by our respective provincial associations. We support those submissions and will not attempt, in the limited time available to us, to repeat them. Instead, we will deal with our concerns in a more general fashion.
The government would like to give the impression that this bill is, like Bills 136 and 152, designed to address the issues which arise from the massive restructuring of Ontario society that this government has undertaken. Bill 160 is in fact yet another example of an omnibus bill. It tries to deal with at least three separate matters: firstly, those issues that must be addressed due to the reorganization of school boards mandated by Bill 104; secondly, the legislation governing teachers and their rights and responsibilities well beyond the transition period; and thirdly, the control of the detailed day-to-day operation of Ontario schools, again well beyond the transition period.
With new school board structures in place on January 1, 1998, there is a pressing need to address the issues that will ensue. Indeed, this part of the legislation is already overdue. Considering the time required to pass and implement this legislation, it will already leave school boards facing 1998 with a great deal of uncertainty.
In this area, our main concern lies with the lack of any provisions for taxation powers at the local board level. Democratic tradition is supposed to ensure no taxation without representation. The new school boards will now have representation and responsibility without the power to tax. In northern Ontario especially, we greatly fear a system that centralizes all funding decisions. The unique character of the many isolated schools in the north requires very different solutions from those that may work for a densely populated city or county board in the south. Any blanket formula will not be able to address the diversity found in Ontario.
However, the other two areas addressed by this bill are not under the same time constraint, except to the extent that the bill deals with the process of assuming an orderly transition to a first contract for the new employee groups. The main focus of this government and its public relations campaign and the concerns of education workers that have led to the situation we face today are not with these areas of the bill.
1700
Mr Meuleman: According to this government's public stance, the bill, as the title itself states, supposedly deals with education quality improvement. In response to Premier Harris's quoted remarks, we don't trust his government to place the need for quality first. We don't trust a government that campaigned on the slogan of "No cuts to the classroom," yet has already cut funding by almost $1 billion. We don't trust a government that has eliminated funding for junior kindergarten, universally recognized as one of the most significant programs for establishing the foundation for a student's educational future. We don't trust a government that has cut the funding in half for the education of anyone unfortunate enough not to be able to graduate by age 21.
The action of this government in the past two years, and its stated goals to further reduce funding for education, tells us that education costs, not quality, will be the primary focus. With that, we very much fear the almost unlimited powers this bill gives the cabinet to control in minute detail the nature of Ontario's classrooms.
Again, how will one central authority, within a very short period of time, adequately establish rules governing classrooms ranging from those in the inner-city high school with several thousand students to those in the small, isolated northern school with fewer than 100 students in a wide range of grades? Teachers, students and parents justifiably fear what we will face in our schools in September 1998.
The matters addressed by Bill 160 in this area -- class size, school day, school year, use of non-teachers in the classroom and professional development time -- need far more deliberate consideration and must be withdrawn from this legislation and addressed in detail in a cooperative forum involving all stakeholders.
The third area of the act deals with teachers' collective bargaining rights, not just in the period of transition but again well beyond. Both in the matters addressed by the bill and in the areas where it is silent, it gives almost unlimited powers to the Minister of Education and the cabinet. Teachers will be stripped of rights regarded as fundamental for any organized employee group. Both the current legislation, the School Board and Teachers' Collective Negotiations Act and the Labour Relations Act, clearly allow for bargaining of "any term or condition of employment."
This is an area where teachers see no room for compromise. It is at the bargaining table that the issues of teachers' working conditions, which include such things as class size, staffing levels, preparation time and assigned duties, have been and must continue to be addressed. With the exception of the immediate needs to deal with the transition to new school board structures, these matters should be withdrawn from the legislation.
Like the previous omnibus bill presented by this government, Bill 160 deals with far too many matters, in too short a period of time, with far too little real detail. The bill should be limited to those immediate concerns required by the reorganization of the school board structures under Bill 104 and all other issues should be withdrawn and addressed in other, more appropriate venues.
The Chair: Thank you. We have one minute per caucus and we start off with Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you, Rolly and Joe, for your excellent presentations. Rolly, you spoke at length with regard to taxation and funding in education. Would you agree with the statement that equity cannot be achieved without adequacy? What will be the effect of a $667-million withdrawal from education in Ontario?
Mr Muzzatti: That amount withdrawn from education I think would be equal to another $500 per student being lost. Previous speakers already alluded to the fact about libraries, JK programs, adult education programs, programs for special needs students. If the deductions that have already occurred have affected those programs, imagine, if we were to lose another $500 per student, what would happen to the programs.
Mr Bartolucci: Would it in effect destroy the system as we have it now?
Mr Muzzatti: If it wouldn't destroy, it would come pretty close.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation and for coming all the way from Sudbury to make it. I know this is a very difficult day for teachers, students and their parents, but could you explain from your standpoint what has led teachers to take the action they've taken today, which many people would say is quite uncharacteristic of the teaching profession? What is the real concern that has led you to take the actions you've taken today?
Mr Meuleman: In a normal process, and I'll use collective bargaining as an example, the parties sit down, the parties discuss, the parties disagree and ultimately either come to a resolution or decide that the differences between them are so irresolvable that they must take further action.
We believe that, first of all, there has not been enough discussion between the government and the other stakeholders, and that includes not only the teachers but certainly the parents' groups -- and we've heard some of those today -- students and school boards. But the issue has been brought to a head. This legislation, I understand this is the last day of public hearings on this bill --
Mr Wildman: No, there are still two days.
Mr Meuleman: Two more days? My apologies, and I hope they are successful. But we are very close to coming to a point of no return. Teachers have seen very little flexibility, very little room for input and have reached that point, that impasse that I've been involved with in negotiations in Sudbury. We had a very long strike there. Fortunately, it led to successful relations afterwards and hopefully this will be the same.
Mr Beaubien: Thank you for your presentation. Today on two or three different occasions we heard that the government had left the negotiating table. I have a letter from the minister that was sent to Ms Eileen Lennon and it states: "The government's representatives remained at the hotel until late in the evening and four or five stayed the entire night. Although you incorrectly reported otherwise, they were always available to sit down at a moment's notice or at a later date to work out concrete solutions."
Why is it that the federation is insinuating or telling the media that the government left the negotiating table today?
Mr Meuleman: I'm very sorry. I'm not in Toronto. I'm not involved directly with those negotiations. I hope I will hear from my leadership of my organization why they took the actions they did and I trust them to have done so responsibly, but I can't comment on that specifically.
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation.
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Our last but certainly not least presentation is the Sudbury and District Labour Council, John Filo. Welcome, Mr Filo. You've waited a long time for this moment, I assume.
Mr John Filo: Not at all. I just came in on the 4:50 dogsled. I left Sudbury after completing my work today. I drove here and fortunately I made it in time.
I have with me my daughter. Of course we support the teachers, but somebody has to look after our children while the teachers are putting forth what I think is a very valid protest.
I want to thank you, first of all, for coming to the second-best area, northern Toronto, to have these hearings.
Interjection.
Mr Filo: I knew Mr Wildman would get a big kick out of that, and when I say "second-best," I mean just marginally second best.
Interjection.
Mr Filo: I lived in Thunder Bay and I loved it. We think that the north is special. Every time you come up here to have one of these hearings, it really pleases us, because we are different. We've got different problems, problems that I think we can cope with very successfully, but we need cooperation from Toronto.
I'd like to begin my presentation by saying that we in the trade union movement cannot decide which is the most reprehensible, Bill 160 or the tactics employed by the Harris government, indeed by Premier Harris himself, to sell this bill to the citizens of Ontario. Coached by his handlers, Harris has accused the teachers of negotiating larger class sizes. Teachers would never negotiate cutbacks in education. In fact, teachers have demonstrated through their militancy that cutbacks are unacceptable, yet it has been such cutbacks that have led directly to increased class sizes.
1710
To alias as a defender of quality in education marks Mr Harris as the embodiment of hypocrisy, particularly when he and Mr Eves first denied publicly and then subsequently admitted plans to cut an additional $667 million over and above the $533 million already cut. Instead of restructuring education with the student and society in mind, we have a Premier whose desire to fulfil a promise to give a tax break to the financially comfortable is the driving force behind Bill 160. Citing dubious statistics, the Premier is attempting to make Ontarians believe that our school system is broken so that he can seize control of it, withdraw $1 billion from it and cripple it to the degree that it in fact is broken and then privatize the best parts of it. Just as important and apparent is his compulsion to destroy the teachers' unions, reflecting his visceral hatred of these associations.
Why would anyone give the government such dictatorial powers as Bill 160 would confer? Look at the Tory track record with, for example, the family support plan, boot camps, the social disharmony, even Ontario Works which, compared to the previous government's Jobs Ontario Training, requires the talents of high-priced spin doctors to try to convince the populace of its effectiveness. Look at the numbers. Less than one tenth of those helped by Jobs Ontario Training are involved in Ontario Works, a program, I might add, that's significantly more expensive and that is qualitatively and morally inferior. Should we thus trust and reward such incompetence by giving them the powers in Bill 160?
I'm not even going to mention -- I didn't write this in, but there's Ipperwash and there's the way in which OPSEU was treated at Queen's Park. This is a government that says, "Trust me." Hey, give me a break. They're making society turn such a hard right corner that it's going to take us decades to recover from it. Gentlemen, you are going to be footnotes in history the way in which you've irresponsibly handled your mandate.
If education can be improved by cutting $1 billion, let's cut Mike Harris's budget and that of his cabinet and the government and Wayne Wettlaufer's salary. Let's do that. Let's cut the environment budget, the health care budget, the health and safety agency's budget, the police and fire budgets. I guess I'm too late with that advice. It's already been done. But let me tell you that any reasoning, well-informed individual who believes that this will improve matters also believes in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and the Great Pumpkin.
We don't need a bill that's going to affect students in a negative way because of inadequate funding. Free collective bargaining must be the vehicle that determines the terms and conditions of employment for teachers. That is the norm in the trade union movement, that workers have the right to bargain (a) their hours of work, (b) their salaries and (c) the conditions of work. If you so much as dare to change those things, you're going to have a fight on your hands.
A minister or a Premier or a cabinet cannot handle such a responsibility. It's especially true with this government which does not understand the complexity of our society and the concepts of decency, fair play and accountability.
The minister's regulatory powers to redesignate certain teaching positions as non-teaching positions is a power that cannot be entrusted to such an individual. That money is the driving force behind Bill 160 is demonstrated by the Tories renouncing their own principles that decisions should be made at the level they are implemented and not by big government. School boards must be able to levy taxes to provide educational necessities to the students. Is it required to comment on the use of unqualified teachers in the classroom?
Just because the model employed by the government -- and not just your government but every government -- in filling cabinet spots does not require that a cabinet minister have any specialized training in the area of responsibility, can we safely extrapolate this lack of qualification to choosing airline pilots, surgeons, therapists, chiropractors, clerks of committees, lawyers and hockey players?
Other similarly repugnant provisions exist in Bill 160. In addition to those that restrict the scope of bargaining, the concept of seniority must be negotiated and employees of school boards must always be able to seek office with another school board. An employee's spouse must have the right to be a school trustee as enunciated by the Charter of Rights, otherwise we can't have husbands and wives as MPPs or husbands and wives as crown attorneys, for example.
I want to tell you a little story about the teachers' strike in 1980. Your government is always portraying the teachers' unions as being exceptionally strong, as having been able to win for their members conditions that are inappropriate. The Sudbury teachers' strike in 1980 -- incorrectly referred to as a strike, was actually a lockout -- lasted a record-setting length of time for Ontario, from February 6 to May 6, 1980.
In the assessment of this strike, Professor Peter Hennessy of Queen's University has stated that the cause was the issue of class size. Class size, my friends. He further notes that this would not likely have led to a strike in view of the poor payoffs from recent teacher strikes in Ontario were it not for a relationship of cordial dislike between the trustees and the teachers.
Let me tell you, my friends, that the school board in the Sudbury area -- and not just legend has it -- has actually been controlled by people of your political stripe. Hennessy also points out that since the teachers were receiving $30 per day strike pay, while the Inco workers endured 10 months of strike at $35 a week --
The Chair: Mr Filo, we have one more minute.
Mr Filo: All right. You have the rest of my presentation there in writing. I'd like to handle some questions, particularly from Wayne Wettlaufer, the MPP, if that would please the group.
The Chair: That might be fun, Mr Filo, but we will not have time to do that. If you would like to summarize or give us 30 seconds in conclusion, that would be --
Mr Filo: Withdraw the bill and let's get reasonable. We have a decent, compassionate society. Let's keep it that way. Let's build for the future. Why all these short-term things for the bottom line when in the long term our society is going to suffer and suffer greatly, especially things that affect our children? Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Filo, for your presentation here today.
Our hearings are concluded. We are adjourning till 10 o'clock at the Valhalla Inn in Thunder Bay tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1719.