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
ASSOCIATION FRANÇAISE DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE L'ONTARIO
ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS
COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION COALITION
CARLETON ASSEMBLY OF SCHOOL COUNCILS
TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF CARLETON
JOINT COUNCIL OF OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION FRONTENAC, DISTRICT 20
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION AFFILIATES
FÉDÉRATION DES ASSOCIATIONS DE PARENTS FRANCOPHONES DE L'ONTARIO
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY.
ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS DE L'ONTARIO, OTTAWA-CARLETON
WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA
GARY, KELLY AND DANIEL O'DWYER
CONTENTS
Wednesday 29 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
Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario
M. Daniel Morin
Association des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario
Mme Diane Chénier
M. Guy Matte
Coalition for Public Education
Mr John Crump
Ms Linda Dansky
Ms Kirsten Kozolanka
Indigenous Education Coalition
Mr John Peters
Carleton Assembly of School Councils
Mrs Carol Nixon
Ms Elaine Richards
Mr Ken Slemko
Teachers' Federation of Carleton
Mr Doug Carter
Joint Council of Ottawa Board of Education Elementary and Secondary
School Advisory Committees
Mr Stan Currie
Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade
Mr Willy Bagnell
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Mr Larry Capstick
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Frontenac, District 20
Ms Joan Jardin
Mr Rich Phillips
Ontario Federation of Independent Schools
Ms Elaine Hopkins
Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Ontario Teachers' Federation affiliates
Mr Greg McGillis
Mr John McEwen
Fédération des associations de parents francophones de l'Ontario
Mme Francesca Piredda
Mr Qasem Mahmud
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association
Mrs Ariane Carriere
Mr John McEwen
Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens de l'Ontario,
Ottawa-Carleton
Mme Claudette Boyer
M. Henri Nadeau
Mr Paul Fitzgerald
Women Teachers' Association of Ottawa
Ms Lisa Falls
Ms Gretta Bradley
Gary, Kelly and Daniel O'Dwyer
Nepean Chamber of Commerce
Mr Bob Wilson
Mr Bob Bonisteel
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 Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East / -Est L)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
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
Wednesday 29 October 1997 Mercredi 29 octobre 1997
The committee met at 0958 in the Westin Hotel, Ottawa.
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, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. This is a sitting of the standing committee on administration of justice and its consideration of Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. The committee is pleased to be in the nation's capital.
The committee welcomes Mr Richard Patten, who is the member for Ottawa Centre, and Mr Grandmaître, the member for Ottawa East.
M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Bonjour à tout le monde, et soyez les bienvenus à Ottawa. Bienvenu à mon comté d'Ottawa-Est. J'espère que tous les gens, ceux et celles qui vont faire des présentations ce matin, auront l'occasion de s'exprimer ouvertement.
Mr Chair, I'd like to welcome you and the members of the committee to my riding of Ottawa East and especially the capital city of Canada, which is Ottawa. I hope the presenters this morning and this afternoon will have a chance to express their feelings on Bill 160 openly. Let's hope we can walk out of here with more satisfaction than when we walked in.
The Chair: I understand Mr Wildman has a preliminary matter he wishes to raise.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a motion to put based on the information that was in the media this morning. I'll just read it. I have given the clerk a copy.
Whereas the Premier of Ontario has confirmed that the provincial government believes that the total education budget for the province's students can be cut by a further 4% or 5%;
Whereas the Minister of Education and Training has admitted that the provincial Conservatives intend to use money the government siphons from the education system to balance the provincial budget and to finance the promised tax cut for the wealthy;
Whereas both Mr Harris and Mr Johnson have indicated that the total education budget could be reduced by between $500 million and $700 million, over and above the $1 billion already cut from classroom education, once Bill 160 is passed into law; and
Whereas Mr Johnson argues that lower spending does not mean a lower quality of education for Ontario students;
I move that the standing committee on administration of justice request that the Minister of Education and Training table with the committee today the plans that the deputy minister has developed to remove a further $667 million from the provincial elementary and secondary school systems, with clear explanations of how these savings can be achieved, while programs such as special education for special needs students, music, the arts, physical and health education, library, computer and technology, and early childhood education are maintained and enhanced to meet the needs of all students in urban and rural communities across the province.
I would like to speak to that motion briefly.
This morning in the media the Minister of Education and Training, Mr Johnson, has confirmed that the government intends to remove more moneys from the education system. He argues that this will not harm the quality of education necessarily for Ontario students. He confirms that the moneys to be saved, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million to $700 million, will not be reinvested in education for our students but will be used to balance the budget and finance the promised tax cut.
We know that the performance contract for the Deputy Minister of Education and Training stipulates that for 1998-99 a further $667 million will be removed from elementary and secondary school programs in Ontario and that the deputy minister is charged in that performance contract with developing a plan to achieve those savings.
Since the minister is arguing that the quality of education will not be harmed for Ontario students, and because we have heard from so many representations -- parent groups, students and teachers, as well as trustees -- in the hearings we've held across Ontario that programs such as special education, music, arts, drama, physical education, library, computer technology and early childhood education, as well as English as a second language, French as a second language and other programs have been hurt and will be further hurt if moneys are removed from the education system and the numbers of teachers are reduced, it seems we have some contradictory information.
It seems to me that, as a committee charged with studying Bill 160 and making recommendations to the Legislative Assembly for its passage, and any amendments to that legislation, we should have the information the ministry must have that makes it possible for Mr Johnson and Mr Harris to make the statements they've made. We must know how the government will remove about $700 million from the system while at the same time ensuring that our students get the programs they need, that these programs are of high quality and that the quality of these programs will not be lowered. Obviously the ministry must have this information or Mr Johnson would not be making these statements. Therefore, it seems only reasonable, it only makes common sense that the committee studying Bill 160 would have that information and, frankly, that the public would have that information.
I hope the members of the committee will vote to ask the government, through the parliamentary assistant, to table with us today these plans so that we can have that information as we listen to the representations and determine what changes should be made to Bill 160 to meet the needs of the students of Ontario.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I will certainly be supporting the motion, although I suspect it will meet with the same fate as every other motion that Mr Wildman and I have put before this committee in what is now eight days of public hearings.
It has become very, very apparent, particularly in the last two days, that any work of this committee is irrelevant when put up against the constant statements of the Minister of Education being made in press conferences to the media in Toronto. His statements clearly have a bearing on the concerns that we've heard expressed about this legislation, yet when we have asked repeatedly to get the information that people are asking for about the financing of the so-called reforms that the government pretends this bill is about, we have been absolutely unsuccessful in getting any information provided to this committee or to the public.
What we've had, day in and day out, are statements by the minister about the intent of the government, intentions to change the legislation, but no clarity as to the specifics of how they would make the changes and how those changes would be funded.
It was made clear, as Mr Wildman has said, that the government has conceded not only that they intend to take some $500 million to $600 million more out of education as a further net reduction in education, but as Mr Johnson said yesterday, it is not the government's intention to reinvest this money. Much of this money will indeed be used to balance the budget and to cut income taxes, and I stress it is income taxes to be cut, those that benefit the most well-to-do, because as we know, education taxes for many individuals may well be going up or property taxes going up because of the government's changes.
If you were to do justice in summarizing the presentations that have been made to this committee, I think you would have to acknowledge that the primary concern, not just of teachers but of the parents and of the students who have made representation to this committee, is with the fact that all of the government's talk about reform means nothing if the dollars are not in place. We've heard that from people in the public system, in the separate system, from representatives of separate school trustees who very much want the equity funding that the government has talked about, and we've heard it from the representatives of the francophone teachers who very much wanted to see the changes that would bring about French-language school boards and equity of education opportunity for Franco-Ontarian students but who said to us yesterday that without the dollars, the whole thing becomes a mockery. We are seeing in the press the confirmation that all of the government's talk about reforms becomes a mockery because the dollars will not be there.
I believe it is absolutely unconscionable that this government continues to pretend that the bill we're dealing with today is somehow about quality of education, and that the Premier is on television again with new ads talking about reform of education, saying, "How can any of us disagree with reform?" and talking about curriculum when curriculum has nothing to do with either the confrontation with Ontario teachers or with Bill 160 that's before us today.
I will support this resolution. I continue to believe that if the government would simply remove from this bill the clauses that have nothing to do with the amalgamation of school boards, nothing to do with the transitional issues that need to be managed for January 1, if they would remove those clauses, make the financing clear, make their intent to cut education further clear and have public debate about those cuts, we would not have 126,000 teachers out of their classes today. Teachers are out of their classrooms because they believe that the cuts this government is clearly going to make are going to devastate education and they don't want to see that happen.
Let's have some open information and some public debate about this government's real intention, which is not the improvement of quality education.
Applause.
The Chair: Pursuant to the standing orders of the Legislature, approval or disapproval is not permitted by the audience, as it is deemed to be a demonstration. I would therefore ask you to refrain and observe our parliamentary rules. Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Mr Smith.
1010
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I'll be very brief in terms of my response to Mr Wildman's motion because, in part, I think we've debated parts of that motion on previous presentations by himself and Mrs McLeod. I think we have talked about a lot of that, and unlike Mrs McLeod, I am not prepared today to belittle the work and business of this committee. I think there's been some very direct, straightforward and focused discussion in terms of the bill itself and I think that's very important as we move ahead to consider any amendments, where appropriate, with respect to Bill 160.
I think it's important to realize that this year we're spending more on education than we did before. We recognize, and I have communicated to the minister, the issues that school boards in this province have raised over the past seven days with respect to stub-year funding. I think there have been some very constructive issues raised with us in terms of what needs to be addressed for the period from January 1 to September of next year.
We continue to look at the funding formula, and in direct response to Mr Wildman, I will not be tabling that information with the committee today. As I've said in the past, you have been critical of this government for moving too fast. This is a very important piece, and I recognize that on behalf of the minister. We continue to look at ways to refine and ensure that we have all the information available to us so that we're making appropriate decisions with respect to funding of education in this province.
As parliamentary assistant, as a member of this committee, I am here today to hear the presentations of the deputants who have been scheduled for us. I'm anxious to do that so that we can complete some recommendations to the minister on issues that have been addressed over the course of the past seven days.
Very clearly there are issues. I would emphasize to Mrs McLeod, who I'm sure will have a follow-up comment, that I have listened patiently for seven days to your lectures. I have done that because I believe you passionately believe in the public education system and I respect that. I've done that as your junior, but for you to continue to suggest that you have sole monopoly on concern for public education in this province is completely inappropriate. The government members of this committee are equally important in terms of their viewpoints, in terms of the direction and vision that they have for education. I would only ask that you would respect that at some point during these seven days.
From that perspective, obviously I'm speaking in opposition to the motion. I believe it's important that we move ahead and hear the deputations that have been scheduled today so that we can continue the business of this committee.
The Chair: Before we proceed, I should remind the committee that we are now 15 minutes out of time. All I can do is request, but I would request that your comments be kept short so that we do not unduly delay the presenters here this morning.
Mr Beaubien and then Mr Patten.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): As you pointed out, we are already 15 minutes late and we have six deputants to make presentations in front of the committee before noon. I would seek unanimous consent from all the members to entertain motions, amendments during the lunch-hour so that we do not interfere with the deputants' time.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to that motion?
Mr Wildman: No.
The Chair: We do not have unanimous consent, Mr Beaubien.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'll be very brief. I would simply like to request from the parliamentary assistant to table the information he has that says that the money spent on education this year was more than ever before. If he's got those figures, I would certainly like to see him table those and share those with the committee members.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I will also be very brief. I have no motions to place. I have given up attempting to get motions through the committee.
Mr Smith knew, obviously, that there would be a response to the comments that he made, and if this is the way he wants to end the last day of the hearings, so be it. I am only going to make two responses to Mr Smith's comments.
The first one is to say how appalled I am that after seven days of hearings, Mr Smith should suggest that anyone of us, and particularly perhaps myself, should feel I want to have a sole monopoly on what's good for education. We have heard teachers and parents and trustees and students come before this committee overwhelmingly concerned about this bill, overwhelmingly concerned about the government and its cabinet taking exclusive control over education and overwhelmingly saying what they want in education and believe is good for education is a genuine partnership. This is not some kind of power struggle between teacher unions and the government. This is the government attempting to take sole control of educational decisions and this is the government, Mr Smith, shutting out everybody else, not just teacher union leaders, but classroom teachers, trustees and parents. Yesterday in Thunder Bay parent councils said to your government, "You created us, now listen to us." We're not talking about sole monopolies here.
The second point I would simply address highlights the reason why Mr Wildman's motion should be supported, because we cannot get accurate information from this government about its intent to make cuts to educational budgets. Mr Smith, this is the year in which there is the full impact of your $533-million reduction in educational financing, and don't use words like "stub-year funding," knowing full well that Lynn Peterson, the president of the public school boards' association, came to this committee and said three things. She said, first of all, the stub-year funding that was supposed to be stable appears to be resulting in a net loss, a net deficit, of $200 million to $300 million to school boards across this province, and that's the public system alone. She said, secondly, that the supposed savings of $150 million expected through amalgamation of school boards, more likely that amalgamation is going to result in an increased harmonization cost of $300 million to $500 million. She said, thirdly, that she had seen documentation of where the ministry intends to withdraw $1 billion from public education.
Show us those figures so that your figures can be believed.
Mr Wildman: I will not prolong the debate on my motion, but I do want to close off the debate, if possible, with making a final plea to the government members. I did not give unanimous consent to put off the discussion of this motion until the noon-hour because I believe that the deputants before this committee today must have all of the information the government has in order to be able to make informed comments on Bill 160 and on the government's agenda. Why won't the government give us the information?
I believe it's time for the government to end the confrontation that has disrupted the education of our students by moving forward on a collaborative approach involving teachers, parents, trustees, taxpayers and the government in making decisions about the quality of education for our students. It is not appropriate for the government to take all of that control, to centralize control of our education system in the hands of the Minister of Education and the cabinet, to make decisions by regulation behind closed doors. That is not acceptable. This is a public education system. The information about it must be public.
Interruption.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Wildman. There are a number of individuals in this audience who believe they're at a football game rather than a standing committee hearing. I adjourn for 10 minutes, and I'll keep on recessing. Unfortunately, there may be people on the list who will not be heard, but I'll keep doing it. Ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 1020 to 1028.
The Chair: Could the members seat themselves, please. We may continue. Mr Wildman, you had the floor.
Mr Wildman: I'll just close off the discussion by responding briefly to Mr Smith, the parliamentary assistant, and his comments.
To be honest, with respect, if anyone is belittling the work of this committee it is the provincial government, because the government has charged this committee with the responsibility of dealing with Bill 160, hearing public input into the bill and making recommendations for passage or amendment of that bill, but is not prepared to give us all of the information the committee needs in order to be able to do its work properly.
The vast majority of the presentations of deputants before this committee on Bill 160 have been opposed to the bill, whether they be parents, students, teachers, trustees or members of the general public. They're opposed to the centralization of control over education in the hands of the Minister of Education. They're opposed to the loss of local control over the education of their students. They're opposed particularly to the removal of more funding from public education in this province.
They have stated that they need the funding formula. We need to know how much money the provincial government is going to invest in education, how much money the government is going to take out of education and how the funding is to be established. We need to know that. We can't leave that sort of thing to regulation, because Bill 160 gives the provincial government complete control over taxation and for determining how much money will be invested in education.
I believe that if the government really wanted to defuse the disruption of education in this province and the confrontation that it has created with the teachers, the first step would be to provide us with the information: to provide the parents, the taxpayers and the teachers with the information on how much money the government is going to invest and how that money is to be distributed to ensure equity and good quality public education.
I think everyone has concern for public education. We must have. Surely all members of this committee are opposed to privatization of the education system. Thus we must know what the government's plans are, and I plead with the members of the committee to vote in favour of requesting the provincial government to provide the committee and the public with the information it now has which leads the minister to say that the provincial Conservative government can take $667 million more out of education in this province without hurting the quality of education.
We must know how the programs that students need can be maintained and enhanced to meet their needs. Then perhaps we would be a long way towards ensuring that the students get back to the classroom and that we move forward on improving the quality of education for Ontario. So I expect that all members of the committee will vote in favour of my motion.
Mr Grandmaître: I'd like to respond to the parliamentary assistant's remarks. If the government is serious about financing the new education system, then we should have all of those figures before us this morning. This government promised not so long ago to create seven or eight additional French-language school boards. We are very anxious to find out where those dollars will come from. I realize that the minister and the members of the government are saying, "Trust us." Well, those days are gone. People no longer trust the government, and this is why we need all of those figures before us this morning to make the right judgement.
Je crois que la confiance en le gouvernement disparaît tous les jours, et aujourd'hui aussi bien que les sept dernières journées. Il faut que le gouvernement soit honnête envers non seulement les membres de ce comité mais envers tous les citoyens de l'Ontario, surtout les francophones, et qu'il nous dise quelle est la formule pour financer les conseils additionnels qui nous ont été promis.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion regarding the motion? If not, there is a motion on the floor by Mr Wildman. Shall Mr Wildman's motion carry?
Mr Wildman: I request a recorded vote.
Ayes
Grandmaître, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Beaubien, Rollins, Sheehan, Smith, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion fails. Are there any other preliminary matters before we proceed with our first presentation? No.
ASSOCIATION FRANÇAISE DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE L'ONTARIO
The Chair: If not, our first presentation is Mr Daniel Morin. Good morning, sir. We have allotted 30 minutes for your presentation, starting right now.
M. Daniel Morin : Merci, Monsieur le Président. L'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario, l'AFCSO, est heureuse d'avoir l'occasion de présenter ses commentaires et recommandations sur le projet de loi 160, Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation. Bien que certains aspects du projet de loi nous sont acceptables, force nous est de constater qu'il existe un grand nombre de dispositions que nous ne pouvons appuyer.
Pris dans son ensemble, le projet de loi 160 constitue une attaque voulue et pernicieuse sur le système de l'éducation. Il concentre tous les pouvoirs et les remet entre les mains du Cabinet. Il n'a peu, sinon rien, à voir avec l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation. Il a tout à voir avec la réalisation des objectifs fiscaux du gouvernement Harris. Suite à son adoption, tout ce qui touche aux écoles sera décidé par le Cabinet et mis en place par voie de règlement.
L'AFCSO s'est penchée sur ce document massif et souhaite aujourd'hui vous transmettre certaines de ses observations et suggestions. Les critères contre lesquels nous avons mesuré les diverses dispositions du projet de loi sont les suivants : le respect des droits constitutionnels des francophones du secteur public et des francophones du secteur catholique ; le respect de l'importance de l'apport local aux décisions touchant à l'école ; la probabilité que la qualité de l'éducation sera améliorée par l'adoption du projet de loi, qui est l'objectif du projet de loi.
En mesurant les dispositions du projet de loi contre ces critères, l'AFCSO a pu déterminer lesquelles elle pouvait appuyer et lesquelles exigeaient davantage d'étude. Compte tenu du temps restreint qui nous est accordé, nous nous limiterons à quelques domaines essentiels.
Gestion scolaire : le projet de loi 160 donne suite au projet de loi 104 et confirme la création de conseils scolaires de district de langue française. L'AFCSO s'en réjouit.
Malheureusement, le détail des pouvoirs, du rôle et des responsabilités des conseils scolaires et des conseillères et conseillers scolaires qui y siégeront ne figure pas dans le projet de loi. Il sera déterminé par voie de règlement : partie I, article 6. L'AFCSO est d'avis que cette façon de procéder porte atteinte aux droits de gestion des francophones.
Dans l'arrêt Mahé, la Cour suprême du Canada a stipulé que même dans les cas où le nombre d'élèves de la minorité ne justifie pas le niveau maximum de gestion -- c'est-à-dire, un conseil scolaire indépendant -- les représentants élus de la minorité doivent, et là je cite de l'arrêt Mahé :
_avoir le pouvoir exclusif de prendre des décisions concernant l'instruction dans (leur) langue et les établissements où elle est dispensée, notamment :
_a) les dépenses de fonds prévus pour cette instruction et ces établissements ;
_b) la nomination et la direction des personnes chargées de l'administration de cette instruction et de ces établissements ;
_c) l'établissement des programmes scolaires ;
_d) le recrutement et l'affectation du personnel, notamment les professeurs ;
_e) la conclusion d'accords pour l'enseignement et les services dispensés aux élèves de la minorité linguistique._
Si ces pouvoirs exclusifs sont garantis là où le nombre ne justifie pas des conseils scolaires indépendants, il va de soi que là où les nombres sont suffisants -- et ceci signifie chacun des conseils scolaires de district de langue française décrit dans le projet de loi -- les conseils scolaires indépendants qui gèrent l'éducation pour la minorité linguistique doivent posséder au moins ces mêmes pouvoirs exclusifs. Le projet de loi 160 leur nie certains de ces pouvoirs.
Le projet de loi 160 demande aux citoyens de l'Ontario de faire confiance aveuglement au ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation, c'est-à-dire au gouvernement. Il nous demande de placer entre les mains du gouvernement nos droits constitutionnels de gestion, sans aucune garantie qu'ils seront respectés. Vous conviendrez que les précédents ne sont guère encourageants. Notre communauté a toujours eu à se battre pour se faire respecter. Encore récemment, les francophones des régions de Peel, de York et de Halton se sont vu refuser l'ouverture d'une école élémentaire. Comment faire confiance?
Notre expérience démontre qu'il faut enchâsser dans la loi toutes les garanties nécessaires à la survie et à l'épanouissement de notre communauté. Sinon, nous serons bafoués.
L'article 6 de la partie I du projet de loi 160 ne respecte pas nos droits constitutionnels de gestion en vertu de l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Il ne respecte pas l'importance de l'apport local, puisque les pouvoirs et responsabilités des conseils scolaires et de leurs membres seront remis au gouvernement provincial. Il ne garantit en rien que la qualité de l'éducation sera améliorée.
1040
Voici notre première recommandation : l'AFCSO recommande que l'article 6 de la partie I du projet de loi 160 soit supprimé et que les dispositions actuelles de la Loi sur l'éducation visées par ledit article 6 soient maintenues intactes.
Le projet de loi accorde également au gouvernement des pouvoirs énormes de réglementation concernant l'effectif des classes, le temps de contact minimal entre enseignants et élèves, et _le temps pendant lequel les enseignants peuvent se voir affecter des responsabilités, au cours du programme d'enseignement les jours de classe, autres qu'enseigner à des classes ou enseigner des matières aux élèves._ C'est l'article 81, partie VI.
Ces pouvoirs permettront au lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil de :
«a) régir l'effectif des classes des écoles relevant des conseils ainsi que la façon de le déterminer ;
«b) établir le temps minimal qu'un enseignant doit passer, au cours du programme d'enseignement les jours de classe, à enseigner à des classes ou à enseigner des matières aux élèves ;
«c) limiter le temps pendant lequel un enseignant peut se voir affecter des responsabilités, au cours du programme d'enseignement les jours de classe, autres qu'enseigner à des classes ou enseigner des matières aux élèves ;
«d) régir les façons de décider des questions visées aux alinéas (b) et (c) ;
«e) désigner des postes qui ne sont pas des postes d'enseignant et des fonctions qui ne sont pas des fonctions d'enseignant et prescrire les qualités minimales requises pour occuper un poste désigné ou exercer des fonctions désignées ; et enfin
«f) définir, pour l'application des règlements, les termes utilisés mais non définis dans la présente loi.»
Tout ceci contrevient clairement aux droits constitutionnels de gestion conférés par l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et interprétés par la Cour suprême dans l'arrêt Mahé que j'ai cité plus haut. Le pouvoir exclusif de prendre ces décisions appartient aux francophones. Dans l'arrêt Mahé, la Cour suprême affirme que _les minorités linguistiques ne peuvent pas être toujours certaines que la majorité tiendra compte de toutes leurs préoccupations linguistiques et culturelles._
Qui plus est, l'AFCSO est convaincue que les domaines touchés par cet article sont mieux traités localement, par voie de négociations entre les employés du conseil scolaire et le conseil scolaire, qui est le mandataire de la population. De cette façon, les particularités locales peuvent être respectées.
Le gouvernement semble croire que l'uniformisation mènera à l'amélioration de la qualité. L'AFCSO s'inscrit en faux à cet égard. Ce qui est bon pour la majorité ne l'est pas nécessairement pour la minorité. Les réalités du nord, du sud et de l'est de la province sont très différentes les unes des autres. Les milieux ruraux ont des besoins et des attentes qui diffèrent de ceux des milieux urbains.
La centralisation excessive qui se dessine en filigrane dans ce projet de loi ne permettra pas de tenir compte de toutes ces différences. Nous nous retrouverons devant une situation où tous seront assujettis au plus petit dénominateur commun. L'AFCSO ne croit pas que telle est la façon d'améliorer la qualité de l'éducation. L'AFCSO croit à l'importance des conseils scolaires locaux, disposant de pouvoirs réels. Ils sont le véhicule qui permet à la population locale de se faire entendre. Ils permettent l'adaptation des orientations provinciales à la réalité locale.
Le projet de loi 160 émascule les conseils scolaires locaux. Au moment même où les francophones sont sur le point d'obtenir leurs propres conseils scolaires autonomes, voilà que le gouvernement s'apprête à les vider de tous leurs pouvoirs. L'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés nous garantit plus que la gestion d'une coquille vide.
Notre deuxième recommandation : que l'article 81 de la partie VI du projet de loi 160 soit supprimé et que les domaines qui y sont touchés continuent d'être traités comme ils le sont à l'heure actuelle.
Financement : le projet de loi 160 présente un nouveau régime de financement ancré dans l'article 234 ; ce régime sera mis en place par réglementation. Nous ignorons toujours le détail de cette réglementation. Toutefois, le texte du projet de loi précise que,
_...les lois et règlements régissant le financement de l'éducation s'appliquent de façon équitable et non discriminatoire :
_a) entre les conseils publics de langue anglaise et les conseils catholiques de langue anglaise ;
_b) entre les conseils scolaires de district publics de langue française et les conseils scolaires de district séparés de langue française._
Cette stipulation est encourageante, car elle assure un traitement juste et non discriminatoire. Le gouvernement est maintenant assujetti au contrôle judiciaire par les tribunaux si la réglementation n'est pas conforme à cette norme. Cette protection est appréciée.
Il demeure toutefois que l'AFCSO ignore toujours le détail du nouveau régime de financement. Spécifiquement, nous ignorons si et comment seront traités nos droits au rattrapage et à la réparation, droits qui ont été stipulés par la Cour suprême du Canada. Enfin, l'AFCSO déplore que le pouvoir de taxer les propriétés résidentielles ait été retiré des conseils scolaires. Elle trouve également malheureux de constater la réitération du principe _anglophone public par défaut_, car il confirme encore une fois un biais qui ne fait pas honneur à la province.
Par surcroît, nous ignorons quelles autres coupures seront apportées à un budget déjà insuffisant. L'AFCSO aurait souhaité voir la nouvelle formule de financement, assortie des chiffres pertinents, avant l'adoption du présent projet de loi. Il est très difficile de faire une évaluation valable des répercussions sans ces données.
Toutes ces imprécisions nous portent à soupçonner que l'objectif ultime du projet de loi est de remettre tout le pouvoir entre les mains du gouvernement afin qu'il puisse impunément continuer de couper des sommes astronomiques du budget de l'éducation. Nous déplorons cette tactique.
Notre troisième recommandation : que la nouvelle formule de financement soit rendue publique avant l'adoption en troisième lecture du projet de loi 160.
Conclusion : l'AFCSO réitère son appui à la création de conseils scolaires de district publics et séparés de langue française et à l'engagement d'assurer un régime de financement dont l'application est juste et non discriminatoire. Ce sont deux éléments fort positifs que nous voulons voir adoptés dès que possible.
Tout en reconnaissant au gouvernement provincial le droit de tracer les grandes orientations du système d'éducation, l'AFCSO doit s'opposer vivement à la stratégie du gouvernement actuel qui s'arroge un nombre sans précédent de pouvoirs par le biais de la réglementation. Cette centralisation massive ne nous semble guère démocratique et pourrait facilement mener à la démagogie.
Sous prétexte de vouloir améliorer l'éducation, le gouvernement nous propose un projet de loi dont certaines dispositions n'ont d'autre but que de couper de façon draconienne les dépenses. Or, l'AFCSO voit difficilement comment l'on puisse prétendre d'améliorer la qualité de l'éducation en réduisant l'argent qu'on y investit, en retirant les pouvoirs des conseils scolaires locaux, en faisant éclater les conventions collectives négociées de bonne foi et en dénigrant publiquement les réalisations de ceux et celles qui oeuvrent au sein des conseils scolaires, que ce soit à titre d'élu ou d'employé.
L'AFCSO tient à souligner l'engagement des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et des élus scolaires envers l'excellence. Leur dévouement au fil des ans n'est plus à démontrer. Ils ont oeuvré, toutes et tous, dans des conditions difficiles. Ils ont créé un réseau d'écoles de langue française malgré l'hostilité de l'environnement politique. Ils sont déterminés à le maintenir et à le voir s'épanouir.
À preuve, en mai dernier, 400 Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes de tous les coins de la province se sont réunis à la Cité collégiale à Ottawa pour tracer les grandes orientations et un plan d'action qui mèneront à un système scolaire à l'image de leur communauté. À l'école franco-ontarienne de la réussite, tous les enfants se retrouveront dans un _milieu francophone d'apprentissage et de créativité, d'enracinement et de réalisation de soi basé sur la reconnaissance de la diversité ainsi que sur les principes d'équité et d'égalité pour toutes et tous._ Les participants se sont entendus que la clé du succès, c'est _le partage des responsabilités et des ressources dans le cadre d'une action concertée, convergente et responsable qui optimise les ressources existantes._ Ceci est un extrait du Rapport des États généraux sur l'éducation élémentaire et secondaire de langue française en Ontario, juin 1997.
Le projet de loi 160 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation rendra difficile la réalisation de ces objectifs, sinon impossible. Il est divisif et entraînera exactement l'inverse de ce que son nom préconise. L'AFCSO exhorte le gouvernement à retirer ou à modifier les articles contentieux que nous venons de lui signaler.
Toute vraie réforme en éducation doit bâtir sur les acquis. Elle ne doit ni mépriser, ni écraser les réalisations du passé. Ce projet de loi, s'il demeure intact, nuira à la qualité de l'éducation en Ontario et il faudra des décennies pour réparer les dommages. Pour l'amour de nos enfants, modifiez ce document dès maintenant. Merci.
1050
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about three minutes per caucus, and we'll start off with the third party.
Mr Wildman: Thank you. Merci beaucoup. I agree with you completely that Bill 160 is divisive and will disadvantage students. I think the evidence of that is the fact that teachers are out on the sidewalk and students aren't in class. I also have been seeking the information throughout these hearings as to how the government believes it can improve the quality of education while significantly lowering the funding and emasculating school boards, even the new French-language boards, which we welcome, by centralizing power at Queen's Park in the hands of the minister.
I guess central to your concern, beyond the criticism of teachers and so on, is the need for the funding formula. If you have governance, as is your right in the francophone community, but you don't have funding to make it possible to ensure the quality of education for francophone students, the governance is somewhat hollow. Do you think it makes sense for the government to provide us with the funding formula for all boards in the province, francophone and anglophone, separate and public, prior to the passage of this bill so that we can properly assess the government's intentions with regard to ensuring the non-discriminatory funding?
Mr Daniel Morin: Not only does it make sense, but our recommendation number 3 reads, _que la nouvelle formule de financement soit rendue publique avant l'adoption en troisième lecture du projet de loi 160._ Obviously we agree.
Mr Wildman: The reason I asked that in English was that I wanted to ensure everyone here understood your position. They don't all have access to the translation, the interpretation that we have as committee members.
How would you respond to some who might argue that the francophone community should be very pleased, as I know they are, with the establishment of the French-language boards after such a long struggle, and should not be looking a gift horse in the mouth, as it were?
Mr Daniel Morin: Well, actually, it's not a gift --
Mr Wildman: The court required it.
Mr Daniel Morin: Exactly -- and especially if it's empty. It's like me receiving a nice Cadillac without wheels and steering, and nothing in it. That's exactly what it is, so we need to know what kind of money comes behind it or with it.
Mr Wildman: A member of the business community appearing before this committee said, "Asking us to approve Bill 160 without the funding formula is like asking a businessperson to approve a new business investment without knowing the numbers, without knowing what the revenue might be, what the expenditure and costs might be, and what the potential return might be." No businessperson would agree to that kind of approach, so why should the public agree to this very important investment in the future of our kids?
Mr Daniel Morin: So we need the numbers.
M. Beaubien : Monsieur Morin, merci pour votre présentation ce matin, une présentation très informative.
À la page 3 de votre présentation, vous mentionnez, _Encore récemment, des francophones des régions de Peel, de York et de Halton se sont vu refuser l'ouverture d'une école élémentaire._ Si je retombe à la page 5, vous mentionnez que, _Le projet de loi 160 émascule les conseils scolaires locaux._
J'ai un peu de difficulté à comprendre ce que vous essayez de me dire ici. Si on a de la difficulté à maintenir ou bien à ouvrir des écoles élémentaires francophones en ce moment sous les projets de loi qui sont sur les livres aujourd'hui, qu'est-ce que vous essayez de me dire ici avec le projet de loi 160 ?
M. Daniel Morin : Je vais essayer de répondre à votre question. Je ne suis pas certain que je la comprends bien, mais vous faites référence aux régions de Halton, Peel, comme je l'ai fait. Dans ces cas-là, les francophones non seulement n'ont pas de conseils scolaires, n'ont pas de sections de langue française comme plusieurs existent dans la province, mais tout ce qu'ils ont, ce sont des comités consultatifs de langue française qui n'ont aucun pouvoir.
Dans ces trois cas-là, les comités consultatifs ont fait des pressions depuis plusieurs années auprès des conseils scolaires anglophones pour avoir justement des écoles françaises. Jusqu'à tout récemment, et même tout récemment justement, toujours la réponse a été non. Dans la création des nouveaux conseils scolaires de langue française, évidemment, ces régions-là vont être incluses avec le conseils scolaires de district de la région, mais il reste encore que sans un vrai pouvoir de gestion au niveau local, au niveau des conseillers et des conseillères scolaires, on n'est absolument pas certain de ce que ça va donner en termes de possibilités de bâtir et d'avoir ces nouvelles écoles de langue française pour ces régions-là où le besoin a été démontré, d'ailleurs. Je ne sais pas si ça répond à votre question.
M. Beaubien : Oui, ça me donne un peu un coup de main ici, mais lundi et mardi à Sault Ste-Marie puis à Thunder Bay, j'ai entendu des présentations de groupes franco-ontariens. Mme Groulx, qui est la présidente et l'AEFO à Sault Ste-Marie, voulait par exemple porter l'attention sur le fait que nous sommes des petites écoles à l'intérieur d'un territoire très anglophone, que dans la région de Sault Ste-Marie et de Thunder Bay, ça cause beaucoup de difficultés parce que, comme vous l'avez démontré ici, le support public n'est pas là. Est-ce que vous avez rencontré la même difficulté ici dans la région d'Ottawa ?
M. Daniel Morin : Difficulté par rapport à l'aide publique ?
M. Beaubien : Avec les conseils.
M. Daniel Morin : Dans la région d'Ottawa comme telle -- moi, je suis conseiller scolaire à Cornwall -- c'est évident qu'avec l'avènement d'un conseil scolaire public de langue française et un conseil scolaire catholique de langue française, donc deux conseils qui régissent la grande région d'Ottawa-Carleton, les francophones ont accès à des conseils et à des écoles de langue française. Par contre, à l'intérieur de ces conseils-là, on entend souvent dire que même avec des conseils scolaires de langue française, ils n'ont pas les moyens, évidemment, de répondre à la demande des francophones au niveau de l'ouverture de nouvelles écoles et des choses du genre.
Alors, le support du public est fantastique, je veux dire, c'est évident. Ils ont des conseils scolaires de langue française pour la région, et en Prescott-Russell c'est la même chose. Dès qu'on sort de ces trois régions-là où il existe des conseils scolaires de langue française, à ce moment là, surtout avec le projet de loi 160 et les pouvoirs donnés aux conseillers et conseillères scolaires, c'est très difficile de prévoir si on va pouvoir répondre à la demande, justement.
Mme McLeod : J'essayerai de répéter vos recommandations en anglais pour quelques-uns dans l'audience, et puis mon collègue posera une question.
You have said quite clearly that you want to see the funding formula, the financing, before this bill proceeds. You've also said, and I want to stress this, that significant parts of this bill should be withdrawn, those parts of the bill which take the power away from local boards and put it into the hands of cabinet, because with those powers being withdrawn from the local boards, as I think you put it, your rights under article 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are guaranteed nothing more than to become an empty shell. Have I essentially put the essence of your concerns?
Mr Daniel Morin: That's a good translation.
M. Grandmaître : Je voudrais attirer votre attention, Monsieur Morin, à la gestion scolaire. Moi aussi, je veux référer à la page 3, au dernier paragraphe : _L'article 6 de la partie I du projet de loi 160 ne respecte pas nos droits constitutionnels de gestion en vertu de l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés._
J'aimerais que vous parliez de vos avis légaux concernant vos commentaires, et je vous réfère à la page 6 de votre mémoire. On parle de rattrapage. Monsieur Morin, je suis tout à fait d'accord avec vous. Si le gouvernement qui a fait l'annonce de la gestion scolaire avec tambours, trompettes, pour que la communauté francophone se réjouisse -- il faut du rattrapage. Alors, pouvez-vous nous parler du rattrapage ?
1100
M. Daniel Morin : C'est difficile de parler du rattrapage en termes précis. Il faudrait que je compare à l'intérieur d'une même région, même au niveau provincial, l'ensemble de ce que la majorité possède en termes du système d'éducation versus ce que la minorité possède, pour ainsi voir ce que ça prend pour que cette minorité francophone puisse obtenir la même chose que la majorité anglophone. Bien sûr, l'avènement de conseils scolaires fait en sorte qu'il y a une certaine forme de rattrapage, mais c'est une forme de rattrapage global, puis comme on l'a dit plusieurs fois, si cet avènement nous donne des conseils scolaires qu'on ne peut pas gérer comme tels parce qu'il n'y a pas d'argent ou qu'il n'y a même pas de pouvoir réel, on ne gère absolument rien.
Sur une base locale, il y a du rattrapage. On pourrait même comparer école par école et district par district. Vous vous souviendrez peut-être du jugement Sirois en Ontario justement dans la péninsule, dans le coin de Penetanguishene, qui mettait des dents au rattrapage. Il voyait une équivalence entre ce que les francophones devaient avoir et ce que les anglophones devaient avoir. Partout en province, on peut aller chercher des exemples bien spécifiques.
M. Grandmaître : Dernière petite question, Monsieur Morin. Je vous réfère encore à vos commentaires à la page 3, que _la loi 160 ne respecte pas nos droits constitutionnels._ Est-ce que c'est assez puissant pour empêcher l'injonction que le gouvernement a l'intention de déposer ?
M. Daniel Morin : N'étant ni constitutionnaliste ni avocat de profession, j'ai beaucoup de misère à répondre à votre question. Je ne sais pas si, oui ou non, c'est assez puissant pour ça. Ce que je sais, c'est que lorsque l'association regarde, et puis je les ai lues, certaines des dispositions de l'arrêt Mahé qui sont protégées dans la constitution, lorsque nous regardons l'énoncé des pouvoirs qui devraient nous être accordés, puis qu'on compare avec ce qui est dans le projet de loi 160, on trouve qu'il y a un manque à gagner définitif.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this morning.
ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS
The Chair: Our next presentation is Diane Chénier. I take this opportunity to welcome Gilles Morin, MPP for Carleton East, to our committee. Please proceed.
Mme Diane Chénier : Il me fait plaisir de vous présenter les deux personnes qui m'accompagnent : M. Guy Matte, directeur-général, et M. Bernard Éthier.
L'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens est un organisme professionnel qui représente les quelque 8000 enseignantes et enseignants francophones de la province à l'emploi des conseils scolaires catholiques et publiques, de même que les enseignantes et les enseignants suppléants oeuvrant dans les conseils scolaires de langue française.
L'AEFO dépose auprès de votre comité son mémoire vis-à-vis le projet de loi 160. Vous ne serez sûrement pas surpris d'apprendre que nous partageons les préoccupations des autres associations professionnelles d'enseignantes et d'enseignants. Vous y trouverez les amendements et les abrogations que nous appuyons. Je ne les passerai donc pas en revue. Je tiens cependant à partager avec vous les préoccupations que nous avons quant à l'impact du projet de loi 160 sur les écoles françaises de l'Ontario.
Le système des écoles de langue française est particulièrement vulnérable aux changements législatifs et financiers du gouvernement provincial. Nous sommes heureux de constater que le gouvernement a pris la décision de procéder à la création des 12 conseils scolaires de langue française. C'est une mesure qui répond aux décisions des cours de justice.
Nous travaillons fortement, présentement, avec les conseillères et les conseillers scolaires à assurer une transition harmonieuse et efficace entre la situation actuelle et celle qui prévaudra après le 1er janvier 1998. Cependant, nous craignons que le projet de loi 160 ne transforme ces conseils scolaires en coquilles vides.
En effet, si les pouvoirs que s'arroge le ministre sont approuvés par la Législature, les conseils scolaires ne seront plus que des administrateurs de décisions prises par un gouvernement central. La perte de contrôle des francophones sur leur système d'éducation irait selon nous à l'encontre des dispositions de l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Les parents et les contribuables ont le devoir de par cet article de voir à la gestion des écoles de langue française, et il n'est pas question pour notre communauté de permettre au gouvernement central de substituer au rôle que jouaient les conseils scolaires de langue anglaise auprès de nos institutions durant les derniers 150 ans.
Dans un autre ordre d'idée, nos écoles sont fragiles, particulièrement au niveau secondaire où la moitié d'entre elles ont moins de 250 élèves. Dans ces situations, le personnel enseignant assure à bout de bras un programme complet d'études secondaires. Si le projet de loi 160 devenait opérant, cela signifierait la perte d'un grand nombre d'enseignants et d'enseignantes et la disparition de programmes et de spécialistes qui pourrait conduire au décrochage et même à la fermeture d'un grand nombre d'écoles.
Notre organisation est de celles qui veulent un système d'éducation de qualité. Nous appuyons l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation. Nous avons appuyé un bulletin uniforme en assurant la présence d'une dizaine d'enseignantes et d'enseignants dans le développement de ce bulletin. Nous appuyons les tests provinciaux en autant que ceci puisse nous apprendre comment remédier aux faiblesses de nos programmes.
Notre organisation en est une qui accepte le changement mais qui ne se pliera pas à des décisions politiques qui n'ont rien à voir avec la qualité de l'éducation et tout à voir avec la réduction des effectifs et les coupures budgétaires. Nous espérons que vous saurez prendre en compte les recommandations contenues dans notre mémoire. Merci.
The Vice-Chair (Mr E. J. Douglas Rollins): Thank you for your presentation. We have some time. We'll start with the government.
1110
M. Beaubien : J'ai eu de la difficulté à suivre votre présentation avec l'information que j'avais devant moi, mais vous avez dit, madame, que le projet de loi 160 vous concerne en regardant la perte d'enseignants et d'enseignantes, la fermeture d'un grand nombre d'écoles que vous avez mentionnée. Vous avez mentionné que les conseils scolaires deviendront des coquilles vides, mais vous avez aussi mentionné que vous appréciez que le gouvernement avait formulé 12 conseils d'écoles de langue française.
Pourriez-vous m'expliquer pourquoi vous pensez que les conseils scolaires vont devenir des coquilles vides avec le projet de loi 160 ?
Mme Chénier : M. Matte va répondre à la question pour vous.
M. Guy Matte : Quand nous avons regardé ce qui est dans ce projet de loi et les pouvoirs que se donnent le gouvernement et le Cabinet, il reste peu de décisions à prendre au niveau local. Tout ce qui regarde les conditions de travail des enseignantes et des enseignants -- les décisions que les conseils peuvent prendre à ce sujet, les décisions reliées aux tailles des salles de classe, les décisions qui sont reliées aux programmes d'études -- est maintenant centralisé au niveau du gouvernement provincial. Il reste peu de choses au niveau local pour les conseils scolaires à gérer.
Nous croyons que cette habitude centralisatrice du gouvernement à l'heure actuelle correspond à peu près à ce que nous vivons à l'heure actuelle dans les conseils scolaires de langue anglaise, où la majorité peut encore contrôler ce qui se passe. On vient d'obtenir des conseils scolaires de langue française et on espérait bien les gérer, mais le pouvoir qu'avaient les conseils ayant été transféré au gouvernement provincial, il nous restera encore pratiquement rien à gérer au niveau local. Nous croyons que la communauté francophone doit gérer ses écoles.
Mr Beaubien: I don't think I have any other questions, Mr Chair.
M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : Je voudrais référer à la question qui a été posée tout à l'heure par mon collègue M. Grandmaître à M. Morin, qui était ici comme témoin. Il est très intéressant de voir que l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne auquel vous référez -- que ceci vous enlève vos droits. C'est très clair. Maintenant, vous avez sûrement demandé des conseils à vos aviseurs légaux. Qu'est-ce qu'on vous a dit au sujet de l'injonction que le gouvernement a l'intention d'apporter pour exiger que les professeurs retournent aux études ?
M. Matte : Je pense qu'il n'y a pas vraiment un lien entre les deux. Je ne peux voir le lien entre les deux. Ce que nous disons au niveau de l'article 23, c'est que la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés protège les droits qu'ont les francophones de gérer les écoles ; c'est une chose. L'injonction qui, semble-t-il -- je ne sais pas si le gouvernement l'a déposée ce matin, mais l'injonction qui semble se préparer touche à un projet de loi très précis, qui s'appelle le projet de loi 100.
Ce que nous trouvons très étrange, c'est que ce gouvernement, à travers le projet de loi 160, veut se débarrasser de la Loi 100, mais en même temps s'en sert pour essayer de déposer l'injonction auprès du gouvernement. Alors, je trouve étrange qu'on veut se débarrasser d'une loi qui semble bien satisfaire aux objectifs du gouvernement à l'heure actuelle. Mais il n'y a pas de lien entre les deux.
M. Grandmaître : Je voudrais revenir à la création des 12 conseils scolaires de langue française qui nous ont été promis, je le répète, avec tambours et trompettes, comme une victoire pour les Franco-Ontariens. Je me souviens des entêtes. J'ai encore les découpures chez moi. J'ai encore les découpures, et un jour je pourrais sortir les découpures et la victoire ne serait pas acquise.
Monsieur Matte, je voudrais vous poser une question ; j'aimerais connaître vos idées. Avec la possibilité d'un financement réduit, que ça soit au niveau public, séparé, langue française, qu'est-ce qui va arriver au système d'éducation en Ontario ? Que ça soit public, séparé, langue française, on veut fermer des écoles, et je suis sûr qu'avec la fermeture de certaines écoles publiques, on va tenter de remettre ces écoles publiques-là aux francophones. Alors, imaginez-vous la guerre que va soulever le gouvernement en faisant cette répartition.
Pouvez-vous me donner vos commentaires, vos idées ? Qu'est-ce que vous prévoyez si le gouvernement va de l'avant avec un financement beaucoup plus faible qu'à l'heure actuelle ? Qu'est-ce que vous voyez ? Qu'est-ce le futur de notre système d'éducation en Ontario ?
M. Matte : Je vous rappelle d'abord que quand les animaux se présentent devant les tanks et que les tanks commencent à se dessécher de plus en plus, les animaux qui s'entendaient ensemble -- anglophones, francophones, catholiques et publics -- commencent à se regarder avec un oeil un peu différent. Je pense que ce que l'on voit, c'est un peu l'assèchement du financement dans la province de l'Ontario, et il y a une grande crainte contre les catholiques et les publics, entre le secteur francophone et le secteur anglophone. On commence à poser beaucoup de questions et à questionner le maintien d'un système tel que le système catholique et tel que le système de langue française.
Je crois que l'on a vu déjà dans des provinces voisines des changements qui sont proposés dans cette direction-là. Donc, il y a certainement au niveau fédéral une crainte que la réduction de financement va faire à ce que les gens commencent à se faire mal entre eux, plutôt que de voir à la meilleure qualité de l'éducation.
Deuxièmement, au niveau des écoles de langue française, ce que nous voyons à l'heure actuelle, c'est que la réduction du financement, particulièrement au niveau secondaire, quand on regarde les mesures qui sont proposées par le gouvernement, va faire à ce que plusieurs d'entre elles risquent dans trois à cinq ans de fermer. Pourquoi ?
Quand on a à peu près 12 enseignants dans une école qui tentent de maintenir un programme complet de la neuvième jusqu'au CPO, 12 enseignants, 12 personnes qui tentent de le maintenir, elles doivent faire toutes sortes de choses. Et il y aura des réductions. Le projet de loi 160 demande de réduire le nombre des enseignantes et des enseignants, et le ministre lui-même a avoué hier avec ses petites affaires, son petit dessin devant la télévision, que c'était pour réduire le nombre de personnel. Il est évident qu'il va y avoir moins de monde pour remplir les programmes au niveau secondaire.
Quand on voit se retrouver 10 membres du personnel dans une école secondaire et que l'on a perdu le spécialiste en sciences, est-ce que ça va être notre spécialiste en littérature française qui va maintenant enseigner les sciences au CPO? Et on va s'attendre à ce que ça augmente la qualité de l'éducation dans nos écoles ? Ça ne prendra pas de temps que les élèves vont décrocher ; ils vont aller ailleurs. Après avoir tenté de maintenir ces écoles-là à bout de bras, à bout des doigts, je pense que ce n'est pas rendre un service au niveau de la qualité de l'éducation que d'aller dans la direction proposée par le gouvernement.
Mme McLeod : Ma question, c'est simplement pourquoi vos enseignantes et enseignants ne sont pas dans les classes aujourd'hui.
Mme Chénier : Évidemment, nous défendons une qualité de l'éducation qui est déjà en place. On veut maintenir exactement nos écoles de langue française. On veut offrir les meilleurs programmes. On a les meilleurs spécialistes dans le moment. On ne veut pas que le gouvernement prenne un contrôle central par les bureaucrates de Toronto, et on ne veut pas soustraire 667 $ millions du système de l'éducation. Ça va saigner notre budget éducatif et ça va hypothéquer l'avenir de nos jeunes d'aujourd'hui et des futures générations.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I was curious about your comments about the violation of section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Bill 160. You've mentioned how long and hard you have fought as a community to achieve the rights that you have now and how, once you received them, you see them being eroded and taken away by Bill 160. I wouldn't expect that you would continue to watch that erosion of rights happen, but that you would do whatever you could to make sure your schools didn't become empty shells, as you've said. What sorts of options do you see in the future and what sorts of steps do you think you may have to take in order to ensure that your section 23 rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are upheld and maintained?
M. Matte : Nous nous sommes battus pendant 23 ans pour obtenir des conseils scolaires de langue française responsables de l'éducation en langue française dans la province, 23 ans. Nous avons comme organisation poussé des causes devant les cours de justice jusqu'à la Cour suprême. Nous avons appuyé des causes pour assurer que les francophones vont gérer leur propre système en respect, avant 23, de ce qui était dans les lois sur l'éducation, et après que la section 23 a été adoptée, sous l'article 23.
1120
Il y a beaucoup de décisions juridiques qui ont été prises là-dessus. C'est notre intention, si le projet de loi 160 est maintenu tel qu'il est prévu, de demander aux cours de justice, jusqu'à la Cour suprême s'il le faut, de vérifier si la nouvelle loi sur l'éducation maintient toujours son respect de l'article 23 de la Charte des droits et libertés.
Mr Wildman: To follow up from that, do you as an association support the decision that apparently some trustees have supported to so-called "suspend" their right to tax property for the provision of education for their students for a five-year period if Bill 160 is passed?
Mr Matte: We cannot support or not support such an amendment and such a notion until we know what the funding formula is. Si la formule elle-même est juste et équitable et permet un financement des écoles de langue française au même niveau dans les systèmes catholique et public que l'on va retrouver dans les écoles de langue anglaise, et à un niveau suffisant -- pas tout le monde pauvre -- pour assurer une qualité de l'éducation, à ce moment-là, nous pouvons attendre cinq ans et mettre de côté les droits constitutionnels que nous croyons avoir de maintenir le droit à la taxe.
Mais si nous ne pouvons voir cette formule de financement, tant que nous ne la voyons pas, il est difficile pour nous d'accepter, de prime abord, que le gouvernement va tout simplement nous nier le droit de percevoir des taxes et de permettre aux contribuables au niveau local de prendre des taxes pour assurer des programmes que les contribuables eux-mêmes veulent avoir. Un exemple probant, c'est les jardins et les maternelles. Le gouvernement a coupé de beaucoup le financement des maternelles, mais dans aucun de nos conseils scolaires les conseils de langue française ou les sections de langue française n'ont-ils fermé un seul jardin, une seule maternelle. C'est trop important pour nos communautés. Ce pouvoir doit demeurer au niveau de la communauté.
Mr Wildman: On the other issue of the possibility of the provincial government going to court today to file for an injunction under Bill 100, the current law governing collective bargaining for teachers and boards, isn't it rather ironic, as you've indicated, that the provincial government is using the bill to try and ensure that teachers return to classrooms that they are trying to get rid of in proposing Bill 160? If Bill 100 has served, as we believe, the rights and interests of students, taxpayers, parents, boards and teachers in the 20 years or so that it has been in effect, wouldn't it make more sense for this government to leave it in effect and get back to ensuring quality education instead of trying to take away collective bargaining rights for teachers?
Mr Matte: "Ironic" is just one word that we thought of when we heard about this.
Mme McLeod : Et les autres ?
M. Matte : Les autres, je ne pourrais les dire qu'en français, et j'espère que la traduction ne se fait pas assurer. Vous avez tout à fait raison. Nous maintenons que le gouvernement devrait enlever -- nous l'avons mis dans notre document -- les dispositions qui transfèrent les négociations collectives des enseignantes et des enseignants du système actuel vers la Loi sur les relations de travail en Ontario.
Ce n'est pas que nous voulons nous soustraire à la Loi sur les relations de travail de l'Ontario, mais la Loi 100 a permis d'avoir une paix dans le domaine de l'éducation entre les enseignantes et les enseignants, les conseils scolaires et le gouvernement. Le nombre de grèves qui ont eu lieu dans la province sur les milliers de conventions collectives qui ont été signées et resignées depuis 1974 est infime. On parle de moins de 2 %. Dans quel milieu de travail est-ce qu'on va trouver quelque chose de semblable ? C'est toujours circonscrit dans des milieux très, très précis.
Ça a bien servi la population, ça a bien servi les communautés, ça a bien servi le gouvernement, ça a bien servi l'ensemble de la population francophone et anglophone de la province et je pense que ça devrait demeurer.
Mr Wildman: The current provincial government has changed the old English adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," to "If it ain't broke, break it."
The Vice-Chair: You people have a few more minutes if you want to say anything additional.
M. Matte : Je voudrais vous remercier, Monsieur Rollins, de nous avoir reçus ce matin. Non, nous allons terminer ici, parce que nous voulons nous assurer que le retard qui était pris ce matin pourrait être repris, que tous les gens qui veulent présenter pourront le faire aujourd'hui. Je vous remercie.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.
While I'm calling the Coalition for Public Education, John Crump, to the stand, the parliamentary assistant has some papers to file with the committee.
Mr Smith: Very quickly, in response to Mr Patten's request, I'll file for the committee's consideration and information a multi-year review, a 10-year review of Ministry of Education and Training expenditures, which shows in 1995 some $14.1 billion being spent, and current 1997, $14.4 billion. I'll file that with the clerk, if I may.
The Vice-Chair: That's filed.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I'd also like the parliamentary assistant to file with the committee information on the success of the current teacher/board collective bargaining legislation, so-called Bill 100, to give us the percentage of work stoppages, either lockouts or strikes, that have occurred since 1975 under that legislation. Is it in fact 2% or 3%, as the last deputant indicated? If it is so low, then perhaps the parliamentary assistant can explain why it needs to be changed.
The Vice-Chair: We will see that he asks for that.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant to supplement the figures he's presented with the breakdown of the decrease in operational grants, which I'm not sure he provided, versus the required repayment to the pension funds.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, if we can have that.
COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair: With those delays now, we will start. For the record of Hansard, introduce yourself, and the time has started.
Mr John Crump: My name is John Crump. I am a parent of three children in the Ottawa public school system and a member of the Coalition for Public Education. I just wanted to mention that our group has been doing a lot of work to get information out to parents on what are the contents of Bill 160. I've tabled with the committee a document we produced called The Big Picture: Ontario Public Education Privatization Checklist. These are directions for Ontario government ministers and spokespersons on how to privatize education and not really tell people about it.
Today brings to a close a very short period of consultation on Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act. In case anybody's wondering, I have a copy here. It's $31.50 at the local bookstore. This committee has now held seven days of hearings: seven days for 2.1 million students. We understand that more than 1,000 people wanted to speak to you, but far fewer have actually had that chance, and we wonder why.
You've heard many times from parents, school boards, teachers, students and others with a direct stake in the education system that this bill puts too much power in the hands of cabinet. You've heard from people who have said that this bill is too much, too fast, and that the government must take another look at what it's trying to do. You've heard from people who have said very clearly that for the sake of democracy, this bill should be scrapped. You have heard people's anger over the Premier's and the education minister's admission that this bill is designed to cut at least $667 million from our children's classrooms. You've heard all this and more, but have you listened? Will Mike Harris listen?
1130
If we've learned anything from the way the current government has operated in the last two and a half years, it is that the formal requirements of democracy have little meaning in the face of an overwhelming desire to push an ideological program, and we have learned that the government has little desire or demonstrated ability to listen to anyone other than its own ideologically pure advisers and its supporters on the right.
The Coalition for Public Education has little doubt about what will happen after today. This committee will go back to Toronto, the government will say it has listened, just like it did this spring with the Fewer School Boards Act, and then this bill will be rammed through the Legislature without any changes.
This government's plan to create a crisis in education has been a resounding success, and you on the government benches should congratulate yourselves. Bill 160 is just the latest manufactured response to that crisis and it must be seen in combination with the Fewer School Boards Act. That bill, which centralized power in the hands of the Minister of Education and his handpicked Education Improvement Commission, is now creating chaos throughout the province as boards scramble to amalgamate by January 1. I should mention that this amalgamation process is taking place with little or no coherent direction from the EIC. It's happening in a financial vacuum because the government has not released its secret funding formula, and the costs of amalgamation are coming out of our kids' classrooms. We have that word from the minister himself.
Bill 104 set the stage for Bill 160. This new act transfers a massive amount of power and decision-making authority up the ladder from local communities to the cabinet.
Interjection.
Mr Crump: Am I boring you?
What we are left with at the local level -- you asked us to be quiet; I ask you to be quiet while I'm speaking.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I was discussing a point you raised, and I think you should be happy that I did discuss it with my colleagues.
Mr Crump: What we are left with at the local level are the mess and the bills. There are no specifics in the bill to tell us what safeguards the government plans to introduce to balance the loss of power at the local level with the centralization of power at the top. Parents are patted on the head and told: "Don't worry. The bill mandates advisory school councils." But it says nothing about training or support, and who are we to advise?
Under this bill, many decisions which were once made by locally elected and thus accountable school boards will now be made by cabinet through regulations. If we have a problem, we'll have to speak to the Minister of Education's voice mail about it because schools and school boards won't be able to help us. Bill 160 takes care of that. If school board trustees try to respond to local needs and concerns that go against central policy, the minister can fire them, fine them and bar them from office, and there's no appeal.
This and all future cabinets will have the power to increase property taxes in secret through regulation without the approval of the Legislature or any other public forum such as a school board. There is something fundamentally wrong with a government, any government, having the power to raise taxes in secret. Where is the accountability? Why won't my elected MPP have anything to say about it in the Legislative Assembly? I would like to remind you of the words of Lord Macaulay. He once said, "The cabinet is not known in law; it is a little private club."
As I said before, we continue to await, like manna from heaven, the oft-promised funding formula. Parents cannot make sense of Bill 160 without knowing how much money the government plans to spend or cut from the system. "Show us the money," is what we keep saying, but we don't get any answers. Granted, the Premier's admission that another $667 million will be cut clarifies things a little, but these cuts will be implemented, it appears, through Bill 160. The funding formula is not part of this bill. How much more does the government plan to cut? Why is the government afraid to tell us how much or how little money it plans to spend on our children's education? This is a democracy and we have a right to know these facts.
Government by regulation is in effect government by decree. Governments that rule by decree, and we have seen many examples in this century, do so because they are guided by an ideology or belief system which holds that the end justifies the means. Ideological governments are often totalitarian governments.
In the case of the current government of Ontario, the end is the tax cut. The means include trying to make us believe the system is broken and then centralizing power and control over as much public money as possible. Democratic governments only rule by decree during times of extreme emergency. Since the current government has been trying to make us believe there is a state of emergency in our schools, perhaps parents can be forgiven if we view Bill 160 as the Ontario government's educational equivalent to the War Measures Act. There are some differences, of course. One important difference was that once the War Measures Act was lifted, citizens regained their lost rights. Under Bill 160, our rights are gone permanently.
Having witnessed the contempt which greeted the recommendations for changes to the Fewer School Boards Act last winter, we are under no illusion that this government will listen if we say, "Withdraw this bill." Nevertheless, that is what we think should and would happen in normal democratic times. So we say it: Withdraw this bill.
However, these are not normal times; therefore, we have another suggestion which will allow the government to proceed with its legislative agenda and allow people to speak. The Coalition for Public Education calls upon this committee to recommend to the Premier of Ontario that this bill be set aside and that a referendum be called to determine whether it has the support of Ontario residents. A referendum will allow a cooling-off period; I need one too. More importantly, it will allow the proper dissemination of concrete information on the bill, its contents and the intent of the government.
During the lead-up to the referendum, the government will have an opportunity to release its funding formula and supply answers to the many questions that parents have both about this bill and about the government's overall agenda. A referendum will allow all sides to air their views on this important issue of education reform. We do have a recent precedent, of course, with the referendum held in Newfoundland on school control.
If the government is right and these changes are necessary and beneficial and will enhance the education of our children, we have no doubt that the public will support them. If we are right and this bill represents a threat to our individual and collective rights as citizens, then we are equally sure it will be rejected. Either way, democracy will have been served, and when all is said and done, democracy is what is at stake here.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Interruption.
The Vice-Chair: We have had a recess for that; we don't need another one.
We have less than a minute left, if you have anything else you would like to add. It's hard to split a minute three ways. No? Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation.
LINDA DANSKY
The Vice-Chair: At this time we will call on the next presenter, Linda Dansky.
Ms Linda Dansky: My name is Linda Dansky, and I'm a parent of children in the Ottawa Board of Education. My husband and I constitute one of those special interest groups alluded to by Mr Harris in his homily on TV the other evening. We are called parents.
As parents of four young children, we are appalled by the apparent cynicism displayed by the Premier in his speech, especially in his attempt at having parents believe they will have more power in the education system with the passage of this bill. We will not allow any Premier to bamboozle us into believing that taking over $1 billion out of the education system, whatever else he might do, is good for either his or my children.
Some $533 million have already been taken out of the system, to the detriment of many fine programs. As Mr Harris has recently acknowledged, an additional $670 million will be cut next year. Is this to be done in order to improve the system? Ontario's parents understand that whatever the motives of the teachers in this dispute, Mr Harris's first interest is not the quality of education, as he claims.
Mr Harris alleges that Ontario's expenditure per pupil is one of the highest in North America. He uses this as an excuse to justify cutting excesses. In fact, per pupil expenditure for the last school year, 1996-97, ranges from 46th to 49th out of 63 jurisdictions in North America. We are below average in spending and at the same time have an expensive-to-educate immigrant population. Please see appendices A and B.
What disturbs us most about this bill is not only how it takes power away from local communities and centralizes it at Queen's Park, but also how it allows the cabinet to rule by decree in education matters. Mr Harris must realize that he will not be in power forever and that this law will give the same power to any future government to impose its ideological will on a recalcitrant populace, as it will the current Conservative government, once it is passed. Bill 160 gives the government omnipotent power.
The Education Improvement Commission set up to implement the reforms until 2001 is only accountable to the party in power, which may very well be either the Liberals or NDP in as short a time as two years from now. Does the government really want that? I don't see why anyone would want any political party to have inordinate influence fed by ideology on our children's education.
The reforms appear to have the aim of making administration of the education system easier. Unfortunately, the minister is overlooking the fact that although more efficiencies are a desirable goal, we need our teachers to work with us. This bill puts the teachers up against a wall. As professionals, teachers know a lot about education and have an interest in the excellence of the system they serve, not only in themselves. Teachers are parents too, and they also volunteer for many activities for which they are not paid. Without their goodwill and cooperation, our children and our society will suffer in the long run.
Student-teacher ratios are a very important issue for us. Because this bill never discusses actual numbers, future government, or even this one if it is so inclined, could in fact increase the student-teacher ratio and not decrease it. To commit the government to controlling class size as the bill does and either to remove money or to remove teachers from the system is in effect to control class sizes so they move upwards, not downwards. This has already been borne out by the results of cost-cutting.
1140
We are very strong supporters of a low class size, but not at any cost. If the government does not intend to use the savings from the reforms in order to hire more teachers and thereby decrease the student-teacher ratio, then the teachers will have to come from alternatives that carry a variety of risks. For example:
(1) If the low student-teacher ratio comes from non-certified teachers, we risk lowering the standard of education.
(2) If the low student-teacher ratio comes from further cuts in ancillary staff, we risk depriving the students and the front-line teachers in the classroom of much-needed support staff. Reducing support staff is not a minor matter; it is like amputating a limb from a body.
(3) Mr Snobelen stated that cutting preparation time will allow him to get rid of 4,400 teaching jobs and save $200 million annually. If this occurs, a lower student-teacher ratio is not possible. Other jurisdictions such as California have learned from their mistakes. California is increasing the amount of money it spends on education in order to increase teachers' preparation time and decrease class sizes. Why do we have to emulate their earlier mistakes?
(4) Does losing essential programs such as library, physical education, special education and music enhance the overall education system? We absolutely need smaller classes, but in order to achieve this, we need more money in the system, not less.
Our children are our most important resource. To cut investment now in the infrastructure supporting our children's education is investment folly. These shortsighted measures will surely impact negatively on the bottom line of the educational balance sheet of our future citizens, today's children. On the other hand, the return on educational investment, if wisely made and allocated, can be enormous.
The cabinet is taking for itself absolute power over the education of our children. Why should we give them the power to decide for us what is best for us? We are a democratic community of adults, and this government's kind of democracy is a centralized bureaucratic dictatorship. Bill 160 ignores Ontario's long tradition of reaching consensus through the democratic process.
In this bill, sweeping powers are reserved for the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The cabinet is given absolute and total authority over every aspect of the schools' functioning. This is at the expense of the existing voice that local parents, teachers and boards currently enjoy. Local control over local issues is a very important way to ensure that local needs are met. Under the bill, the minister can set tax rates by regulation. Control over the purse is crucial in having a voice. How stupid does the government think parents are? Parents want more equitable funding, but not at the expense of losing their local voice.
Imagine that it is the year 2001. John Lenin-Trotsky has come out of nowhere to lead a strident leftist government dedicated to spending itself out of what it hopes will be a mild recession. It has rehired thousands of unemployed teachers to teach progressive courses such as "On the Unethical Nature of All Wealth." The tools to do this have already been given the new government by an obliging Mike Harris. Of course, they never thought they would ever lose power, nor that the very tools they once used to force their will over a bewildered populace would now be available to the opposition to use in the same ideologically adherent way over the same, now even more bewildered, populace. Laws, for better or for worse, last long beyond governments. We can do so much better than this dangerous bill.
A few examples of extreme centralization of potentially coercive powers that will be easy to misuse are:
(1) The injunction against the exercise of school board powers:
"257.46 The minister may by injunction proceedings prevent the exercise by or for a board of any of its powers that has not been approved by the minister...."
(2) Ministerial appointment:
"257.48(2) The minister may appoint a person, who may be an officer of the board, to exercise the powers and perform the duties that the minister may provide, and the person so appointed shall be paid the salary and allowed the expenses that the minister may determine."
In other words, while the rest of the board get a pittance for their service to the community, the lackey of the minister -- and it could be an NDP or Liberal minister one day -- could be paid as much as the minister decrees, plus expenses, and have executive power over the board. They did this sort of thing in a different way in Communist Russia and China. There are no checks here for abuse of power, which, as we are in the process of observing, is an inherently human trait.
(3) Payment of salaries and expenses:
"257.48(4) All salaries, fees, remuneration and expenses payable under this section and all other expenses incurred by the minister in carrying out the provisions of this division or in the exercise of his or her powers under it shall be paid by the board and be chargeable to such of its accounts as the minister may direct."
In other words, the minister can spend money indiscriminately in opposition to a board's wishes and interests, and charge the board for this privilege. Let's call this one the democracy of the proletariat.
Here's another provision of the bill that seems to exemplify the arrogance of the designers of the bill. It is entitled "Protection from liability," section 138:
"No proceeding for damages shall be brought against... the Education Improvement Commission or a member or delegate of it...for an act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of any duty or authority under this act or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of such duty or authority."
Do doctors have this privilege? Do lawyers? Why should the Education Improvement Commission be above the law and not be accountable for negligence?
As we have said elsewhere, emasculating the boards will not eliminate inefficiency; it will only perpetuate it at a higher level of centralization. Human beings are inefficient. It is better to have these imperfections under control close at hand than hidden in some faraway bureaucratic place. There is no defence against the abuse of such sweeping powers as the cabinet wishes to grant itself. There are no powers on earth that have not been abused, and although centralized power is more efficient to implement, it is also more dangerous for this precise reason.
Now with the minister's representatives on the boards themselves controlling the agenda of a volunteer board, we will rarely see local concerns finding a voice.
Parents like us are for the kind of change that is slow and deliberate, respects our democratic traditions, and addresses the diverse needs of local communities. Instead, government seems bent on sacrificing our consensus-based democratic system of education for a centralized dictatorship. Are five toes better than six? Are they better because they conform to the norm? Cuts to education and mediocre sameness as dictated by cabinet will not serve our children well for the demands of the 21st century. As in the broader scheme of things, genetic diversity is essential if a species is to survive and flourish.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. You've used up close to the 10 minutes. If you'd like to make one more statement, there is a moment or two for that.
Ms Dansky: I think Bill 160 has a lot wrong with it. I think it should be withdrawn. I agree with John Crump about holding a referendum concerning Bill 160.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
KIRSTEN KOZOLANKA
The Vice-Chair: At this time we call the next presenter, Kirsten Kozolanka. That's probably not the right pronunciation. For the record, state your name, and your time has started.
Ms Kirsten Kozolanka: My name is Kirsten Kozolanka -- it wasn't bad. I am pleased to be here today, on this last day of hearings on Bill 160 -- pleased not because it's an honour or a pleasure, but because the odds were so much against it, especially after this government did its best to close down public consultation by using its majority on the standing committee to pass a motion limiting even this last form of public input. The last I heard, more than 1,200 individuals, groups and umbrella groups had applied for the very few spots available in the only seven days of hearings.
I'm also pleased to be here because today, the last day of hearings, marks the final opportunity that the citizens of Ontario will have for input into their children's education. After today, when Bill 160 goes to the Legislature to be passed into law, future changes will be implemented through regulation and I will no longer be consulted.
My presence here today also leaves me with somewhat of a dilemma: Do I play the role of reasonable citizen, hauling out my research to present a cogent case against this legislation, or do I let loose the primal scream that has been building in my soul for two years as I have watched this government hang my children's future out to dry? I can't help but see these last two years as a blueprint for citizen exclusion from democratic decision-making. As John Ralston Saul has said, this government prefers the Napoleonic idea of government -- impose fast, massive change -- and that, by definition, precludes citizen participation and the whole slow process of representative democracy.
You see, I don't think the rational arguments work any better than the emotional ones for this government, because I don't matter to this government -- not me, not people like me, not anyone the government suspects may not have voted for them in the last election. This government has forsaken a basic tenet of representative democracy: that those who are victorious in elections look after the interests of all the citizens, even those who didn't vote for them. But that has not been the way of this government. They started in that classic way of all efficient totalitarian governments by preying on the most vulnerable and most marginalized in this society: the poor, who had their welfare payments reduced, the young offenders, who ended up in boot camps, and so on. We don't know any welfare bums or young car thieves, or any of those other people, so we let that go.
1150
When the government started in on education, we swallowed hard, but Minister Snobelen told us there was a crisis in education -- well, he was going to create a crisis is what he said -- and we believed it. He spoke the magic words "duplication" and "waste," and in a flash almost $1 billion was gone from education funding. Such was the cynical use of public opinion that he didn't have to prove it; he just had to say it.
Once the government's ability to siphon money away from the education system without serious opposition was established, the time was ripe for the corporate takeover. Mega-week, with all its confusion and chaos, struck. Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, was only one of the government's bills that limited the democratic process. Bill 104 was introduced in the name of education reform, of improving the quality of education, but there has never been a clear delineation of how the rhetoric in the Ministry of Education's news release of January 13 matched the measures laid out in the bill.
The hype around Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, similarly promises quality education, but really seems to deal with who gets to run the show: the provincial government. They said they wanted Ontario students to perform better, but it was never explained what that meant or how it could be achieved. They removed local school board control while grandly requiring every school to have an advisory school council. Let me get this straight. Less money goes to education, programs get cut, staff lose jobs, volunteers -- the parents -- take over, and miraculously students do better?
It was as illogical as it was necessary to achieve the government's real goal, which, as it happens, was not and is not quality education. Instead, the goal is to fund the promised 30% tax cut. In this context, rational argument to support education doesn't matter any more than my opinion does, and all the myths the government has created to stimulate acceptance of their initiatives only need be repeated until they are believed. If you repeat the ideological mantra that the system is broken long enough, people stop trusting their own experience and begin to lose faith in the system.
What myths have the Premier and the government been spreading about our schools? That Ontario students don't do well compared to other Canadian students or on international tests. Wrong. The third international mathematics and science study, which is the one often cited to support this myth, says two things clearly: first, that there is little point in ranking countries unless the results can be explained, which of course this government never does, and secondly, that Canadian students performed very well on the mathematics survey. In addition, the mean score for Canada on the overall science test was significantly higher than the international mean.
As for how test results stack up against the rest of Canada, here's just one point to make, of many: This government conveniently forgets that Ontario is the province with the highest immigration, fully half of the Canadian total, with half of those children requiring English-as-a-second-language programs. The inevitably lower scores of these new learners are included in test results.
Another myth: that we spend more on education in Ontario than most other provinces. How deliberately misleading. What kind of comparison can possibly exist between, say, Yukon, with its $14,000-per-pupil expenditure, and PEI, at the other end of the scale, with its $4,000? Ontario, if we are to use this kind of comparison, with $6,500, spends less than the Canadian average. There are many legitimate factors that influence education spending in Ontario: geographical density, the expenditure for two extra years of school -- JK and OAC -- high levels of immigration and ESL needs, to name a few. A closer look at these factors makes a compelling case for increasing education expenditure.
Here's my favourite myth, the one the Premier led with in his fireside speech on television last week. "Between 1985 and 1995," he said, "student enrolment increased by 16%, inflation rose by 40%, and education property taxes rose by 120%." The Premier, with deliberate intention to mislead, did not complete the equation. In the same period of time, the share of education expenditure by governments in Ontario decreased steadily, and stands at an all-time low of 40%. School boards during that time were forced to raise property taxes to balance budgets and maintain their programs. Without that increase in local revenue, a whole generation of Ontario children would have lost a quality education.
But truth and accuracy aren't the point, are they? Not when the stakes are as high as $1.7 billion in education cuts. In that context, Bill 160 is a natural expression of any totalitarian government's belief that the ends justify the means. Bill 160 is one of its many bully bills, omnibus bills, full of anti-democratic clauses intended to be rammed quickly into law without the opposition in the Legislature or the public being given enough time to discuss and debate as they should in a representative democracy.
The Ontario government is not alone in its attack on public education. In fact, it's distressingly familiar. In selected jurisdictions in industrialized nations over the last 15 years, governments have similarly downsized, downloaded and restructured education. Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, some jurisdictions in the United States, Alberta and New Brunswick have all undergone the same process. These governments have based their actions on claims of inadequate, broken systems that require massive restructuring. Not coincidentally, this restructuring comes with a substantial loss of education funding.
What is the result of these attacks on public education? In New Brunswick, parents have rioted. In Alberta, the school boards association has sued the government, and teachers just last week protested in front of the provincial Legislature. In Great Britain, the Labour Party in the elections last May made education its number one priority, saying, "Labour will invest in a radical extension of educational opportunity for all our children." The Labour Party further pledged to guarantee a year's preschool education for every four-year-old, improve teacher training and morale and tackle the backlog in school building repairs. Most significantly, Labour pledged to raise the standards of education that years of devolution under the Conservatives had undermined. That, more than anything, should tell us what we need to know about what is happening to education in Ontario today.
We have been scratching our heads trying to find the connection between such measures as slashing $1.7 billion in education funding, laying off 7,000 teachers and decreasing teacher prep time on the one hand, and the boast that the quality of education will improve on the other. There is no connection, other than it is the fastest way to a tax cut. It reminds me of Newspeak in the Orwellian world of 1984: War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength; and in Harrisspeak, cutting is quality.
Why must this government always appeal to the lowest common denominator?
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Your allotted time has expired. I appreciate your presentation.
At this time -- it is now 12 o'clock -- the book says that we recess. However, is it the wish of the committee that we proceed with the next half-hour presentation? Okay, so be it.
1200
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION COALITION
The Vice-Chair: We call the next group, the Indigenous Education Coalition. For the record of Hansard, state your name. You have a half-hour to use as you see fit.
Mr John Peters: Good morning. My name is John Peters. I'm here representing the Indigenous Education Coalition. I apologize for not having additional copies. I will make them available at a later date.
I'll just preface my comments so that you can get a frame of reference of where our presentation is coming from. The Indigenous Education Coalition is located near London, Ontario. Our member communities are mainly located within southwestern Ontario.
The IEC is a second-level service delivery organization for 12 first nation communities. We assist those communities in various areas of education that help support or enhance their education programs. One area we are currently involved in is servicing the communities and assisting them in the development, review and negotiation of tuition agreements with provincial school boards.
The coalition is a non-political body whose focus is mainly service delivery, so you may ask, "Why are you sitting here today?" The changes that are proposed to the Education Act through Bill 160, which I guess is a political issue, will impact on our first nation communities, specifically those which have tuition agreements with provincial school boards. That would be the majority of the members of our coalition. Therefore, I'm here on behalf of the IEC to present some of the concerns that have been identified by various members of our organization.
First of all, I don't come to this table to represent all first nation communities or to offer a formal position of the first nations or a formal position of the IEC in regard to Bill 160; rather, I'm here to offer comments as they relate to potential impacts of any changes because of Bill 160 on the IEC member communities.
Our interest in Bill 160 stems from the fact that it proposes to amend the Education Act provisions regarding agreements with first nation communities to purchase education services and first nation representation on boards of education.
While many of our communities are operating successful education programs in their own communities, a great majority of our first nation communities are still purchasing those education services from provincial school boards, whether they be elementary education, secondary education or both. Therefore, the changes to the system that we're purchasing services from will definitely impact on our first nation communities. The IEC first nation communities and other first nations within Ontario are definitely valid stakeholders in provincial education.
Tuition agreements for education services are negotiated individually with provincial school boards. However, the first nation communities have been guaranteed representation through the provisions in the Education Act. This representation is most often shared between one or more first nation communities, depending on the proximity of the communities within the school board's catchment area.
If we look at the bigger picture though, as we've seen this week, because of anticipated impacts we've seen a segment of mainstream society openly expressing their objections to the changes that will result if Bill 160 is passed, whether they're real or whether they're perceived. We offer no opinion or position regarding the position of those in support or those opposed, but it should be noted that our communities that purchase services are being negatively impacted during current disruption in education services. Like everyone else, we can't predict whether changes to the system will be beneficial or detrimental to the thousands of first nation children in the provincial school system.
In the past the provincial school system, and the federal school system for that matter, have not had an overwhelming success as they are for most first nations children, whether they're products of the residential school system or the integrated model now used in the provincial schools.
Due to those bad experiences with non-first nation education systems, many first nation people may be reluctant to envision the changes coming from the current provincial government will be beneficial to first nation children. However, each community that purchases education services from their local school board will have to evaluate the changes as they occur, if they occur, on an individual basis and determine whether or not they're being provided with the services for which they have contracted. They'll also have to evaluate whether or not the services are of the quality that is sufficient for the educational needs of their children.
Since you've had a wealth of input from various sectors in regard to Bill 160, I'm going to focus my comments in one area, and that is in regard to section 188 of the Education Act and the proposed amendments to that section.
Currently section 188 provides for the authority for boards to enter into agreements regarding the education of Indian pupils. Subsections (1) to (4) of section 188, which are not being amended, ensure that school boards will still be able to enter into agreements for the education of Indian pupils and will still be allowed to accept money for those students and for expenditures for the erection of school buildings for instructional purposes or to accept money for additions to those schools.
However, the subsections that are being deleted or proposed to be repealed provide the details regarding the appointment of first nation representation on provincial school boards. It is proposed that subsections (5) to (13) be repealed. Those sections deal with the issues of the appointment of representatives and additional appointments where enrolment numbers warrant. The sections give boards discretion to appoint first nation representation and to identify rules for the calculation of enrolment when dealing with appointments. They specifically state the role of the appointed member and that they are in addition to the elected membership. The section dealt with the issue of vacancy in office. It dealt with the whole notion of first nation representation and what role that person would serve on the provincial school boards.
But now under Bill 160 that authority is being given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations providing for representation on boards and those regulations then would identify the type and extent of participation by the person appointed.
Now it's understood that those communities that have representation or shared representation on provincial school boards will be subject to the provisions under the Fewer School Boards Act. The amalgamation of school boards will impact on first nation representation. We participated in that consultation phase and I share the sentiments of a previous speaker who said we were given a really short time to respond to these issues. At that time there were objections from the first nation community regarding the reorganization or amalgamation of provincial school boards because there was a general sense among the first nations that they would be losing trustee representation which existed under section 188 of the Education Act.
Although this new legislation will provide for regulations to be made regarding the appointment of first nation representatives and gives the Education Improvement Commission authority to identify issues relating to the representation on district school boards, just as Bill 104 before it, Bill 160 now does not go far enough in ensuring that first nation communities will be part of the decision-making process that will determine first nation representation on provincial school boards.
First nation communities are very diverse in nature. Even with the IEC membership, whose communities are located relatively within the same geographical area, they're very diverse and distinct communities. Not only are the first nations culturally distinct, each are at various levels in terms of administration and governance of education and other programs. In changing guidelines to first nation representation on the new school boards, it is imperative that the government recognize the uniqueness of each first nation. One member from a first nation cannot presume to represent the needs and interests of four or more other first nation communities that may have very different educational needs for their children.
With the proposed changes in Bill 160 there's a loss of that guaranteed representation. While the representation provided for in the Education Act has been seen to be less than ideal due to the sharing of representatives, the situation now appears to be even worsening. It could be interpreted as denying representation. The guidelines for representation are being repealed before any new guidelines are firmly in place to ensure that adequate representation is guaranteed.
It can be seen by many as a great injustice when denying representation to which first nation communities are entitled. The right to representation through tuition agreements which was provided for in the Education Act is being eliminated and left to as yet undeveloped guidelines for which someone other than the first nations will have absolute decision-making authority, when at the very least it should be a shared responsibility.
When presenting potential negative impacts because of these proposed changes, it's only fair that some options be presented to you for consideration.
The first option is to amend section 188 to ensure that representation is given to each first nation community for each tuition agreement that is entered into by a school board.
The second option would be to leave section 188 as it is until there are new guidelines for representation developed by the first nation and the school districts and/or the provincial government.
The third option would be to amend section 188 possibly to make representation a negotiated item between the school board and the first nation. The only downside I see to the third option is that often the first nations may not have the bargaining power that boards possess.
In general, those are the comments that I wanted to share with you. There was only one other issue and that was in the definition section in the definition of "education authority." "Education authority" currently "means a corporation that is incorporated by two or more bands or councils of bands for the purpose of providing for the educational needs of the members of such bands." Bill 160 proposes to change it to "means a corporation that is incorporated by one or more bands or councils of bands...."
The change to one band in recognizing an education authority I think is a positive change since many first nations do appoint education authorities and give them complete authority to deal with education matters in their communities. The only suggestion I would have is not to limit it to education authorities that are incorporated. If you're forcing the first nation to incorporate an education authority to devolve that authority to someone other than the band, you're forcing the jurisdiction of the provincial or federal government, depending on who incorporates the education authority within the first nation territory. So if the definition includes all education authorities and gives the first nations the right to choose if they wish to incorporate or not when giving the authority for education to a body other than the band or council of band, I think it would be a lot more flexible for the first nations.
1210
In conclusion, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here on behalf of the Indigenous Education Coalition. My comments in no way represent, I don't feel, the entire first nation community in Ontario and certainly we would have appreciated probably a lot more time to look at this issue and present concerns, and probably a lot more groups would have been able to do so.
But what I want to stress to you is that our first nation communities are very diverse and culturally distinct, not only from mainstream society but, in many instances, from one another. So provisions must be made to deal with these differences and give the recognition in terms of our representation to the first nations that has long been denied.
I think we share a common goal, and that's the provision of a quality education to our children. First nations deserve valid and recognized representation in the decision-making process, especially when those decisions affect first nations children. As the IEC has printed on its pamphlets, my closing comment is: "Education is the key to our success. Together we can make a difference." I think the key word in that is "together."
Change is not necessarily bad all the time, but if change is forced on people, you're going to get the reaction that you've seen this week. In my opinion, the first nation communities are no different. If there's going to be change and it's going to affect us, let us be a part of that change. Let us make the decisions for ourselves.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for that presentation. We have approximately five minutes per caucus, starting with the Liberal caucus.
Mrs McLeod: A couple of questions. Can you tell me what you're afraid might happen in terms of representation of first nations with regulatory powers? Are you afraid it might limit it; when you speak of the diversity of the first nations people one from another, that that won't be adequately reflected in terms of the numbers of first nations people represented on school boards?
Mr Peters: I feel that there won't be adequate representation on school boards with the new structure. There are no guidelines in place so I'm guessing --
Mrs McLeod: I know. We all are.
Mr Peters: -- that first nation representation will be significantly less than what it is today. That is not acceptable to many first nation communities.
Mrs McLeod: You provided three options. Do you have a preferred option?
Mr Peters: Certainly I do. I'm sure it was number one.
Mrs McLeod: I suspect it was too.
Mr Peters: Yes, that section 188 be amended to ensure that representation is given to the first nation for each tuition agreement that is entered into by the school board.
Mrs McLeod: That sounds like you have wording that would constitute an amendment. Can you provide that wording to the committee so that it could be considered as an amendment?
Mr Peters: We certainly would be able to do that.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you.
Mr Grandmaître: Can you tell us more about your funding? What is the formula used to fund your coalition?
Mr Peters: The coalition?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Peters: It's funded by the first nation communities out of the education budgets.
Mr Grandmaître: Is the provincial government using the same per pupil formula?
Mr Peters: We're not funding schools. The coalition is a second-level service delivery organization, so it works with the education administration programs of the first nation communities.
Mr Grandmaître: I see. Thank you.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I understand the problem you've got. One of the major problems with Bill 160 is that there's so much regulatory power given to the minister without any details of how that regulatory power is going to be exercised that it's very hard to make presentations. I understand the difficulty you have.
But with the passage of Bill 104 and the amalgamation of school boards, the reduction in the total number of school boards, it seems to me that while at the time we raised concerns, as did representatives of the first nations, about first nations representation on boards with which there were tuition agreements, because of the fact that the new boards often would cover such wide territory that they would include many first nations communities, the question then was, how do we maintain proper representation for first nations so that first nations would have proper control over the education of their children in those systems?
Isn't the serious problem about diversity that you raise that if the minister exercises his power under the regulatory nature of this bill, you may end up possibly with an Ojibway or Chippewa representative of one first nation supposed to be appointed to represent not only the people of his own first nation and the other Ojibway or Chippewa nations in the area but also the Iroquois nations, members of Six Nations communities and so on and that they may not and wouldn't claim to have the authority or the knowledge required to ensure proper education for those other nations' children? Is that the problem?
Mr Peters: As far as I can tell, it is.
Mr Wildman: If that's the problem, I understand your proposed preferred option.
Mr Peters: Right.
Mr Wildman: But if that doesn't happen, could you remind me of your second option, what the proposal there was?
Mr Peters: To leave the guidelines as they are in place until new guidelines can be developed by the first nations with the school boards and/or the provincial government.
Mr Wildman: Can I expand this question a little bit further? If the question of representation were resolved using one of the three options, then are you also concerned about the overall impact of Bill 160 with regard to the powers that school boards will have, as opposed to the concentration of power at Queen's Park over the education of both indigenous aboriginal first nations children and non-native children?
Mr Peters: That's not really a fair question to ask me.
Mr Wildman: You don't want to make it political.
Mr Peters: No.
Mr Wildman: Okay, I understand.
Mr Peters: Yes, and given the time frame, we haven't really studied the full impacts of Bill 160 in every aspect.
Mr Wildman: Right. I don't know how to delicately ask this question, but do you understand or appreciate the concern the non-native community might have in these large expanded boards? In some areas, whether it be southwestern Ontario or other parts of Ontario, if each first nation had a representative, you might indeed find a situation where there would be more first nations representatives on the board than is allowed for under Bills 104 and 160 for the non-native communities in the area.
Mr Peters: I'm sure that you could trust us with the education of your children.
Mr Wildman: I agree with that, but this does present a conundrum for both the first nations and the non-native communities.
Mr Peters: It is a big issue and I don't think there is any easy answer to it.
Mr Wildman: No.
Mr Peters: The point is that we're not satisfied with the reduction in the representation.
Mr Wildman: The point I'm trying to make is that that is a serious problem for first nations communities, but it's a problem for the non-native communities in these amalgamated boards as well.
Have there been attempts by the first nations in your area to negotiate with the federal and provincial governments self-government agreements over education, or are they already in place?
Mr Peters: It varies from community to community and I couldn't speak to that.
1220
Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you for appearing before us today with your presentation. I appreciate the fact that it was non-political in spirit. All through the north, when we travelled through the north this week, we heard time and again about the lack of textbooks, the lack of supplies, the lack of funding for the boards, the lack of computer facilities. This affects the indigenous population probably as much as any other segment of the population because so many of the indigenous population is located there. A far greater proportion of the population is indigenous there, as opposed to southern Ontario.
We have seen over the last 10 years a total increase in enrolment in the schools of 16%. We have seen a total increase in taxes of 120%. Now, I asked someone yesterday and I wasn't sure about the answer I got, "Do you believe that this money is somehow going into some vacant space?" I asked yesterday where this money is going. Does anybody wonder where it's going? Do you wonder where it's going?
Mr Peters: Do I wonder where what money is going?
Mr Wettlaufer: Where the increase in funding is going. We have only had an increase in enrolment of 16%, inflation has gone up in that 10-year period by only 40%, and yet the increase in property taxes for education went up 120%. But it hasn't benefited the school boards of the north. Do you wonder where that money is going? Do you wonder why those school boards are penalized? Do you wonder why the students in those areas are not receiving the same benefits ass students in other areas, in southern Ontario in particular?
Mr Peters: I'm not familiar with the situation in the north. As I mentioned, our communities are mainly located in the south. I recognize that the problems in the north are very different from the problems that are experienced here in the south. I'm not certain that I fully grasp what you're asking me and how it relates to --
Mr Wettlaufer: As a spokesman for an indigenous people's group, are you not as concerned about the educational opportunities for those peoples in the north as you are for those in the south?
Mr Peters: I certainly am, but I certainly can't speak for the first nations in the north, as I mentioned, in that I don't represent all of the views of all of the first nations in Ontario.
Mr Wettlaufer: That's okay. I'm just looking for your personal opinion, that's all.
Mr Peters: I'd prefer not to share my personal views because I have a lot that I could share with you.
Mr Wettlaufer: Do you believe that they should have the same opportunities as they do in the south? Let's put it that way.
Mr Peters: I believe everybody is entitled to a quality education.
Mr Wettlaufer: Same opportunity?
Mr Peters: I believe everybody is entitled to a quality education.
Mr Wettlaufer: The same opportunity for a quality education?
Mr Peters: The same opportunity to a quality education.
Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you very much.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to revisit the comments you made about the definition of "educational authority" so that I understand the position that you're articulating; so if you could just revisit that for me, please?
Mr Peters: Currently, in the Education Act in the definitions section it states, "'education authority' means a corporation that is incorporated by two or more bands or councils of bands for the purpose of providing for the educational needs of the members of such bands." So there may be one first nation or two first nations that join efforts and establish an education authority and it deals with all the educational matters of those bands or that band. The provision in Bill 160 allows the definition to include an education authority of only one band, which is a positive change.
Mr Smith: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to get clarification on that.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation. This brings to a close -- oh, just one second. Mr Patten?
Mr Patten: Yes, I want, Mr Chair, if I may, to say thank you to the parliamentary assistant, who provided the information that I asked for -- and this also deals with the question Mr Wettlaufer asked. The expenditures for 1997 show in total that indeed there is an increase from 1996 to 1997, but I think it's important to point out that the increase is due to contributions to teacher pensions and to a much-needed higher capital cost. When we look at the most important aspect, called the operating budget, it is the lowest since 1992, and that's during a period of time, the last five years, in which we have had a growth of 86,000 students in the system, with the contribution to the operating budgets of the schools of Ontario being less than what they were in 1993. I think that answers Mr Wettlaufer's question in part.
The other question he asks is that the increase, as has been mentioned by testimony here -- it's not reflected in these figures, and if I'm wrong I'd like to have the government side table these -- the increase compensated for the decrease in government funding to school boards. That's why the tax increases, because they were forced to compensate for the drop in grants from the provincial government, not only your government, to the school boards. To compensate for that, to maintain their programs they had to make the increases, and of course they had trustees there to explain locally why this was being done.
So I'd like that, if I may, Mr Chair, to be put on the record, and if I'm wrong, I would like to have the parliamentary assistant table the figures to show that I'm wrong. Remember, 86,000 students, even at an average of $4,000, amounts to $344 million at the lowest rung, and that's even lower than what you're paying on a per student basis now. At least $344 million, maybe $350 million, is reflected in all of the school boards of Ontario, which had to eat those costs because they are obliged to provide schooling for every single child who enters the school in September.
Mr Wildman: Just a very short comment and question. Obviously what Mr Patten puts before the committee is the reason for Bill 160 being brought forward, because this government does not want local school boards to be able to make up for the loss in grants any further. They want to take the money out.
The one question I have for the deputant is: I don't know whether you might have the numbers now -- if you don't, could you provide them to the committee -- but can you tell us the total number of students that your organization is responsible for, aboriginal students that are going to school boards in the area for education, and the total amount of tuition that is paid by the first nations in your area for those students' education? If it's possible, as well, could you give us the totals for the province in terms of the number of aboriginal students in Ontario schools and the total amount of tuition paid by first nations to school boards for the province?
Mr Peters: Those are certainly numbers that we would be interested in knowing. It would depend on if the first nations chose to share that information with us.
Mr Wildman: Certainly. I understand that.
Mr Peters: It's certainly something we'd be willing to look at.
The Vice-Chair: We've exhausted our time now with these other couple of things. This room will be cleared, so everybody will take what's left in here. It will be locked during the recess, so take your personal belongings with you from the audience. We stand adjourned until 1:30.
The committee recessed from 1229 to 1338.
The Chair: Good afternoon. The committee welcomes the attendance of Alex Cullen, our newest member, the member for Ottawa West.
CARLETON ASSEMBLY OF SCHOOL COUNCILS
The Chair: Our first presentation this afternoon is Carol Nixon. Welcome, Mrs Nixon. Please proceed. You have 10 minutes, starting now.
Mrs Carol Nixon: Thank you for hearing the collective voice of the 83 school councils of the Carleton Board of Education. My name is Carol Nixon and as president of the Carleton Assembly of School Councils, I am that voice today.
The school councils of Carleton would dearly like to believe that Bill 160 supports a comprehensive plan to reform education in Ontario. We would like to believe that Bill 160 is focused on meeting students' needs. But the fact is, we have heard this government's plan to create a crisis in education, and seen crises come to pass in the form of school board amalgamations and poorly implemented reforms in important areas such as curriculum.
We have heard this government's promise to spend whatever is needed to ensure high quality education, yet we have learned of the deputy minister's performance contract to cut $1.2 billion from education and the minister's own admission of an underlying cost-cutting objective.
We have observed this government's confrontational approach with teachers and experienced the resulting province-wide illegal strike. In short, this government has created an atmosphere of instability and mistrust. As a result, we are not prepared to write the government a blank cheque under Bill 160.
While Bill 160 has far-reaching powers, it's remarkably short on specifics. The devil is in the details: regulations the government would be able to make or revise with little or no public input. As a general principle, we believe that fundamental changes should be explicitly embodied in legislation with the attendant safeguards of review and debate.
We have grave concerns about whether this or future governments would exercise responsibly the unprecedented regulatory powers under Bill 160. We insist therefore that checks and balances be put in place to ensure that the regulations contemplated by the bill will in fact improve the quality of education for all students. In particular, there needs to be a clear and legislated requirement for timely and meaningful consultation with stakeholders built into the process for drafting and implementing regulations pursuant to the bill.
At this juncture, the government would do well to divide the bill into three or more separate pieces of legislation in order to have in place the provisions needed for the establishment of the district boards on January 1, yet still allow for sufficient public debate of the major issues.
Bill 160 allows the government to make regulations governing class size. We would like to see class sizes capped rather than set. Boards need the flexibility to adjust class sizes depending on the needs of their students. And we strongly believe that there should be broad consultation with parents and educators regarding the optimum cap.
Bill 160 opens the door to the use of specialists other than teachers. It would seem trite to point out that there is more to teaching than knowledge of subject. Teachers must be able to impart knowledge and skills, they must be able to manage their classrooms and they must understand child development, learning and assessment. While we laud the supplement of specialists in schools, particularly in the area of technology, we do not want to see non-teachers heading up classrooms. The one exception we would support is the use of early childhood educators in junior kindergarten. We will want to see tight controls around the qualifications of so-called specialists and appropriate screening mechanisms to ensure the safety of our children.
Bill 160 empowers the government to reduce teachers' non-instructional time. Parents involved day to day in schools know first hand that most teachers use preparation time for a wide range of important purposes and that preparation time is crucial to high quality education. However, teachers need varying amounts of time to prepare depending on their career stage and workload. We therefore support the Education Improvement Commission's recommendation that principals have the flexibility to allocate preparation time according to need.
Bill 160 also allows the government to adjust the amount of professional development time allotted to teachers. The professional development of teachers is critical in a world of rapid change and ministry-driven reorientation. Failing to provide time and resources for proper in-servicing of teachers is self-defeating.
That said, we would support the scheduling of professional development opportunities at either end of the school year so as not to interrupt student time on task and reduce teaching time. However, the feasibility of extending the school year for students will depend on the government's willingness to address conditions of heat and humidity, particularly in older schools. There is wide agreement among school councils that effective use of existing in-school time is preferable to extending the school year.
The school councils of Carleton believe that all children deserve the best education possible and that all students across the province deserve equal measure. Hence, we would support a provincially set education property tax rate and the distribution of adequate funding to boards based on local need. But in so far as school boards will be powerless to raise money or control working conditions, they cannot reasonably be expected to negotiate teachers' contracts. We therefore urge the government to accept responsibility for province-wide bargaining as a natural extension of the powers embodied in Bill 160.
Last, but certainly not least, the school councils of Carleton have a thing or two to say about the legislation of school councils under Bill 160. While the school council initiative has been tremendously successful in many, perhaps most, areas of the province, pockets remain where school councils have not been established. Boards remain unmoved by the imperative of policy and program memorandum 122. We have long awaited the legislative authority for our advisory role and we welcome this aspect of the bill. We have long awaited the details of our increased opportunities for involvement in education. We expect to be fully consulted on the roles we are willing and able to undertake and we believe that some level of funding should be committed to supporting our work.
The Ottawa-Carleton region is unique in that all six local boards have a strong tradition of board-wide school council organizations. The Carleton assembly has supported and promoted parental involvement in education for over 20 years. Our board attributes the success of its school councils in large part to the role played by the Carleton assembly. The recent survey results of the Ontario Parent Council show that over two thirds of responding school councils are working in isolation from other councils. In order to fulfil their potential, school councils need to interact with each other to share information and best practices and work on issues of common concern. We share the strong belief with other local organizations that all boards should be required under Bill 160 to encourage and support the establishment of board-wide school council organizations.
The purpose of the Carleton assembly is to seek an education of the highest quality for each child according to his or her needs. The stated goal of this government is to reform education to ensure the highest student achievement in Canada. We would like to believe that this government is as sincere about its goal as we are about our similar goal, but we feel uneasy with so many changes occurring so quickly and without provisions that would assure us of an opportunity for input. We'd like to see the map of the road ahead and we'd like to meet again at the crossroads. It is, after all, our children who will be doing the travelling.
The Chair: We have about 30 seconds per caucus. We'll start off with the third party caucus.
Mr Wildman: It's nice to see you again. I agree completely with your comment that, "The devil is in the details: regulations the government would...make or revise with little or no public input," is of concern, and your suggestion on the division of the bill. But I would ask specifically, because of your statements about funding, in your view would it make sense for the government to publicize the funding formula and the total amount of moneys it intends to invest in education prior to the passage of Bill 160?
Mrs Nixon: That would make perfect sense. We'd like to see that, certainly. Once the provisions are in place to create the new boards, the immediate imperative is over as far as we're concerned and we should have the time to have a proper airing of the issues and the proper figures that will give meaning to the issues. Certainly we'd like to see that funding formula up front.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. I found it very informative. You made a recommendation that some level of funding should be committed to support your work as a parent council. Have you given any thought as to that amount and how you might go about determining an appropriate funding level for a school council?
Mrs Nixon: I'm sure we could give you advice on that amount, but as to having worked out the details in advance, I have not. We would not be looking for a large amount of money; we would be looking for support with things like photocopying and distribution of materials. We are volunteers and expect to be volunteers and not to be paid for our work at all but just for the basic costs which we incur for our work. We think we're a good bargain.
Mrs McLeod: I'd like to give you the riddle that I've been asking a number of presenters: If the government is not going to provide funding for 25,000 new students per year who are expected in each of the next five years, if they're going to take some $700 million more out of educational funding and if they are going to make cuts that could mean as many as 10,000 fewer teachers, do you think they can have a regulation that will actually mean smaller class sizes?
Mr Wildman: You have to understand this is the new math.
Mrs Nixon: I see your point. I see the problem. That's why I want these issues decided up front. I want to see the figures in the regulation up front and to have some input into those.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Nixon, for your presentation here today.
1350
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, if I could, I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant, in line with Mrs Nixon's presentation where she says, "At this juncture, the government would do well to divide the bill into three or more separate pieces of legislation in order to have in place the provisions needed for the establishment of the district boards on January 1, yet still allow for sufficient public debate of the major issues" -- it seems to me that's a very sensible and practical proposal and it might go a long way to helping to end the disruption of classes for students in Ontario and bringing the parties back together for real consultation. What is the government's view with regard to this proposal to divide Bill 160 in this way?
The Chair: You've asked the question and the parliamentary assistant will answer it, possibly after the hearings, but will give you an answer, I take it.
ELAINE RICHARDS
The Chair: Our next presentation is Elaine Richards.
Again, I would remind the members of the committee and the audience that, for the most part this afternoon, I think for all of them, there are only 10 minutes each. Unfortunately or fortunately, the committee also has a plane to catch this evening. We're a little bit behind now. The 10 minutes will be enforced strictly.
Welcome. Please proceed.
Mrs Elaine Richards: I thank you for this opportunity. My name is Elaine Richards and I am here today to speak as a responsible citizen and taxpayer. I have no affiliation with any formal or informal organization making representations on behalf of any group of individuals, nor am I a member of any political party. In preparing my presentation, I have read Bill 160, the proposed Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act; the report of the Education Improvement Commission entitled The Road Ahead; as well as material from the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform and the Teachers for Excellence in Education. I have listened and noted the concerns expressed by educational unions. The opinions I will express are my own but do represent numerous others persons I am certain.
Many people today resent the disproportionate influence of special-interest groups in our society and feel powerless to alter the rules and conditions under which we live. However, all of us have special interests or agendas that determine how we act in given situations. This is natural and understandable, and not intrinsically malevolent. I believe there are essentially four groups of people who affect the educational future of our youngsters and students. They are parents, teachers, taxpayers and government. Most of us are included in more than one category, but there's a lack of trust between these four groups because of fundamental conflicts of interest, perceived hidden agendas and real or imagined precedents.
Parents are taxpayers who want the best education and future conditions, both economic and social, for their children. But as loving custodians, their emotions are exploited by incomplete information or even deliberate misinformation. Teachers are instructors and mentors, employees and union members, as well as taxpayers, parents and mortgage payers. Any perceived threat to their job security impinges strongly and negatively on their judgement concerning their responsibility to students. This threat is the primary underlying tactic the unions, also known as federations and professional associations, use to coerce the membership into compliance with their position.
Taxpayers want our children given the best education possible and delivered in the most fiscally responsible manner. These aims are not mutually exclusive. School boards are composed of elected persons who are charged by the government of Ontario to administer the Education Act, to respond to the concerns of parents at the local level, to answer to the ratepayers at the local level and to respond to the needs of the students within their jurisdiction. The difficulty lies in executing this responsibility, given the bias of individual board members and their personal circumstances. To date, school boards, together with the unions and teachers, although they have had the direct power to do so, have not acted to reduce class sizes. Instead, they have protected their own interests at the expense of our children and taxpayers.
I would hate to think that these individuals who are looked up to by our young people have such limited imagination and shrunken work ethics that they are unable to find solutions on their own volition. We need more teachers who inspire through proaction than who criticize through reaction. I believe Bill 160, the proposed Education Quality Improvement Act, together with Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, to be the correct approach. Contrary to what the unions would have you believe, this proposed legislation was not drawn up without considerable research and consultation. It is critically important that our children's performance be elevated to at least the national level at a cost that does not exceed the national average. Education taxes must be levied by Queen's Park and not set by local school boards.
I would like to see the government specify maximum class sizes for both elementary and secondary schools, differentiating between academic classes, ie, language, mathematics, science, history, geography etc, and skill-based classes such as music, art, physical education, shop and computer manipulation. These maximums should be included within the bill, as well as a mechanism for permitting exceptions where common sense dictates.
Teaching positions determined to be redundant should be eliminated through attrition or the early retirement of those eligible for pensions. Young teachers with little accumulated seniority should be protected.
As for the money saved, reinvest it within the classroom when required at the discretion of the ministry. My preference would be to apply any additional cost savings to the debt. Our children are affected by that.
I want the teachers to teach the curricula as directed by the duly elected government of Ontario. I want the federations and unions to be truthful and accurate in their statements to their membership and the press. This work stoppage is not a political protest or a fight for democracy or for the good of the students. It is an illegal strike.
As for those citizens of Ontario who state that the government is going too far, too fast, let me say that it is never too soon to stop destructive practices and that debt reduction, not only deficit elimination, is critically important to our future. I truly appreciate my democratically elected government actually following through with its stated political platform. This is my firm belief in all areas of their endeavour, including the changes to the Ministry of Health, regardless of the temporary discomfort such measures engender.
The Minister of Education, Mr Johnson, Premier Harris and the government of Ontario have my full support and trust.
Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for your time and consideration.
Interruption.
The Chair: Oh, stop that. You're not children. My goodness gracious, I have never seen anything like it.
We will start out with the government. We only have one minute each.
Mr Smith: There's a statement on your front page: "Taxpayers want our children to get the best education possible and delivered in the most fiscally responsible manner. These aims are not mutually exclusive." How have you come to that conclusion? Many would disagree with you.
Mrs Richards: I am currently retired. However, I spent my life in business. I know it to be a fact that businesses can make economies. I'm assuming that a bureaucracy also can. I know that certain persons in the federal government are able to make significant economies within their own areas of control and I don't see why this should preclude the Ministry of Education and the government of Ontario, the unions, the school boards from doing the same thing. As a matter of fact, when I was at a candidates' meeting the other week speaking with some school board candidates, they assured me and one indicated in particular economies that have been made.
We're not trying to take good teachers away from needy students. What we're trying to do is make the system work. Take the money that we have -- not the money that we don't have, that we have to pay in the future somehow -- and make it work effectively.
The Chair: We have to move over to the opposition.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Mrs Richards, you're a Carleton Board of Education taxpayer?
Mrs Richards: I currently live in Merrickville. I moved from Ottawa after the last election.
Mr Cullen: That's the Carleton Board of Education. You must know that the Carleton Board of Education class size average is below the provincial average. If indeed this bill goes through and we see some 4,000 teachers out of 26,000 lose their jobs, if we see some $677 million come out of education, can you tell me, therefore, how you're going to see the board of education in your community actually find itself with lower class sizes if the provincial average is above? Where is the government going to find the money to reduce class size for the Carleton board, or will you recognize that what will happen to the Carleton board is that class size will go up to at least the provincial average? Where's the money going to come from?
1400
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Cullen. You've used your minute and there's no time for an answer. Mr Wildman.
Mrs Richards: Mr Chairman, I would like to respond to Mr Cullen.
The Chair: Unfortunately, ma'am, everybody is to get 10 minutes. That is my sole function up here, to protect people like you so that you are not intimidated, number one, and that you receive your fair share. That's what I tried to do. So it's not possible, unfortunately. I know you'd like to answer it, but there's just no time.
Mr Wildman, one minute.
Mr Wildman: I would just place a question to you based on the fact that you've indicated you're a retired businessperson. As a businessperson, would you advise investment in a new business venture without knowing the potential costs or the possible revenues and the potential return?
Mrs Richards: Of course not.
Mr Wildman: Then would you agree that we should have the funding formula before we pass Bill 160?
Mrs Richards: I trust that the government, within the regulations --
Interruption.
Mrs Richards: It would be a fine situation if we couldn't trust anyone, wouldn't it? We have a duly elected government that has a majority. They have a mandate to act on what the residents of Ontario declared they wanted. Sure, there are differing points of view. We understand that. If you don't like that, you get out there and talk to all these other people and get them to change the direction we're going after the next election, all right? Right now we have a mandate to do something here and get something accomplished. We can't go along willy-nilly the way things have been in the past.
Mr Wildman: I wasn't saying we shouldn't do it. I was just saying we should have the numbers.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Richards, for your presentation here today.
KEN SLEMKO
The Chair: The next presenter is Ken Slemko. Welcome, Mr Slemko. We have 10 minutes allotted. Please proceed.
Mr Ken Slemko: Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak to you. I'm here as a parent and I have a couple of key reasons why I'd like to make a presentation to you.
First of all, I really consider Bill 160 to be probably the most important legislation affecting the future of Ontario's schools in our memory. Also, I think the committee needs to hear from parents who understand the current education issues and are interested in finding cost-effective ways to improve the quality of education in our schools.
Let me start with a bit of a story. Last night I picked up the Citizen and saw the full-page blurb from the government here. It ended with a line, "The Ontario government's plan for education reform would put our children back at the head of the class where they belong." It reminded me of a story of a little boy coming home from school with his report card. He gives it to his father. The father looks at it and as he's reading it he gets a stern look on his face and says to his little boy, "Go upstairs right now and start studying and don't come down till I tell you." The little boy says, "Gee, dad, what's wrong?" He says, "Here it says in your report card you're at the bottom of the class." The little boy looks at his dad and says, "Gee, dad, it doesn't matter whether you're at the top or bottom of the class, the teacher teaches to both ends anyway."
I started to think about this line and I hope Mr Harris has put in a lot of money for these long, skinny schoolrooms so that we can have everybody in the front row.
You as members looking at revising this bill have three key questions to ask yourselves: First of all, who is responsible for education policy in Ontario? Second, can education improve with the status quo? Third, Does Bill 160 provide a basis for improvement?
Who is responsible? I was surfing the Net the other night and found the Canadian Constitution on one of the sites. Yes, in section 93 of the Canadian Constitution it does clearly indicate that education is a provincial responsibility. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, you are in charge of education policy in Ontario, you and the other members in the Legislature. It is interesting to note that neither party in the current dispute, neither the provincial cabinet nor the teachers' unions, has any power unless you give it to them. The Legislature can delegate its powers but must always ensure that they are used wisely.
Can education improve with the status quo? A very key question. The current act, as you know, delegates many powers to school boards. I think these arrangements worked well for many years, but in recent years provincially organized teachers' unions have won major concessions from what I would regard as relatively weaker boards. Those contracts have increased costs unduly, in my view, and reduced the ability of the education system to adapt. I would in particular point out the problems with seniority. I think nothing distresses parents more than to see a really excellent teacher losing out when the cuts come and seeing other teachers who haven't cut the mustard for years staying in the system. I think that is a real problem in the system.
We've also seen the contracts worsening factors that I regard as key to quality in our schools. We've seen them increase class sizes, reduce instructional days per year, reduce instructional time per day and permit inadequately trained teachers to teach some subjects. Therefore, my concern is that unions are, de facto, setting education policy even though there are no provisions in the law for this.
Does Bill 160 provide a base for improvement? Yes, it could improve if the cabinet sets very high standards and remains highly committed to meeting them. However, I think there's also a significant potential for decisions that could lead to deterioration. Let me give you an example.
The pressure is to take money out of the system. I've calculated that an increase in the average class size by one student per teacher across all of Ontario, which is the power you'd be giving cabinet, would result in a loss of $200 million to the education system and over 3,000 younger teachers with the system. Should we trust cabinet with that power? I don't trust any cabinet with that power, having worked and watched departments of finance for many years, just as I don't trust any school board, because they haven't proven themselves very well on this one either. Therefore, I think there's a real problem there.
There's also an inability to deal with local conditions. For instance, the new norms could actually lead to poorer conditions in some boards, ie, those with class sizes above the average set by cabinet. In my view, Bill 160 delegates too many powers for education policy and taxation to the provincial cabinet.
What should be done? First of all, I think we need to set in legislation elements that are essential to the quality of education: the maximum average teacher-student ratio, minimal instructional days per year and instructional time per day, and funding levels and property tax rates. We should permit the minister to vary standards to deal with specific circumstances of individual boards or schools. I also think we should let school boards determine things like the school year and how to meet teacher-student ratios for themselves locally, as long as the provincial standards are met. I don't think there's a need to set as many things in regulation as are in this bill.
Finally, I think we should really consider phasing in the new funding arrangements over five years to allow boards to adapt to the new funding levels, as recommended by the Education Improvement Commission.
One thing that's dear to my heart, as a former chair of the school council at Hopewell school -- I'm also on the executive of the joint council and I'm a member of the Ontario Parent Council -- I would really urge you to remove the word "advisory" in front of "school councils" in the provisions that mandate school councils. I really think that all those former principals working as bureaucrats in the education ministry hoodwinked Snobelen on this one.
First of all, what's going to happen in the system as it's planned? There will be greater centralization at the province and district board levels that will have to lead to principals having a larger role in running their schools. Therefore, there's a greater need for a strong parent voice at the local schools through their school councils. I'm asking you not to prejudge that role. Let the EIC, the Education Improvement Commission, finish its research and make its recommendations. There may be a strong argument for school councils to make some decisions in some areas, particularly if principals stay in the federations.
Although there is some potential for abuse by special interests, it's my view that parents' first aim is always to ensure that their children get the best education and they will not tolerate special-interest groups jeopardizing this.
I'd like to give you my conclusion. With amendments, I think Bill 160 could create the foundation for improving Ontario's education system. In the present form, the Legislature -- you -- are delegating too much of its authority to cabinet. It must retain the right to set standards needed for quality education and to ensure that money is there to meet those standards.
1410
Finally, I believe that taking money out of the education system now would be highly counterproductive, with major reforms under way such as the new elementary and high school curriculum and the longer school year. I have a particular concern because my child is in grade 7. He will be facing new curriculum for the next five years and have to graduate at the end of grade 12.
Let me give you one final message. The government has convinced many parents that the school system is like a sick person with a serious illness. It says education reform is the medicine needed to cure that illness. Only this will equip our children to meet high standards and succeed. However, if we starve the school system by underfunding it, not only will the strong medicine of reform fail to cure the patient, but I'm afraid it may lead to long-term health problems as well. My final hope is, please don't starve the patient.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Slemko.
TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF CARLETON
The Chair: Our next presenter is Doug Carter. Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr Doug Carter: I am Doug Carter, president of the Teachers' Federation of Carleton. With me today are the first vice-president of the Teachers' Federation of Carleton, Dave Wildman, and the chief negotiator for the Teachers' Federation of Carleton, Michael Hadskis.
We are here on behalf of the members of the TFC. We represent more than 2,000 elementary teachers and 2,000 occasional teachers employed by the Carleton Board of Education. The Teachers' Federation of Carleton was born in 1969. It's an amalgamation of the members of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Carleton district, and the Carleton Women Teachers' Association. On behalf of the TFC, we wish to add our voice to those who have expressed their concerns and raised objections to Bill 160.
As has been pointed out many times, this proposed act is long, at 262 pages, and extremely detailed. Given that this is the last day of the hearings and you've been about the province on at least six other days, and with our 10 minutes or our time allocation which must include time for questions, we wish to state that it is not our intent to raise all of our concerns. You've probably heard most of them. We choose to focus on two issues.
As a preamble to introducing those two issues, let me talk for a moment about quality of education. Previous speakers this afternoon and previous spokesmen for the government recently have talked about things like the need for a new curriculum, the need for higher standards and new, clearer report cards. It must be pointed out that these areas have never been subject to collective bargaining and have never been challenged as being anything other than the government's right and responsibility to determine. If there's a problem with those, the issue does not rest with the teachers. Quality education and its components are being discussed in the current public relations campaign; however, those very items that I mentioned to you are unaddressed in Bill 160 and none of our objections are being raised about seeking these goals. Teachers constantly seek to improve the quality of education.
The Teachers' Federation of Carleton wishes to address two items: class size and the regulatory provisions of the bill.
Much has been said about the need to limit class size and our intent is to focus on the erroneous assumption that teachers and school boards negotiate increases to class size and thus must have this section of the scope of the bargaining removed from their hands. In fact, our records reflect a history of significant accomplishment as class sizes in Carleton have been lowered collective agreement after collective agreement over a 20-year-plus span.
Since the introduction of Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, not once before the social contract of 1993 was the Teachers' Federation of Carleton a party to any collective agreement which caused an increase in class size.
I have provided you in the copies of our brief today with a history of the pupil-teacher ratios in Carleton showing you that in 1975-76 the school board decided to increase the pupil-teacher ratio by 2.0. At that time the teachers sought to negotiate a pupil-teacher ratio into the collective agreement. You can see how in 1976 they started with one that was 20.98 to one teacher, and it runs down through to 1993-94, 17.56, a reduction of 3.5 students per teacher. At that time, at the time of the social contract and its mandated staff reduction of 4.75%, with fewer teachers, the pupil-teacher ratio increased.
But when it came time to address the inequity of restoring the salary grid for teachers frozen by the social contract, the Teachers' Federation of Carleton and many other teacher groups across this province responded to the challenge by funding the adjustment among ourselves and keeping any lost positions from having any direct impact on class size.
If negotiated class size increases occurred in some very limited jurisdictions and circumstances, then there should not be a class punishment solution of removing this learning condition from our successful ability to bargain for teachers and for students. To give a class punishment is bad pedagogy, as well as bad law. Any teacher worth her salt knows that. We are not convinced that the solution proposed in Bill 160 to regulate class size is warranted or wise.
Class sizes have increased since 1994, that's true, and this is due entirely to the reduction in provincial funding and other provincial government initiatives, such as virtually prescribing the end of junior kindergarten. In our jurisdiction alone we lost more than 200 teaching positions. None of these is attributable to the Teachers' Federation of Carleton or its negotiations.
The Teachers' Federation of Carleton has a fundamental objection to the extent to which this government deems it necessary to grant the cabinet such extensive regulatory authority. There is no precedent in Ontario legislation where the policy is silent within a bill while it is the stated intent that the real policy will be revealed at a later date or subject to amendment without scrutiny or debate.
To have substantial issues such as the use of uncertified workers, class size, preparation time, working time and school year placed in this domain violates the principles and fundamental rights of teachers to collectively bargain their working conditions. This right is currently recognized provincially and is a recognized fundamental national and international right. The students and parents in Carleton are indebted to the Teachers' Federation of Carleton and its members, who have sacrificed individually and collectively for their benefit since 1969.
That is the brief. Thank you for that. I welcome your comments and questions.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your attempting to shed some clarity on the Premier's statement that the reason the government has to set class size is because trustees and teachers have negotiated increases in class size, which, if you go board by board, can be verified to be simply not the case.
The reason they've spun that is that they wanted to justify the government taking over the setting of class size as a cost-control measure, but they somehow want the public to believe it's going to result in smaller class sizes. After all, if they take it over because you've negotiated larger class sizes, as untrue as that is, they want the public to believe they're going to have smaller class sizes. They can do it, they can mandate a class size, but if they're providing $700 million less, if they're not going to fund the 25,000 new students a year that come into the system, if we're going to have 10,000 fewer teachers, what is that going to mean in terms of the balance of the supports to students in your school?
Mr Carter: If you have more students, fewer teachers and fewer dollars, you cannot convince me you can improve the quality of education. It's going to decrease.
Applause.
The Chair: The applause is taking up your time, Mr Carter, and I apologize for that.
Mr Carter: I have no control over that.
The Chair: I didn't mean that you did. We'll now move to the third party.
Mr Wildman: I'd like to deal with your concerns about the regulatory powers that are set out for the minister in the bill. One of them in particular says that the minister will have the right to set regulations that will not only override all regulations and this legislation itself, but all other pieces of legislation, if the minister deems necessary. This is the so-called Henry VIII clause, which allows government to rule by decree.
Completely besides the specific issues in Bill 160, what is your reaction to this kind of process in a democratic society, giving the cabinet and the minister the right to override all pieces of legislation behind closed doors by regulation?
Mr Carter: In our research it's unprecedented. It appears to be an abuse of power and to me it appears to be incredibly shortsighted because, unless this party thinks it's going to be in power forever, it is going to have to live in fear of what the next government will do if it has the power this party is passing.
Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Carter, thank you for your presentation. You say that you have objections to putting prep time, working time in the school year in a provincial domain. It's quite obvious that in other jurisdictions this is what's taking place. It's quite obvious that the school boards and the teachers' unions have not kept our prep time in this province at the high school level at the national average. Working time is less than what it is at the national average and the school year is lower than what is at the national average. Where else should it be, if the school boards and the teachers' unions haven't come to an agreement?
Mr Carter: If you were talking to me and we were debating the merits of provincial negotiations, which has happened in the other provinces where it is an item for negotiation and an item for discussion between two parties, that would be a far different discussion than we're having today, where one party wants the unilateral right to prescribe it.
I would contend that the number of hours spent in class is not significantly different than it is in the rest of the provinces. I know we can look at data and we can show a number of days. We have 185 and other places have 187. There's nobody that has more than 192, I think, and nobody that has less than about 178. We're at the average in number of days, the length of our instructional day. I think we're really talking about the power to prescribe, as opposed to the power to discuss. Previous to this government, we could discuss things like that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carter, for your presentation.
Applause.
The Chair: There will be a 10-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 1423 to 1433.
JOINT COUNCIL OF OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, the committee will resume. Our next presentation is Mr Stan Currie.
I remind the audience again that it is the democratic right of individuals to appear before this committee without fear of intimidation. If you continue the demonstration I will adjourn again for 10 minutes and I'll continue to adjourn until it stops. That is my function, to protect the rights and privileges of the members around this table and the witnesses who appear in front of this committee, and I take that obligation very seriously. I would appreciate your cooperation.
Mr Currie, we have 10 minutes. Please proceed.
Mr Stan Currie: My name is Stan Currie. I'm chair of the umbrella group for all the school councils on the Ottawa Board of Education.
The joint council has serious concerns about a number of key aspects of Bill 160, and while there are some good elements in this bill, we feel that it is not an acceptable piece of legislation in its current form and should be substantially amended. While we recognize that some parts are necessary for the transition to the new district school boards, other less urgent parts need some reworking and would benefit greatly from a more extensive public consultation.
The government's rationale for Bill 160 seems to be based on blaming school boards and teachers' unions for almost all the problems in the education system. To promote this view, it has too often used misleading statistics. In taking this approach, it has sought to absolve the provincial government and the Ministry of Education and Training from their share of responsibility for any shortcomings of our education system. The result has been a deteriorating relationship between the major partners in running our school system.
We feel that the government is moving much too quickly with this bill and that the curtailment of public hearings on such an important bill is not in the public interest. Parents can see clearly that this bill is about money and about power. It is not about improving the quality of education.
We would feel more comfortable if the government had a plan for a reformed education system and determined a funding level by assessing its cost. We cannot evaluate the effects of the changes flowing from Bill 160 without the funding model. Earlier this year we asked the Minister of Education and Training to make known the funding model by October 1. We are still awaiting that release and a promised consultation.
We recommend that the funding model be released immediately in order to allow the effects of changes to be assessed.
Bill 160 takes away all taxing power, leaving district school boards with little or no flexibility to meet local needs. This runs counter to advice given to this and previous governments, for example, by the Fair Tax Commission and others. It also removes any local accountability for the remaining education property taxes which would be set by the Minister of Finance.
We recommend that the bill be amended to provide district school boards with some flexibility to meet specific local needs through a limited ability to tax or by other means.
We feel very strongly that Bill 160 puts too much power in the hands of the provincial cabinet and bureaucrats and is basically a blank cheque for this or any future government. This is clearly the most serious flaw in this bill. The ease with which orders in council could be used to make basic changes to the education system, for example, to class sizes, is a scary prospect.
We recommend that the regulatory powers in this bill should be explicitly limited and/or a strong accountability mechanism for regulatory changes should be instituted.
Meaningful public consultation with parents and other stakeholders on education system changes is essential and should be made mandatory. We believe that if the government is serious about greater parent involvement in the education system, then it must engage parents more widely in its education policymaking. Because we are a long distance from Toronto, we fear that sometimes we may not be consulted at all.
Parents welcome the mandating of school councils in the legislation, but the bill fails to define school councils or their role and doesn't seem to add anything to the status quo, at least not in our board. We believe that board-wide councils such as ours should be required in every district school board and that funding should be provided to support their activities.
We recommend that the bill be amended to provide for increased input by parents into changes to the education system at both the board level and at the provincial level.
Parents want real reform and are in favour of smaller classes, better curricula and other measures to improve quality. None of these kinds of positive changes are guaranteed in Bill 160. In fact, the powers provided could just as easily be used to degrade the quality of education in order to save money.
The impression has been given repeatedly that the government intends to cap class sizes, yet the words in article 81 of the bill do not say that. The words provide the power to regulate class size and to determine how class size is calculated. It means that the quality standard involved is at the discretion of the government and could be changed at any time without consulting anyone. That is not an assurance of quality.
We feel that other provisions in the same article about regulating teacher preparation time and designating positions that do not require teacher certification are similarly flawed in conferring powers whose limits are not defined.
We are very concerned that resource levels in Ottawa schools will drop so drastically under a new funding formula that our special education, English as a second language and other special needs programs will be curtailed or eliminated. Programs that we have maintained through the past five years of local downsizing, for example, junior kindergarten and our adult high school are seriously threatened. Also, we feel that decision-makers in Toronto do not always appreciate the importance of French as a second language in our region.
The rumoured formula for allocating school space could result in a significant number of school closures, with extremely negative results on our inner city neighbourhoods.
In short, we believe that the quality of the education system for our students will go down, but we don't know by how much, and we cannot plan for these changes without the details. We also expect that our local property taxes will rise. Again, the government has not provided the numbers yet. We feel that some transitional funding will be needed if the required adjustments are as great as we fear.
We are sorry that Bill 160 has not lived up to its name. We regret that Bill 160 puts centralizing power and saving money ahead of the quality of education. We are very worried about how this bill will affect the quality of the education of our children.
The Chair: We have one minute per caucus. Mr Cullen or Mr Lessard?
Mr Cullen: I'm part of the Liberals. Let's make that clear.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Mr Lessard, you'll start off. One minute.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate the reference you made with respect to the shift in tax rates. That's not something we've been hearing regularly from people making presentations to the committee but it should be of concern to residential taxpayers because of the change in the way property taxes are going to be treated for educational purposes for apartment buildings. If what happens is that the taxes paid towards education by apartment buildings go down, that difference is going to have to be made up somewhere. I'm assuming that you expect that will be made up by property taxpayers in your area.
Mr Currie: Yes, indeed. That's why it's in the written presentation. I didn't mention it in what I just said, but I think we should treat this as seriously as we do tax changes that affect people when we introduce market value assessment and other kinds of changes.
Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Currie, thank you for your presentation. Do you believe that the pupil-teacher ratio should never change?
Mr Currie: No, I think it should perhaps change over time given different circumstances, but what I think is more relevant is that we should look very carefully at what class sizes should be for certain kinds of students. It's a much more complex situation than a lot of people imagine. If we have a class that has a mix of special needs or difficult children in it, then maybe the class size should be smaller for that class than a class that has --
Mr Wettlaufer: I'd like to follow that up, because you're saying exactly what I think: It could change over time depending on changing circumstances. Do you not think therefore that it is wiser for the minister to have that power rather than having to go back to the Legislative Assembly constantly and have it debated constantly?
Mr Currie: I would say not, because I don't think, frankly, that the minister can see the situation in all the classrooms across Ontario and make intelligent decisions about thousands and thousands of classrooms.
Applause.
The Chair: Ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 1442 to 1451.
The Chair: We'll convene the meeting. I again would request of the audience and advise that under the standing orders applause is not permissible. It affects the witness or the presenter, and therefore I'd ask you to cease and desist.
Mr Currie, you have a couple of minutes left. We were just finishing off with Mr Wettlaufer and then we'll move to the Liberal caucus. I'm sorry, had we finished with you, Mr Wettlaufer?
Mr Wettlaufer: Yes.
The Chair: It was Mr Cullen we were starting on.
Mr Cullen: I know I'm new to the Legislature, but it is the Liberal caucus. I want to remind you of that.
Mr Currie, you mentioned earlier your concern about the future of such programs as special education, English as a second language, special needs programs, junior kindergarten and adult high school being threatened by this bill. Considering that the Ottawa Board of Education has one of the lowest pupil-teacher ratios in the province, it's not really realistic, I believe, to expect that the legislation dealing with class size is going to lower class size to the OBE average. Rather, it will see it go up to the provincial average. Can you tell us what the impact would be on these programs if class size did increase in Ottawa-Carleton to the provincial average?
Mr Currie: If that situation came about, our system would be devastated. I think we would actually have to kill some of our programs and essentially stop meeting some of those needs. What I've been saying to people recently is that, rather than cutting parts of the system, we may actually have to cut some students out of education. That may be junior kindergarten students or it may be adult students, we're not sure, but I think we're getting to the point, after five years of our own downsizing locally, that we've reached the limit and something really drastic is going to happen now to our system.
Even more modest downsizing, not down to the average, would mean reorganizing a lot of our programs. The amount of chaos and difficulty that's going to cause is just immense. We've been looking carefully at what might potentially be in a funding model, and there's no way we can see that we're going to be able to keep all the things we've been doing. Every one of those programs and services we think are valuable and are meeting real needs of the students in our community. We would like to keep them but we know we're not going to be able to keep them. At the very least, we'd like to be able to plan how we can do the best for our students with whatever we're given in the future.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Currie, for your most interesting presentation here today.
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
The Chair: Our next presenter is Willy Bagnell. Welcome, Mr Bagnell.
Mr Willy Bagnell: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, and welcome to the national capital.
As we approach the end of the 140th anniversary celebrations of my organization, the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, we see clearly that the quality of education in our public school system in Ontario requires repair.
For over two decades now the business community has constantly been reminding the province, local school boards and post-secondary institutions of higher learning that students coming out of this public school system in this province were not up to par. The recent embarrassment over Ontario students scoring lowest in Canada is but one example of the depth and severity of our problem. In order to upgrade the quality of the graduates of the education system in our province, the system must be improved.
It is our belief that the improvement in the system must be fundamental and focused on quality in measurable ways. In keeping with this philosophy, we support the capping of class sizes. It is broadly accepted that as pupil-to-teacher ratios increase, the quality of that pupil's education will most likely suffer. By removing class sizes from the bargaining table and limiting them, a big step towards this improvement occurs. It is unthinkable that school boards and teachers would bargain for higher class sizes in order to free up funds to pay teachers or administrators more in wages and/or benefits.
In order to assure that standards are being met, we must first have a clear and concise standard developed. This standard must be designed to assist our children for tomorrow's advanced-technology society and workplace. The idea of a province-wide curriculum to reinforce this goal is wise and necessary. When meshed with regular provincial testing against the standard, we begin to see a new system take shape that will help Ontario's young people move back to the head of the class and improve in many critical areas.
This result will occur in concert with a number of other pragmatic steps the legislation will take. Increasing the amount of time our youth spend in the classroom and coupling that with increasing the amount of time teachers spend teaching classes will be a huge step in achieving the quality improvement our members have been calling for. Lengthening the school year will also assist in bringing Ontario students up to the Canadian average and act, we hope, as the first in a series of steps of setting higher teaching standards for all Ontario teachers. This policy objective will most certainly be obtained by the goals of a College of Teachers for Ontario which will assist in the establishment and enforcement of teaching standards.
The final comment we have is regarding a new standardized report card. This step will allow all parents, teachers and children to have a clearer understanding of their progress regardless of where they live in Ontario. This will assist many parents who are forced to move from one community to another due to a career change to still have a complete understanding of their son's or daughter's academic standing and progress -- a clear, measurable benefit that is long overdue. Thank you.
The Chair: We have two minutes per caucus.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. Over the course of the last six days we've had a lot of input with respect to the issue of differentiated staffing. The previous government, under the royal commission, received recommendations surrounding that issue, as well as the Education Improvement Commission. Some have argued, though, that the use of non-instructional staff in the school setting would suggest that effectively they're unable to teach. In fairness, they've made a differentiation between that. What are your thoughts on the issue of differentiated staffing and that suggestion?
Mr Bagnell: I think on balance, if I had a choice of having my son or daughter be taught marketing by Michael Cowpland or a teacher who had no experience in that area, the answer becomes pretty simple: I'd rather have Mike Copeland, who runs a $500-million company, who knows how to market products around the world and is successful at it.
There are certain cases and certain elements of teaching, though, that teachers do very well. In teachers' college they learn how to teach the histories and geographies, but I think there are specific disciplines within our society today that require very, very high levels of expertise to be able to teach our young people, to prepare them for the future. The future is not going to be easy for them as it stands, and this will only help them cope with what society will demand of them.
Mr Cullen: Mr Bagnell, you are the representative --
Mr Bagnell: So formal, Alex.
Mr Cullen: Okay, good to see you again, Willy. Over the years we have seen you at city council, at regional council, coming at every budget time to let us know the business community's views on what the tax burden should be. Here we have a situation, even under provincial downloading, where the business community will continue to carry the full shot of education, but this legislation will remove your ability to talk to your elected representatives as they make the decision. The tax-setting will be placed in the hands of the cabinet by regulation. Is this something your association thinks is going to make for better setting of tax levies to represent the local conditions, what the business community can afford in Ottawa-Carleton?
Mr Bagnell: I always thought we had an opportunity to determine whether we liked the tax rates or not. It was called an election. It was very clear in the last election that we didn't like what was going on so we elected a new government. If in a year from now or two years from now when this government calls the next election, we don't like what they're doing, we'll throw them out and hire somebody else. That's democracy.
Mr Cullen: We know in Ottawa-Carleton they've gone through federal government downsizing. We've had an economic situation that has not been replicated in the rest of Ontario, and your community has been very successful in convincing the local decision-makers to set the tax levy at something that they can afford. Here we have something that's being set by the cabinet, reflecting a province-wide agenda, a very fiscal agenda here. How do you think that can respond to the local community situation? You're not there to tell them that. They're making decisions that will reflect Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor, not Ottawa-Carleton.
1500
Mr Bagnell: I think, Alex, it would be remiss of me to not forget to remind you that Ottawa-Carleton is the highest-taxed jurisdiction municipally and regionally in this country. If we have had a failure as a business community here, it's been not being able to communicate to our local leaders that we are taxed too greatly. Quite frankly, as I look over the last there years of terms of the municipal officers and elected officials in this region and the school board trustees, the amount of taxes raised at the regional and municipal levels versus the school board trustees is no contest. The school boards raised taxes a lot more often.
Mr Grandmaître: One very short question, Willy. I'm going to take you to the bottom of page 2: "It is unthinkable that school boards and teachers would bargain for higher class sizes in order to free up funds to pay teachers more in wages or benefits." I have some figures here that say the opposite. Where did you take your figures?
Mr Bagnell: I don't think it says any figures. I said it's unthinkable that we would do that.
Mr Grandmaître: No, but you're saying that school boards and teachers have been bargaining. What is your figure of this bargaining for --
Mr Bagnell: We were apprised by chambers of commerce and through our provincial organization that that was a bargaining issue in a couple of jurisdictions.
Mr Grandmaître: But do you have any figures though?
Mr Bagnell: I don't know what it is, but if it was done, it was not right.
Mr Wildman: I have two questions. The first one deals with your comments on page 4 regarding the College of Teachers and the goal of establishing and enforcing high teaching standards, which I think most people would support. I'm a little puzzled, though. Isn't that somewhat contradictory to your statements in favour of differentiated staffing, where you would then bring in non-certified teachers for whom there will be no standards set?
Mr Bagnell: I don't see it as conflicting whatsoever. If we bring an accountant in to teach accounting, he's certified by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Mr Wildman: He knows accounting, but he may not know teaching.
Mr Bagnell: But he knows the topic he's speaking on.
Mr Wildman: Certainly.
Mr Bagnell: Absolutely. There are professionals --
Mr Wildman: We would all want to ensure that people who come before committees know the topic they're speaking on.
Mr Bagnell: Absolutely. Just as we all like to ensure that we elect the right officials at the provincial level.
Mr Wildman: The other question I have is what I directed to one other individual earlier and relates to your exchange regarding the taxation situation and funding. As a businessperson, would you invest in a new business venture without knowing the possible costs, the estimates of costs involved, the possible revenues and the potential returns?
Mr Bagnell: No.
Mr Wildman: Then why would you be in favour of legislation that would give to the government the regulatory power with regard to taxation and funding for education and investment in our students without knowing what the numbers are before we pass the legislation?
Mr Bagnell: First of all, the Ministry of Education and Training in Ontario, as you well know, is not a private sector institution and doesn't run by the same rules as the private sector does, which is accountable as General Motors, as Ford, as IBM are to their shareholders.
Mr Wildman: I would say that the investment in our youth is the most important investment we make in our society.
Mr Bagnell: Yes, but you said the last time you were in town that the investment in health care was the most important thing that we've made in our society --
Mr Wildman: The investment in people is the most important --
Mr Bagnell: When you were in town, you said that the investment in medicare was the most important thing. So what's it going to be, sir? Is it going to be one of those things or all of them? Please make up your mind.
Mr Wildman: The investment in people, in services that make this society one of the best in the world to live in and do business in.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We have reached the end of the 10 minutes. Mr Bagnell, I thank you very much for your presentation here today.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: Our next presentation will be Mr Larry Capstick.
Interjections.
The Chair: Could we give the presenter our attention. Welcome.
Mr Larry Capstick: I sometimes feel like I'm in front of a 3G class on Friday afternoon.
The Chair: I feel like that all the time.
Mr Capstick: First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express my views on behalf of my membership with regard to this legislation. I represent more than 2,300 educators and educational workers in the Carleton Board of Education.
At the outset, I would like to express a bit of concern that I have because in preparations for my presentation here, I wasn't sure which goal I was to be addressing. Is it the issue of quality of education or is it a financial issue? I didn't know whether I needed two or not. I've tried to adjust to cover both within my presentation. The goals and objectives of the bill seem to change from day to day.
The teacher federations across the province have already addressed you and I am not going to repeat their presentations. However, I would like to highlight that my members have asked me to express to you their very, very serious concern about fundamental principles of democracy and how these principles are reflected in a centrally driven decision-making process, one which rests in the hands of one individual. We have fears about the ability of one person, regardless of what that person is, to levy taxes without first adhering to principles, such as "no taxation without representation." We firmly believe that local needs will not be addressed by the Minister of Education in Toronto and that this is a flaw in the legislation. With regard to suggestions that we perhaps should wait a year or two until the next election, while that may work with some issues as far as educators are concerned, two, three or four years of experimentation with our children is not acceptable.
The federations have tried to address issues related to quality of instruction and the performance of our students. This has given rise to a number of questions for my members. These questions concern analysis of that data that has been used.
There's been a lot of controversy about the issue of the school year, the school day, preparation time. The first of these I indicate in my presentation here I think is a logistical question. I'd like to know how long the government suggests the school day should be. What do they want to happen within that time frame of the school day?
The schools in our province and certainly in the Carleton region are operating from morning till night. In the Carleton board we're already reduced to triple busing. We have students standing at the roadways in the pitch dark at a quarter to 7 in the morning in the elementary schools and in our secondary schools. More than half my secondary schools are well under way at 8 o'clock in the morning. So we have a very long school day, including our night school and adult school activities.
The issue of preparation time -- and I appreciate Mr Wettlaufer's questions earlier on that particular issue because I know it appears in advertisements that have been put out by the government. The problem my members have is, we don't know where this research came from, how it was collected, what is involved in the calculations. I have tried my best to understand that. If you're calculating prep time, did the province include in that the work that goes on at the beginning of the morning when you're doing attendance and checking notes in the 15 to 20 minutes that goes into that sort of activity? Are opening exercises considered part of the national average, the provincial average? Where was it calculated? We're dealing with so many statistics here without any basis in knowledge.
I understand from the Toronto Star, Monday or Tuesday of this week, that now principals and vice-principal are included in prep time. I can't find anyone who can clarify where that came from or how that could possibly be done.
I should let the committee know that there are some fundamental facts I can give you. In my board of education, as a result of provincial funding cuts, preparation time has already been removed, gentlemen, from several employee groups within our schools as a cost-cutting measure. We have already made changes to departmental administrations. They've been reconfigured in some cases so that department heads no longer exist in some areas and, at the very least, have been negatively restructured as far as time and compensation are concerned. These were cost-saving measures, but if the government is intending that they are going to accomplish cost saving as a result, it's not going to happen here. It's already been done to some extent.
My grave concern is that further cuts could occur. When we have secondary school reform still sitting out there in left field, still waiting after I don't know how many months, we have no administrators at the subject level, we have no preparation periods left within classroom settings, how is the curriculum going to be developed, how are evaluation programs going to be put in place? I would ask that you reconsider from that perspective this particular issue.
1510
If the government really wants teachers to spend more time in front of students, take a semestered school, extend the four periods of the semestered day by 15 to 20 minutes. You've got another hour and you're above the national average, and I'll let you use your statistics. I won't cost you a penny and it won't reduce the teaching staff one iota. Period length is not teachers' jurisdiction. It's within yours; it's always been there. Use it, if that's what you wish.
I should also point out to the committee that as a result of cost-cutting by this and previous governments, many of my secondary schools are already running at capacity. There are no extra rooms. I went to my MPP, Mr Baird, and I sat with him two or three weeks ago and addressed this issue. If, as at one point I heard the government suggest, "We will cut prep time; this will put more teachers in front of the classroom" -- he's a graduate, several years ago, from one of my schools. I said, "At your school how many empty rooms are there at any given period?" "Virtually none."
I said: "How many portables are you bringing in? How many new labs are you putting in? How many chemistry labs? How much money is going to be put into new resources if these students are all supposed to be in some sort of classroom setting?" I'm still awaiting an answer to that particular question.
The Premier has talked at length about test scores. Here in Carleton, Dr David Ireland, who was the former director of research with the Carleton board, wrote a scathing analysis on the issue of test scores and these international tests. The Citizen this morning carried a letter from Dr Ireland which one more time presents a scathing analysis of just how poor a job these test scores or the analysis of these test scores has been carried out and misused and abused by various individuals and groups.
We would request the government make some changes, and these changes again are cost-effective. They will increase performance and they will not cost you very much at all. Regulatory change that would permit teachers and schools to fail students for chronic absenteeism is one. It's one of the most serious problems we face. If the students are in class, they will learn and their test results should improve.
We know for a fact senior students miss large numbers of class periods for a variety of reasons. My own study and analysis of this has revealed I've had senior classes on average miss 15 periods within a semester. When I asked them how many periods of work they lost or missed -- one, within the same time period. Why are they missing school? It's all too often because of employment. My suggestion would be that the government look at enacting legislation which would limit the number of hours a student in a school could be involved in employment outside the school day within any given week. Set the number of hours. We'll get better results. It won't cost you a dime.
I would also ask that you put some restrictions on those employers. We have service industries, we have commercial retail communities -- I use the word "exploit" here because I know of many instances where students have been told: "If you don't show up for work because you want to go work on the school play, go find another job." "You've got extra work to do or you've got to prepare for an exam? Sorry. If you can't show up here, there are lots of others who will do it." Minimum wage, less than minimum wage, no benefits, students running from one job to another at some mall. There's no mystery here. I think you can go to any urban centre in the province and you'll find the same sort of thing.
Another point of no expense to the taxpayer: the role of parents. All research indicates that parental involvement in our schools will result in increased productivity on the part of students. We welcome the parents as partners. In Carleton, I have worked very hard to bring school councils into a meaningful partnership with educators and educational workers. It's these parents who have given rise to a very knowledgeable group that can attest to the truth about what is really happening in our schools.
I would suggest to you that each teacher would have to be responsible for a set group of students who are going to be responsible for these learning plans that are talked about in the curriculum reform. It's going to increase their workload, it's going to increase the responsibility. They need the parents there. Perhaps the government would consider legislation, as it did with school councils, that would compel parents to take on more responsibility for the education of their children, even if that means they must meet with their teachers once or twice a year. It doesn't cost a thing, but that contact, that relationship has to bear fruit somewhere.
There are a considerable number of other areas in this bill which, as I've said before, could be addressed here. However, 10 minutes is a limited period of time and I do appreciate the opportunity I have. I would only hope that under Bill 160 we would continue to have these opportunities. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Capstick. We have just over 30 seconds per caucus. Mr Cullen.
Mr Cullen: Very briefly, Mr Capstick, in the political protest your members are walking outside this building, in front of schools, the government would have us believe it's because teachers want to control education in Ontario. Is this true?
Mr Capstick: What my members have told me over and over again and what I personally am committed to is the quality of education of the students I serve. I will go to the wall for my students any time.
Mr Lessard: I was wondering whether you're optimistic that the government is going to realize cost savings in improved efficiencies in administration and reorganization and restructuring. In the event that you're not optimistic, where do you think those dollars are going to come from?
Mr Capstick: At this point, I have spent so much time trying to deal with the issues in the classroom, with the students, with resources and what not, I have not given a lot of consideration and I'd be loathe to make a comment about principals, vice-principals, administrators, boards, that type of thing, if that's the intent of your question.
I believe very strongly that there is an educational community. It is not just the teacher. It's the custodian that student turns to when they need help and assistance. It's the speech pathologist. There are any number of different parts to that community. In terms of the cost savings, I can only reiterate what I said at the very beginning. We have done a considerable job in the Carleton Board of Education and I would not want to suggest that there are many other areas that would not result in serious consequences.
Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Capstick, thank you for your thoughtful presentation. I, like you, believe that the teachers are very dedicated. I want to add though, you asked how the government defines preparation time. The government doesn't define preparation time. The definition is according to the bargaining agreements, with which you're familiar I'm sure. It says here, "Exclusive of morning and afternoon recesses and lunch period, the board shall assign each full-time classroom teacher prep time as follows," and it defines the amount of time: "This time shall be free from teaching, supervisory or other duties." And there are other things, as I am sure you're familiar with. We don't define prep time.
Mr Capstick: That wasn't a question, but I'll respond. Items such as those that appear in the news media which identified principals and vice-principals as somehow being included in that and attributed to the Premier, if that is not true or not accurate, I would expect to see the Premier come forward and state that case so that the misunderstanding or the clarification is clear. But it's some of these mixed messages which continue to give rise to the problems we're currently facing.
The Chair: Mr Capstick, I'd really like to thank you for your very constructive approach to this subject.
1520
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION FRONTENAC, DISTRICT 20
The Chair: Joan Jardin, welcome. I would ask you, if you are to take part in the presentation, to identify yourselves for the purpose of the record and then proceed.
Ms Joan Jardin: My name is Joan Jardin. This is Mark Bischof and Rich Phillips, all of District 20, OSSTF, in Frontenac county.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. This is a very important issue. As OSSTF members, as teachers and educators, we have many difficulties with Bill 160. This presentation is going to focus primarily on two of the major difficulties we have with this bill. The first one is a concentration of power with the minister and cabinet, and Rich will speak about that later, and next is the loss of local decision-making ability from democratically elected trustees, concerned parents and professionally trained teachers. We view this as detrimental to students, parents, the community, the board and the teachers.
In Frontenac county we, the local board and teachers, provide an excellent education for students. We have managed to work collaboratively through all the recent changes in education in order to best benefit the students in the county.
Like most places in Ontario, Frontenac county has many unique characteristics. There are eight penal institutions within the greater Kingston area, in addition of course to halfway houses etc. We have two universities and a college. Because of these unique characteristics, we have a very large adult education program. We've done this because we believe in all students and want all students to love learning. We also have a dedication and a mission statement for lifelong learning. Unfortunately, the government reduced the funding for students over 21 and there was a great strain on the system. We worked together with the board locally to work things out.
Also, we have an excellent LPS system, which is learning program support, that deals with students with exceptionalities. Every year there are more and more students with exceptionalities. We try to accommodate them and we have excellent staff who work with them.
Particularly, we are proud of our county and special programs. They are relatively unique in the province. What they are is a package of courses that are devoted to academic or job-related skills. There is a group of courses every day that a teacher is responsible for and these are developed with the community and based on local community needs and expertise. Some examples are the masonry program, building construction, Enviroworks and technical illustration, but we also have about 40 others in our county. Two of those, building construction and Enviroworks, have won prestigious awards just in the last year. The media releases are contained in your packages.
We are worried about all the programs, due to the changes in Bill 160; worried about all programs in schools and the future of them. However, these programs will most definitely be the hardest hit. Why? Because of their unique characteristics. They exist due to local control and cooperation, cooperation with the school board, the teachers, the parents and of course business and industry.
The proposed changes in the control worry us. We will not have that control. If we take, for example, class sizes, all our programs are different. Having an academic class is a lot different from masonry. In the masonry program, they're out in the public using very large, potentially dangerous machinery, and of course there's always the worry about the decorum of the students. There are reasons why those class sizes must be smaller. We value that and we've worked that out locally. That would be even in juxtaposition to perhaps other academic classes or even other academic special programs. We are the experts, we are the ones with the experience and we are the ones who know what is best for our students in our community. We need the local flexibility.
Also, what's important is prep time. The programs are arranged with the schedule as it is. If we have to change the schedule dramatically because of a change in prep time, I really fear that we will have to lose those programs. They are packaged very specially to donate a block of time, a semester of time for these students. All teachers' prep time is important, starting during the school day and going to 9 and 10 at night. Unfortunately, a lot of businesses do not open at those same times. When we have county programs that are working with communities, with clients, with businesses, they are not open when we are doing our prep time. Therefore, it is of most importance that they have prep time during the school day and are able to make the liaisons, the contracts with local businesses.
We need the local control to provide stability. If all power is concentrated with the minister and the cabinet, then contracts will have to be tentative on whatever the government feels like at the time. If we have local control, we have demonstrated with all the changes in education, that we value our students that we value excellence and we work towards that. I understand that business does not like instability, and that would cause a lot of difficulty with our special programs.
It makes me sad to think of the inevitable detrimental effect of the proposed bill on education and I've tried to represent some of the excellence in our system that could be even more detrimentally affected than others.
Mr Rich Phillips: It's Rich Phillips. Just before we start, I want to let you know we came down here from Kingston this afternoon. We were all on the line this morning at 7:20 and we're proud of that. There was 100% attendance, and I really believe that everyone on the line understands the issues. I don't think we're being misled by our federations. I think the people on the line have read the bill, they know the offensive portions of the bill and they understand why they're out of the classroom. It's not on the basis of misinformation that the federations are giving us; it's on the basis of the actual wording of the bill.
I'm going to highlight one specific issue. It has to do with the term "power." That issue has been misrepresented, in our opinion, by the government but also in many cases by reporters. It's been indicated that it's a fight between federations and the government.
As far as we're concerned, we have two alternatives. Alternative one is to share the responsibility for education with the government, quite rightly, because they are a stakeholder, and secondly, with parents, with school boards and with teachers, all for the benefit of students.
What are the choices we have at this point in time with the bill? It appears that because of the items that are all covered by regulation, all the power for curriculum, taxation, length of the school day, length of the school year and, yes, prep time too, is vested with the Ministry of Education. I recognize the fact that, as the minister, he can share the responsibility with the cabinet. As far as I know, the background of the cabinet and the minister in terms of education, I'm not sure about this but I believe it's one and a half years, all with the Premier. That is a grave concern to all our teachers in Frontenac county.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. The time has elapsed.
1530
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
The Chair: Elaine Hopkins. Good afternoon, Ms Hopkins. We've set aside 10 minutes for your presentation. Please proceed.
Ms Elaine Hopkins: Thank you very much. I speak to you as president of the Ontario Federation of Independent Schools, the principal of two Christian Montessori schools in Ottawa -- Bishop Hamilton in Ottawa and Orleans -- a former teacher in the public elementary and secondary schools and a parent of three boys who attended both public and independent schools.
Nearly 650 independent schools in the province serving over 80,000 children offer excellent academic programs with a variety of educational and religious philosophies. Most of them operate at a lower per pupil cost and a lower teacher-student ratio than the public schools. Most of the schools are community-based, non-profit organizations with elected boards and a high level of parental involvement.
Parental choice is at the centre of the independent school system. In any system of education the government has a responsibility to ensure that there is a variety of educational choices for families to serve the varying educational needs and goals of these families. The government also has to ensure that a basic academic education is being achieved by all children for the good of society.
What is a good education? There are many answers to this question and it can only be answered by the parents who know best the needs of their children and the values they wish their children to learn. A monolithic education system totally controlled by a central organization cannot, will not and should not be the best approach to education. The best education system needs to form partnerships with parents, professional staff and governments, with clearly defined responsibilities for each.
Current directions in education: The present education system in Ontario is a large bureaucracy which spends an enormous amount of money yet does not appear to be getting the results it should. This is clear from test results, increasing anxieties of parents about their child's progress and even the significant growth of independent schools over the last 20 years, from 25 in 1975 to the present 650, where government policies still require parents to pay heavy tuition on top of their education taxes. Yes, many children in the public schools are being well educated and there are many excellent teachers. The resources are phenomenal, but it is not working for many children.
I applaud the government for their courage, wisdom and vision in taking back the reins of education. Something had to be done. Locally, we have had five boards for many years. Amalgamation has been studied ad infinitum but nothing was happening. In Saturday's Citizen the concerns of the Ottawa board that they would lose their excess space while the French-language board is desperate for space only highlights the territorial nature of our current system. The editorial in the Ottawa Citizen asks the question, "Whose schools are they?" I've attached a copy at the back. I won't read it to you.
In my meetings with Mr. Snobelen and his staff it was clear that the present government wants to regain control of the education system, make it more cost-effective and get better results so that all our children will be better educated. I believe they have a longer-term agenda to acknowledge and give more local control to schools and their communities, but in a different manner than in the past. They also want to see resources more equitably distributed. They are the elected representatives of us, the people. We elect them to make these decisions on our behalf. We must be sure that parents have a strong voice in education and that money saved directly benefits the classroom.
Cost of education: Over the last many years, more and more money has been poured into public education. We have not had good returns for our investments. Class sizes have increased. Bureaucracies have increased. Special programs have increased. Has the overall education improved? No. Research has shown that increased money does not necessarily mean better education. Anyone who has been close to public education knows of the excessive spending that has been going on. Why is it that independent schools can offer an excellent education at a lower per pupil cost? We cannot raise taxes. We have to stay affordable and must educate a child well or the parents take their child and their tuition and go elsewhere. We are under pressure to perform, and we do. We do not have several levels of consultants, social workers, superintendents, psychologists and other bureaucrats making salaries in the six digits.
Class size: The teachers' unions say that Bill 160 will result in increased class sizes. For the many years that class size has been negotiated in teacher contracts, have we seen any decrease in class size? No. We hold a myth that a smaller class will mean a better education for our children. This is not necessarily so. Perhaps a child will get more attention, but the dynamics of a classroom can make all the difference in the world, and a class of 15 children can have a set of problems while another class of 25 can be wonderful. I would like to see more discretion on class size left to the local school. Perhaps some broad guidelines set by the province would ensure fair treatment.
Teacher qualifications: I generally believe that teachers are born, not made. At Bishop Hamilton School, I have an excellent art teacher who is not certified but has a degree in fine arts. It is common in some independent secondary schools to find teachers who have masters or PhDs in their subject area but are not certified teachers. Montessori and Waldorf teachers are well trained and performed their jobs well, but according to the Ministry of Education they are not certified and thus not recognized. The pilot project here in Ottawa using early childhood education teachers for kindergarten programs has so far proven to be successful. What about the many teacher aides we use? I strongly support teacher certification -- every profession has to have its standards and training -- but I commend the government of Ontario for wanting flexibility in this area so the best qualified people are teaching our children.
The expanded school year: Yes, it's time we moved out of the agricultural era. We all know the tremendous amount that children forget over the long summer holiday and thus the time spent in the fall reviewing material. We all know the freshness and receptiveness for learning of a child and a teacher when they return from a holiday. I support the shortening of the summer holidays and would go further, though, and build in more frequent breaks during the school year.
Over the last many years it appears that children are spending more and more time out of the classroom for field trips of an endless variety and many professional development days. The community is the modern classroom, but as in many other areas in the present education system, classroom time and thus academics have suffered as a result. Where is the balance?
You can expand the school year, you can expand the school day, you can be flexible with the qualifications of teachers in the classroom, but none of these changes will make much difference unless we demand more from our children and our teachers. The government is moving in the right direction with the improved curriculum released in June of this year but it has not gone far enough. The basic language and math skills still appear to be very weak. I strongly urge you to continue to review this area to improve standards overall.
Finally, the question of hope: Our schools, our children and society have a value crisis. Our children lack direction, focus and a framework for life and hope. Recently families gathered in the West Carleton area to consider what they would do after a series of teenage suicides in their schools. As a Christian in a Christian school, we offer this hope and a sense of direction to our children. Addressing this issue in a multicultural, pluralist community is no easy task, but for the sake of our children and our society it cannot be evaded forever. Thank you very much.
The Chair: You've used most of the time, but there's about 40 seconds left. Is there any conclusion you wish to give us to wrap it up?
Ms Hopkins: No.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation here this afternoon.
STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION AFFILIATES
The Chair: Our next presentation is Greg McGillis. Welcome, Mr McGillis. If the person or persons with you are to take part in the presentation, please identify them for Hansard.
Mr Greg McGillis: Good afternoon. My name is Greg McGillis, and I'd like to introduce my colleagues. First of all, I'm a teacher in a small K-to-12 school near Cornwall. This is John McEwen. He's a teacher at St Lawrence High School in Cornwall, teaching science. This is Betty Eadie. She is also a teacher in an elementary school. This is Ariane Carriere, who is a teacher at an elementary -- I think it was kindergarten or something like that. As well, we're all parents and we all have an interest in this system.
We represent the 1,600 teachers who work in the publicly funded schools within the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the city of Cornwall. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and will use the time slots allocated to two of our member organizations for our presentation.
In the short time that we have, it is impossible to detail all the problems that we found in Bill 160. Instead, we have chosen to focus on a few items that are of utmost concern to all teachers and a few items that we feel are very important to us as a mainly rural area, with many schools in small country villages.
Traditionally the parents in SD&G have been very involved in the education system. Our tradition of publicly funded, locally controlled schools goes back almost two centuries. When the public school board put a few schools on the closure list last year, successful lobbying by parents allowed those schools to remain open. If there is a problem in a school of class sizes being too high, usually it is solved with a few phone calls. Local trustees have been very approachable and are known in the community. Local ratepayers know who they can call if there's a problem.
1540
Bill 160 will take that away from them because central control will be with the ministry. Teachers are worried that there will be no system of checks and balances between the ministry, the board and the teachers. The Premier and others have made certain claims about the relationship between teachers, their employers the school boards and the outcomes of their negotiations. We reject these claims as false. The fact of the matter is that both sets of parties have had to reach agreements with the current economic context, and that governments past and present have done things that have made such agreements difficult to reach and awkward to live under. The recent significant PTR increases are a case in point.
A bit about ourselves: We teach in an area of the province which is somewhat distant from Toronto geographically, culturally and demographically. Our schools are smaller than the Ontario norm and are somewhat distant from each other. Many of our schools serve identifiable communities. We wonder how a bureaucrat in an office building in Toronto will be able to make sensible decisions about the operation of our schools. We wonder if the new, unrevealed funding model will cause some of our schools to close. If so, will there be extra funds for the extra busing? Will decisions like school closure be made in Toronto? We wonder about our unique French immersion programs which fulfil the desire of many parents and students to have a fully bilingual education.
We look with envy at our neighbours who live and work in the Salmon River school district in upstate New York, just across the St Lawrence River from Cornwall. This school district consists of a single elementary, junior high and senior high complex. The education stakeholders, including the teachers, have a say in the important decisions affecting the school, such as the appointment of a new principal. The school district is free to make decisions on matters like the school year calendar without New York state oversight. The school district also has complete autonomy to set its own budget. Why is this local democracy denied to our communities? I'll now pass you on to Mr McEwen.
Mr John McEwen: During his speech of October 22, 1997, Premier Harris made the following statement: "Between 1985 and 1995, student enrolment increased by 16%. Inflation during that same time rose by 40%. Yet education property taxes rose by 120."
What could we learn from this information? We have more students in the province, the cost of education is going up due to inflation and our education property taxes are out of control because the school board trustees have been fiscally irresponsible. There were, however, some things the Premier did not tell us: 1985 was the year before the major expansion of the publicly funded school system in Ontario; 1995 was the year before a major contraction of the publicly funded school system in Ontario.
What other things were not mentioned? In 1985, the government rate of grant was 46.62% of expenditure while in 1995 the government rate of grant was 37.43% of expenditure. The province raised the standardized mill rate 42.8% between 1985 and 1990 and has increased this by an average of 5% each year since. This has meant a significant shift from funding by grant to funding by provincially determined property taxes.
In addition, the following programs have been mandated by the provincial government during this same time period. Worthy as these may have been, they did add to the cost of education. They include the Bill 82 special education, international languages, pay equity and employment equity, the Common Curriculum, class size caps in grades 1 and 2, the implementation of drug and AIDS education programs, occupational health and safety programs, province-wide testing, a new secondary curriculum, broad-based technology. Provincial fire codes have also changed, increasing capital and maintenance costs, and then we've had the asbestos removal problems.
In short, in the period cited by the Premier, local taxes increased for two reasons: First, the funding shift from provincial grant to provincially determined local taxes, and second, the introduction of new programmes without compensating grants. A more recent study from the Ministry of Education and Training reveals that from 1990 to 1997, student enrolment has increased by 9%, inflation increased by almost 16%, and the property taxes have generated a whopping 31% more revenue.
On careful review of the data, we see that the increase in property tax support for education has two components: One part of the local education property tax is related to what our local trustees control in setting the education property tax. This amount has decreased by almost 22% since 1990. The second part of the local education property tax is set by the provincial government. This component has increased by 62% since 1990.
It is the provincial government that is increasing our local education property tax, not our local school trustees. The shift from provincial grant to provincially determined property tax for the period 1990 to 1997 is demonstrated in the graph on the next page, and you can see it there. As noted below, as the government used more of the property tax, school boards took less. The graph below shows the reduction in the locally determined taxes in the same 1990 to 1995 period. Contrary to the impression that the Premier tried to convey that night, it is his government and the one before it which bears responsibility for the recent property tax increases. The school boards have attempted to keep taxes down. The classroom has suffered as a result.
The data table printed on that page, which is from MET data, shows a steady increase in the average pupil-teacher ratio from Ontario since 1992. In 1992 it was 15.2; in 1996 it was 16.6; and if we take the 10,000 teachers out, it will be 18.1. Contrary to what has been claimed, spreading an increasing number of students over fewer teachers does not increase the contact time for teachers and students. Quite the contrary, if I have 210 students instead of 180, they will get a smaller piece of me.
Bill 160, a gigantic blank cheque: As noted by many observers, Bill 160 gives the government absolute control of our schools. So complete would be the domination, that the teachers would lose the very ability to have some influence over their working lives. Course load, class size, professional status, seniority and other workload issues are to be decided by what I call the education czar in Toronto. This is why we are on the street today and this is why we will stay until those matters are resolved.
Bill 160 is, however, much more than the simple matter of a government abuse of public sector employees. It also places the fate of our education system entirely in the hands of a government whose leaders, as I have just noted, are not above telling giant fibs and not above concealing their true agenda -- and we don't know what the funding formula will be. There are many unanswered questions.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, sir. That's the extent of your time. I appreciate that.
Applause.
The Vice-Chair: Please. Come to order. We realize what the clapping did before, and we don't want to bring on another delay, please.
1550
FÉDÉRATION DES ASSOCIATIONS DE PARENTS FRANCOPHONES DE L'ONTARIO
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is FAPFO, if you would state your name for Hansard and proceed.
Mme Francesca Piredda : My name is Francesca Piredda. I am accompanied here by Marie Biron, and I represent la Fédération des associations de parents francophones de l'Ontario, the one provincial group of francophone parents in the province.
My presentation will be in French. I hope you are equipped. I will be able to answer your questions in English as well later.
La Fédération des associations de parents francophones de l'Ontario réclame depuis longtemps des écoles de langue française des résultats comparables à ceux des élèves de langue anglaise, des écoles qui offrent la gamme des programmes et des services éducatifs, des services spécialisés en français, ainsi qu'une participation efficace des parents au sein de l'école.
Nos commentaires sur le projet de loi 160 porteront principalement sur l'accès à l'école, le rôle des parents et la taille des classes.
Accès à l'école de langue française : en ce moment, nombre de jeunes francophones de l'Ontario n'ont pas accès à des écoles de langue française ; par exemple, à Meaford, à Kenora et à Port Elgin. L'accès à l'école de langue française dépend souvent du bon vouloir du conseil majoritaire. C'est-à-dire que le conseil majoritaire doit donner une autorisation pour la construction de l'école. Souvent, les francophones n'ont pas le choix entre une école publique ou catholique -- par exemple à Windsor, au sud de la région d'Ottawa, à Renfrew, à Merrickville, à Brockville -- alors que cela est possible pour le groupe majoritaire.
Permettez-nous de vous rappeler l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, où on reconnaît que l'établissement de l'enseignement en milieu minoritaire est l'outil institutionnel par excellence pour «remédier à l'érosion progressive des minorités». Conscients de l'importance de l'école pour l'épanouissement de la communauté franco-ontarienne, les parents francophones ont revendiqué un modèle de gestion qui satisferait aux besoins des élèves en leur offrant des services et des programmes de qualité.
Le projet de loi 160 dans son application doit assurer l'accès à l'école de langue française pour tous les francophone et doit assurer aussi l'égalité des résultats.
En mettant en place des conseils scolaires de district de langue française pour les écoles catholiques et pour les écoles publiques, et des administrations scolaires, le gouvernement de l'Ontario pourra remédier sans délai aux inégalités du système actuel, avec des modèles de prestation de services qui répondront aux besoins éducatifs des jeunes francophones de l'Ontario.
Pour nous, parents francophones, le projet de loi mènera au succès s'il garantit dans les faits : l'accès à l'enseignement dans la langue officielle de la minorité ; des établissements d'enseignement qui appartiennent à la minorité ; le contrôle et la gestion de ces établissements ; le droit à l'enseignement dans la culture de la minorité ; le droit à des installations physiques situées dans la communauté minoritaire ; l'équivalence à la majorité en matière de qualité d'éducation, soit en termes de résultats ; la réparation des torts du passé par des moyens créatifs et appropriés ; et un régime de financement assurant l'équivalence et la réparation.
Au chapitre des conseils d'école, pour la communauté de langue française, l'engagement des parents est d'autant plus essentiel qu'il doit revendiquer une éducation de qualité pour des enfants qui vivent en situation minoritaire, appuyer l'éducation que les enfants reçoivent à l'école et assurer l'intégration de ces élèves dans la société canadienne.
L'inclusion du conseil d'école dans le projet de loi est donc bien accueillie par la fédération. Cependant, nous recommandons de ne pas limiter le rôle du conseil d'école à un rôle consultatif. À cet égard, la fédération appuie les arguments du Conseil ontarien des parents. Je les résume :
(1) La Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation doit pouvoir donner suite à son mandat en ce qui concerne les conseils d'école.
(2) Dans la pratique, souvent un rôle consultatif constitue un rôle insignifiant.
(3) Il y a déjà dans certaines écoles des modèles de gestion participative où les parents participent effectivement à une gestion de l'école -- par exemple, au choix et à l'évaluation du directeur ou de la directrice, à l'adoption des objectifs et des priorités de l'école, à l'adoption des priorités budgétaires de l'école. Ce sont des fonctions qui vont au-delà d'un rôle consultatif.
Nous croyons donc que le projet de loi doit être modifié pour assurer aux parents une participation efficace et non pour la forme. Nous recommandons que le mot «consultatif» soit enlevé du projet de loi en ce qui a trait aux conseils d'école. C'est-à-dire que «consultatif» dans ce cas restreint la possibilité pour les parents d'avoir un conseil qui est plus que consultatif.
En tant qu'experts et parents au quotidien, les membres de la FAPFO sont favorables aux mesures officielles d'appui aux parents. Donc, nous sommes favorables à l'enchâssement dans la loi. Cependant, ce qui nous intéresse davantage, c'est l'efficacité des mesures proposées. La sensibilisation, la formation et l'information des parents doivent faire partie de la mise en oeuvre des structures proposées, et des budgets doivent y être consacrés.
Selon nous, le paragraphe 170(3) devrait être modifié à lire :
«Le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, traiter des conseils d'école, notamment de leur création, de leur composition, de leur mandat, de leur financement et de l'utilisation des ressources de l'école.»
L'effectif des classes : le succès scolaire est sans doute rattaché, du moins dans une certaine mesure, au nombre d'élèves par classe. Les classes peu nombreuses permettent de mieux répondre aux besoins éducatifs de chaque enfant dans la classe, compte tenu des différents styles d'apprentissage et de l'intégration des enfants ayant des besoins spécialisés, que l'on parle d'un enfant doué ou d'un enfant ou un élève qui a besoin de services adaptés.
Les règlements qui seront adoptés doivent tenir compte de chaque classe et non assurer une moyenne «au niveau du conseil scolaire de district». Le calcul d'une moyenne des effectifs par classe pour le conseil scolaire de district créerait des classes très nombreuses dans certaines écoles à cause des réalités démographiques. Nous avons déjà dans la province des classes de plus de 40 élèves, tant au palier élémentaire que secondaire. J'ai un exemple précis d'une école d'Ottawa-Carleton où au secondaire il y a 16 classes qui sont d'à peu près 35 élèves.
La taille du territoire du conseil scolaire est maintenant bien inférieure à celle qui va exister en janvier. Donc, la situation pourrait résulter en la fermeture de la petite école. Donc, le projet de loi et les règlements qui en découleront doivent remédier à ces inégalités.
Comme les réalités de la province sont des plus diversifiées, le projet de loi doit assurer que les exigences prescrites en ce qui a trait à la taille de classes seront mises en oeuvre en tenant compte des réalités de chaque école individuellement.
En ce qui concerne la dotation différenciée, qu'il soit très clair que la fédération revendique depuis toujours un niveau professionnel élevé pour les enseignantes et les enseignants. Nous ne voulons pas des écoles sans enseignantes ni enseignants dûment brevetés. Cependant, la fédération est d'accord pour que l'on explore la possibilité de faire appel, comme on le fait déjà dans certains domaines très spécifiques, à du personnel autre que des enseignants brevetés. Cependant, la portée de la loi est très large et doit être limitée.
En ce qui concerne la direction, nous constatons que le projet de loi ne prévoit pas que les directeurs, directrices, directeurs adjoints et directrices adjointes fassent partie d'un syndicat autre que celui des enseignantes et des enseignants. Il y a une différence claire entre les responsabilités des gestionnaires et les responsabilités des enseignantes et des enseignants. Nous croyons que, pour bien gérer l'école, les personnes responsables de diriger, de gérer et d'évaluer doivent avoir la latitude nécessaire pour intervenir en tant que capitaine de l'équipe, et nous recommandons un amendement en ce sens au paragraphe 277.1(1).
J'ai terminé.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. You have less than a minute left. If there's one thing more you would like to say, it would be appreciated.
Mme Piredda : We would like that whatever savings are made be reinvested in education.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Thank you for that presentation. We appreciate hearing from you very much.
The next presenter is Orland Kennedy. Is Mr Kennedy here?
Another person has asked to make a presentation. Is it the wish of the committee that he be allowed? Okay. Qasem Mahmud.
QASEM MAHMUD
The Vice-Chair: I probably did not do justice to the pronunciation of your name, but for the Hansard record please state it, and the time has started.
Mr Qasem Mahmud : My name is Qasem Mahmud. I am the chairman of the Islamic Schools Federation of Ontario and a vice-chairman of the Muslim parents association in the capital region.
I don't know if you know this, but we have in the Ontario school system close to 80,000 Muslim students, which represents about 4% of the student population, with a high percentage here in Ottawa, up to 10%.
I would have loved to make a presentation on Bill 160 addressing the various articles in the bill. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a copy of the bill. I went today to the government Access Ontario and I was, I think, the 12th person on standby and I've been told that the third reading of the bill is not available; it hasn't been printed yet. That shows you that there is no intention, or a lack of interest in public consultation, which I regret.
1600
Mr Wildman: I don't want to take up your time but surely the second reading draft of the bill is available, and if the provincial government office here in Ottawa is telling people that because it hasn't reached third reading the bill is not available, that is completely incorrect and unacceptable. I would hope that matter can be corrected. Surely the office can get some copies of this 260-some-page bill so the public can see it.
Mr Mahmud: Anyhow, I'll try my best to obtain this bill and respond to the various articles in writing, I hope.
As I said, another problem with this bill is that it has been rushed, so we had no time to consult. Only last Sunday we had a meeting of our federation to have a general discussion based on the information we received from the media, and the same thing with the local Muslim parents' association. It takes time to send out notices, form a position and discuss it and so on. It will be worthwhile if the work of this committee could be extended so we will have a chance to respond appropriately to this bill.
What disturbs me in this bill -- and before I say this, I've been involved in education for the past 30 years. I am a community worker. I am not a teacher by profession. I am an engineer by profession. I wrote books for kids. I run language schools. I run summer camps and am very heavily involved with children's education, including my six kids, who went through the system. I still have a son who goes to high school. The way I see it as an educator, the education system deals with learning media, the deliverers of these media to the students, the school environment, the administration. The stakeholders in this education system are the students, the parents, the teachers, the administrators. Without the partnership of these groups we cannot succeed in improving the education system.
A lot of negative things have been said about the education system in Ontario. I fully disagree with all those who talk negatively about education, because it depends; we can argue about the quality of education until doomsday. Everybody has an opinion. I couldn't force my daughter, who was artistically oriented, to be a mathematician, but she mastered seven languages, she paints, she writes songs and she writes poetry. That's the route she has chosen to follow, so I cannot accept the argument of somebody who says we have to force high standards of mathematics on people.
You look at the United States leading in every area, yet maybe they rate not very highly within the measurement system they use for achievers. We have to think of a system and a quality that suit this province and this country. This has to be decided by the stakeholders I have mentioned.
When I got some information about Bill 160, I thought the government was going to bring us a very good bill and system. I made the comment, "Good for you. You are on the right track," but unfortunately when I listened to the Premier on October 22 I was very, very disappointed because the Premier gave the figures and he addressed me, as a taxpayer, "You are paying too many taxes for education." When I did the calculation I said, "Oh, the Premier is going save me 5% on my taxes," which amounts to $50 in a year. If he had asked me, I would have said I'm not worried about this $50.
If the teachers are going to be happy, if they are not going to be demoralized, if I am not going to create chaos in the system, why worry about the saving? The message I got from the Premier is, "We are going to save you money and this is the way I am going to do it: I'm going to cut down preparation time for teachers, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that." I was completely turned off and disappointed by this argument.
I fully agree with the Ministry of Education and Training that they have to have ownership of the curriculum. I would like to see a province-wide, accepted curriculum that everybody can be happy with. I agree with equitable funding for various schools. That's a good thing to have. Teachers' qualifications, who is going to teach and who isn't, like some people said, "Surely I can teach, but I am not a trained teacher, and I don't know how to deliver the information properly and ensure that the students are going to understand."
Surely the Minister of Education and Training could bring in legislation to empower the parents in the education system. This is desirable. Equality of treatment of children is important. You know we, as minorities, sometimes suffer because of this inequality in the education system. The ministry can deal with this. Taxation, again in my opinion, should be in the hands of the ministry, but when it comes to the quality of education and the delivery of good programs for kids I believe teachers, parents, students -- and I underline "students," as we often ignore them -- are the most important people we have to consult with and make sure we take their opinion.
The last point: I think whoever thought of lengthening the school year is not very wise, because what you understand from this is that only schools can teach you. They ignore the functions of the communities, the summer camps, family trips or whatever. These are educational tools we can use. As a community worker I'd like to have the members of my community for some time so we can organize functions to keep the community together and to prevent our kids from straying away and so on. You have to take this into consideration. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. You have used up your time. We really appreciate your filling your position because it was well listened to, believe me.
1610
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY.
The Vice-Chair: The next group we have is the OECTA, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. If you people would introduce yourselves for Hansard, your time has started.
Mrs Ariane Carriere: My name is Ariane Carriere. I'm president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. To my left is Greg McGillis, whom you've met before; John McEwen to my right; and Betty Eadie, who is president of the women teacher's association. I'm a separate school teacher but I'm very proud of the fact that today we saw in the newspaper, "The public school board backs the withdrawal of Bill 160." That was in our local newspaper today.
The presidents with me today work well together. As a matter of fact, we work together on almost everything. That's why we're here before you a second time. We are dressed the way we are because we came from Moose Creek this morning, the home of Noble Villeneuve, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and minister responsible for francophone affairs, and we haven't had time to go back to Cornwall to get changed. I'm going to address some of the pedagogical concerns within Bill 160 in the same brief you had just a few moments ago, and as an elementary teacher I'm going to talk about secondary preparation time.
The government is somewhat confused when it comes to the issue of preparation time. In the secondary schools what the government considers preparation time actually includes half preparation time and half duty period where on-calls, cafeteria and hall monitoring and other duties may be assigned. The on-call duty periods are pupil contact time, because teachers are replacing someone else who may be out for illness or because the employer wishes to utilize the class teacher for other purposes during that period. In the same fashion, the other types of duty periods also involve contact with students. The actual secondary teacher preparation time is half what the government thinks it is.
The government is also operating from a false premise in terms of the classroom teaching time in Ontario schools. We have included for you a graph that was taken from The Road Ahead, a report of the Education Improvement Commission. No citation for the source of these data was given. The data for the graph do not appear in any of the publications of Statistics Canada, the Canada Council of Ministers of Education, the Canadian Teachers' Federation or any of the recognized international organizations which are available to the witnesses or their respective research organizations. An independent examination of this claim is currently under way and we just, this afternoon, received some information which John is going to share with you.
Mr McEwen: I have here in my hand a set of teachers' timetables from schools all across the country. We have found that, contrary to the claim in The Road Ahead, Manitoba teachers spend 3.5 hours in the classrooms. Contrary to the claim in The Road Ahead, New Brunswick teachers spend 4.06 hours a day in the classrooms. Contrary to the claim in The Road Ahead, British Columbia teachers spend 4.375 hours a day in the classroom. Contrary to the claim in The Road Ahead, PEI teachers spend 3.75 hours per day in the classroom. The Road Ahead did underestimate one: Alberta teachers spend 4.6, not 4.4, hours per day in the classroom. Newfoundland teachers spend 4.0, not 4.35. We don't have a national average yet because we don't have a Nova Scotia value. Quebec teachers spend 3.3 to 3.4 hours a day teaching, not 4.0. The Saskatchewan value is correct.
If you take preparation time, all the provinces we have investigated, with the possible exception of Saskatchewan, have more preparation time for their secondary school teachers than is the case in the province of Ontario. Most of those provinces do not have any assigned duties. That's right. In Alberta, where the teachers are in class longer, in British Columbia, where the teachers are in class longer, in New Brunswick, where the teachers are in class longer, in Newfoundland, where the teachers are in class longer, there are no assigned duties, so the teachers in those provinces have more preparation time than secondary school teachers in Ontario. This is also true of the teachers in PEI, Manitoba and Quebec.
As I said, we have not done a national average, but I would suspect, from these preliminary findings, that Ontario teachers are spending time in the classroom in excess of the national average. I trust that the Minister of Education and Training will cease to make these false claims and I hope, if the parliamentary assistant is present, that he will ensure that is the case.
The government has used this "evidence" as justification for the cuts the government is planning to make in the number of teachers. To suggest that cutting preparation time results in more time for teachers to be with their students, as the Premier and the two ministers of education have done, is to deceive. The planned teacher reduction will result in fewer teachers per student and thus less teacher time with each student.
Mrs Carriere: Another issue that is of great concern to the teachers in SD&G is the use of unqualified personnel in the classroom. You have already received the questions the OECTA provincial office presented to you in their brief. We have added a few more questions of our own: Will these persons commit themselves to a full school year or at least a full semester to instruct their speciality? Will these persons be responsible for any extracurricular activities? At the elementary level, will these persons be responsible for yard duty and lunch duty or will that be left to the fewer remaining teachers? At the elementary level, what will happen when these persons come in to teach their one subject? Traditionally, elementary teachers teach every subject to their students across an integrated curriculum. Who will deal with discipline in the classroom? Are these people responsible for instruction only or are they expected to mark papers, do long- and short-range planning, contact parents and prepare all the necessary materials for their instruction?
The misuse of regulations: Teachers are especially concerned with the use of regulations in Bill 160. According to the bill, the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be able to do many things. The most offensive, however, is the no-presumption clause. The Lieutenant Governor in Council will identify non-teaching duties and non-teaching positions. The bill then goes on to say: "it shall not be presumed that a person is required to be a teacher solely because he or she holds a position that is not designated..." under the previous clause "or performs duties that are not designated under this clause." This means to us that there is no teaching position that cannot, if the government decides, be deprofessionalized. I'm going to leave it to John to finish off.
Mr McEwen: Our system of British parliamentary democracy has evolved over hundreds of years. The oft-wed monarch Henry VIII was one of the last to have the power to make laws without the consent of Parliament. One hundred and sixty years ago, what would become Ontario was engaged in a struggle against the Family Compact, a struggle that led to responsible government. This section takes Ontario back to the days of absolute monarchy, where the crown can make laws without the consent of the Legislative Assembly. You place yourselves above and beyond the law, and some of you will tell me it is wrong for me to take a political action which is perhaps outside of the law, yet you stand above the law yourselves. How hypocritical.
We have but one recommendation: Scrap this bill and start again. Use a truly democratic process. Kill Henry VIII.
Applause.
The Vice-Chair: Please. Your time has expired, and if we have one more breakout like that, we will adjourn.
Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Can I call the next group? Thank you. I call the next group, the AEFO Ottawa-Carleton board.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: I'm already addressing a point of order from Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I would like to place on record two questions for the parliamentary assistant to seek a response to. First, I would ask that the Ministry of Education reconcile the data on preparation time that have just been presented to this committee with the data that in the report of the EIC, The Road Ahead.
Second, I would like the Ministry of Education to provide this committee with an estimate of what it will cost local school boards to replace the on-call portion of preparation time with the use of occasional teachers. I think that is potentially an increased cost to local school boards that has not been calculated and I feel we should have that information.
The last area of questioning I think might be most appropriately placed either to the clerk of the committee or to the legislative researcher, who must be amazed that I have not asked him to do any research in the course of these hearings. I am concerned about the lack of availability of information, specifically access to this bill. This is not the first time we have heard it today. I am not sure whether there is a new procedure being followed or whether there just seems to be a problem or whether there is an unusual degree of public interest. Yesterday in Thunder Bay we heard there was only one copy of the bill available even in the library.
If we could please ask just for some information. I realize it won't come in time for the completion of our hearings, but I am interested, on an ongoing basis, in whether or not the public has adequate access to the bill at second reading stage.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. A point of order, Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: This is in relation to the matter that has been raised by my friend from Fort William. I would ask that the parliamentary assistant also provide to the committee information that will clarify the source of the statistics the Education Improvement Commission published in The Road Ahead, in the graph that was referred to by the delegation that has just made its presentation, and if these figures are incorrect, how they were calculated.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, thank you. We'll see that that happens.
1620
ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS DE L'ONTARIO, OTTAWA-CARLETON
The Vice-Chair: Welcome. For the record of Hansard, could you identify yourselves, and your time will start.
Mme Claudette Boyer : Merci. Je suis Claudette Boyer de l'AEFO, l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens d'Ottawa-Carleton. J'ai avec moi Miriam Gélinas, qui est la présidente des enseignantes et des enseignants d'Ottawa-Carleton pour l'élémentaire public ; Henri Nadeau, qui est le président de l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants, secondaire catholique; et Jacques Mancion, qui est le président de l'AEFO secondaire public.
L'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens d'Ottawa-Carleton désire communiquer au comité permanent de l'administration de la justice ses réactions et recommandations ayant trait au projet de loi 160. L'AEFO d'Ottawa-Carleton représente 1394 enseignantes et enseignants qui oeuvrent auprès d'élèves de langue française aux paliers élémentaire et secondaire.
Dans la rédaction de ce mémoire, l'AEFO d'Ottawa-Carleton a considéré l'impact du projet de loi 160 sur la qualité de l'éducation en langue française, sur les élèves et sur les enseignants. Vous ne serez sûrement pas surpris d'apprendre que nous partageons les préoccupations des autres associations d'enseignants et d'enseignantes de la province.
Le système des écoles de langue française est particulièrement vulnérable aux changements législatifs et financiers du gouvernement provincial. Nous sommes heureux de constater que le gouvernement a pris la décision de procéder à la création de 13 conseils scolaires de langue française. C'est une mesure qui répond aux décisions des cours de justice et nous souhaitons les maintenir.
Selon nous, le projet de loi n'a rien à voir avec la qualité de l'éducation, et cette qualité a un prix. Nous sommes particulièrement concernés par l'article suivant, 170.1, soit de déterminer la taille des classes et les méthodes de calcul utilisées, fixer le minimum de temps durant lequel une enseignante ou un enseignant est assigné pour enseigner au cours de la journée scolaire, désigner des postes qui peuvent être comblés par du personnel non enseignant et établir les qualifications requises pour ces postes.
Selon nous, ces articles ne permettent pas d'améliorer la qualité de l'éducation comme on le prétend. Ils permettent plutôt de réduire d'environ 650 $ millions additionnels le financement de l'éducation pour la prochaine année scolaire. Le projet de loi donne la possibilité au Cabinet de réduire davantage dans les années à venir.
Croyez-moi, ces compressions budgétaires signifient pour les écoles une réduction du nombre d'enseignantes et d'enseignants. Pour les francophones d'Ottawa-Carleton, le seul article qui traite de la réduction du temps de gestion au secondaire entraîne une perte d'environ 20 % d'enseignants qui ne seront plus là pour assurer la qualité de l'éducation. Ce chiffre ne tient pas compte de l'augmentation possible de la taille des classes.
La réduction du nombre d'enseignantes et d'enseignants signifie aussi que dans certaines écoles, il ne sera plus possible d'offrir un programme complet et diversifié. Il serait aussi possible que certaines petites écoles françaises doivent fermer leurs portes. Faute de programmes complets et d'écoles, les élèves iront s'inscrire dans des écoles anglophones. Nous sommes inquiets pour la survie de nos écoles françaises et de la qualité de l'éducation de langue française en Ontario.
De plus, l'augmentation de la taille des classes et la réduction du temps de gestion, qu'on appelle à tort et à travers «temps de préparation», auront des effets négatifs sur les tâches pédagogiques qui sont effectuées par les enseignants et les enseignantes et qui font partie d'un enseignement de qualité pour n'en nommer que quelques-uns, les entretiens avec les parents, les rencontres avec les parents, l'aide individuelle aux élèves, les rencontres avec les membres de la direction pour discuter de cas d'élèves, et j'en passe.
De plus, un système de dotation en personnel de deux niveaux engendrerait des difficultés pour la supervision des élèves et pour la communication d'information tout en affectant l'esprit d'amitié et de collégialité qui règne présentement dans nos écoles. L'introduction de personnel non breveté créerait des divisions dans le personnel, pourrait compromettre l'atmosphère des écoles, et par conséquent nuirait à la qualité de l'éducation. Cette déprofessionnalisation de l'enseignement va à l'encontre de l'Ordre des enseignants, qui a comme mandat de veiller au perfectionnement professionnel et à la validité des brevets des personnes qui remplissent des tâches pédagogiques.
Le projet de loi enlève le droit de négocier localement les conditions de travail, telles que les tâches de l'enseignante et de l'enseignant et la taille des classes. Dans un milieu hétérogène comme celui d'Ottawa, qui doit absorber plusieurs nouveaux arrivants, les besoins sont diversifiés, et on ne pourra plus tenir compte des besoins particuliers.
Une étude menée aux États-Unis révèle que la syndicalisation du personnel enseignant a un effet positif sur le rendement des élèves. L'un des avantages de la négociation est que les enseignantes et les enseignants ont plus d'influence sur les conditions qui influent sur le rendement scolaire, telles que la taille des classes, les ressources pédagogiques, la formation du personnel enseignant, les services scolaires et sociaux.
Le projet de loi 160 pour nous représente une réglementation arbitraire qui enlève aussi la possibilité aux parents d'avoir un droit de regard sur l'enseignement. Le budget géré par le pouvoir centralisé déterminera, par exemple, l'existence de classes doubles ou de différents niveaux de difficulté. Les parents n'auront plus de moyens de pression au niveau local et encore moins au niveau provincial. Je dois vous admettre qu'au début de l'année scolaire 1997-1998, à l'élémentaire francophone nous avons même dû contester l'existence de classes triples.
Voici quelques recommandations que nous vous donnons :
Que la loi assure le droit de négociation au niveau local ;
Que le personnel non breveté soit décrit comme étant du personnel additionnel qui ne remplit pas de tâches pédagogiques comme, par exemple, l'enseignement et l'évaluation de l'élève, et que ce personnel ne fasse pas partie du rapport élève-enseignant.
En conclusion, plusieurs autres articles du projet de loi, tels que les articles sur l'ancienneté et sur le contrat des enseignantes et des enseignants, nous inquiètent énormément. Nous admettons que le système scolaire a besoin d'être amélioré, mais nous tenons à souligner qu'en général, le projet de loi 160 nous apparaît comme une masse quelconque, ambiguë, vague, et imprécise qui à n'importe quel moment recevra la forme, la couleur et les dimensions que voudra bien lui donner le Cabinet de l'heure selon les caprices de son budget.
1630
Notre association d'enseignantes et d'enseignants d'Ottawa-Carleton en est une qui accepte le changement mais qui ne se pliera pas à des décisions politiques qui n'ont rien à voir avec la qualité de l'éducation et tout à voir avec la réduction des effectifs et les coupures budgétaires. Nous espérons que vous saurez prendre en compte les recommandations contenues dans notre mémoire.
Merci de votre attention.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We have about a minute left. I'll take a chance on doing about 30 seconds per group, if we can.
Mr Wildman: Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation. Can I ask, if you want to have local negotiations, is it also a concern with Bill 160 that unless the funding formula is clear, we're sort of, to use the English expression, buying a pig in a poke if we pass this bill?
M. Henri Nadeau : Il est clair que nous désirons une négociation locale. Toute la négociation se joue, bien entendu, au niveau du financement. Alors au niveau des formules qui sont proposées actuellement, on ne les connaît pas. Même les conseils scolaires actuellement, à ma connaissance, les directeurs de l'éducation les recherchent et les veulent, et tout ça va être déterminant au niveau --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you.
Mr Wildman: By regulation.
M. Beaubien : Dans ma circonscription, des écoles scolaires francophones catholiques séparées et publiques font une compétition pour les étudiants et les étudiantes. Je ne sais pas le nombre exact, mais je dirais qu'il y a environ 400 à 500 élèves dans la région, alors les deux conseils scolaires ont beaucoup de difficulté à essayer de faire parvenir les instructions nécessaires aux étudiants et aux étudiantes. Comment pourrait-on résoudre une telle difficulté dans les régions où les francophones n'ont pas la masse, où le nombre d'élèves n'est pas là ?
M. Grandmaître : One very short question. Madame Boyer, vous avez parlé de gestion et de financement. Vous avez même mentionné que le gouvernement avait annoncé 12 conseils scolaires de langue française additionnels en Ontario. Est-ce que vous avez confiance que le gouvernement puisse aller de l'avant avec les réductions, avec les compressions budgétaires que le gouvernement s'apprête à annoncer ou a même annoncées, une réduction de 670 $ millions ? Est-ce que c'est possible de le faire ?
The Vice-Chair: We've really run out of time, but just a quick answer if you could. We'll give you that privilege.
Mme Boyer : Premièrement, Monsieur Grandmaître, je vous réponds que l'on ne peut pas se réjouir -- on est contents de la proposition d'avoir 12 conseils de langue française, mais sans le financement on ne sait pas où on s'en va. Si on coupe 650 $ millions, est-ce qu'ils vont vraiment trouver l'argent pour les francophones ? On voit ce qui est arrivé en santé pour les francophones.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation.
PAUL FITZGERALD
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter will be Paul Fitzgerald. Welcome.
Mr Paul Fitzgerald: I'm here today to speak in favour of Bill 160. I am a concerned citizen, and although I am not a teacher as defined by the act, I am very much an educator. I've got six years' experience as an English-as-a-second-language teacher at the University of New Brunswick. I worked for a year as a classroom assistant in Quebec City and I am a co-founder of the University of Western Ontario business school's leader project.
Some of you may be aware of that. That's a project that teaches free market business practices and has done so to over 3,000 entrepreneurs all over the former east bloc over the past six years. That project won an international award, and the pedagogical methods used in that project were adopted by the United Nations development agency for use in Mongolia. In addition, I have also taught management strategy and marketing for two years in both Moscow and St Petersburg in Russia. But I repeat, under this act, I am not a teacher.
A reading of the government's literature reveals that the stated goal of this act is "to improve student achievement in Ontario so that it is the highest in Canada." That is not enough. When was the last time you heard of Corel hiring software engineers from Manitoba? What about India, Russia and the Czech Republic? No, our goal must be higher. It should be "to improve student achievement in Ontario so that it is among the top 10 in the world." Right now, we're roughly 38th in math and 35th in science. We can quibble all we want about how valid any particular test is, but at the end of the day, Ontario students are competing with the world's best in both math and science for intellectually stimulating jobs in today's global economy.
Having taught in Russia, which scores 20 places higher than Canada in both math and science, let me comment on a few differences between their system and ours. In Russia, a teacher is "someone who teaches." In Ontario, it is "a member of the Ontario College of Teachers." Please note, the Ontario definition includes many people who haven't darkened a classroom door in quite some time. Not only does this skew the student-teacher ratios by including non-teaching administrative personnel, such as principals and consultants, but it serves as a barrier to entry for the teaching profession. A barrier to entry is, in and of itself, good. We do want qualified and vetted persons teaching our children, but the Russians go a step further. If you teach music in Moscow, you are a musician, probably with a degree in music. If you teach English as a second language, you are probably a certified English-Russian translator with pedagogical training. In each case, your pedagogical training comes on top of a specialized degree in the subject you will be teaching.
By contrast, in Ontario for years prospective teachers learned how to teach, studying pedagogical methods, psychology and group facilitation, with relatively little emphasis on the content to be taught. Deficiencies in that situation have provoked the current regime where a prospective teacher does a one-year BEd after having completed an arts or science degree.
Even with these situations, many Ontario students do not study in a Russian-style classroom; that is, where a qualified teacher teaches a subject in which he or she has specialized. Instead, we see regularly otherwise qualified teachers teaching a subject about which they know relatively little. In the past two days I have received four complaints from new teachers who are not allowed to teach their subject areas because union seniority has allowed a longer-serving teacher to claim the job. Frankly, we could double the amount of money we spend on education without increasing our students' performance one iota if we continue to allow the gym teacher to teach physics.
Another big difference between the Russian system and ours is that in Ontario 35% to 47% of school board money is spent outside the class. Russia's economy does not permit such luxuries. Rather, because they have qualified subject specialists as teachers, curriculum development is easier. Rather than showing the English teacher how to explain cellular biology, they are showing experienced math teachers ways of improving the teaching of math.
Finally, the Russian education system actively encourages the in-class participation of any person who can make the learning experience more productive. It is not uncommon for Russian schools to invite foreigners to participate on a regular basis in English- or French- or German-as-a-second-language classes. The wives of diplomats posted in Moscow spend regularly two to three mornings a week in Russian classes, helping Russians to be the best in the world at the learning of foreign languages. Let me tell you, having taught in Moscow, the teaching of a second language in that country excels far beyond what we have even in the Ottawa area where bilingualism is so current.
The Russians have little choice. They know that their future depends on an educated population and they don't have the money not to be creative. They know they must be able to compete with the best and brightest in the world, and they don't plan to be second.
I think I must tell you that, having taught there, having seen the students their education system puts forward, there is one hell of a difference between 15th in the world and 35th in the world. It's the difference between intuitively knowing how to put a sign through a door -- by taking the hypotenuse of the door -- you don't have to sit there and make it a complicated problem. You know immediately how to do your math, you know immediately how to do the thinking, you know how to solve problems. They are a quantum step ahead of Canada and they have Canada's natural resource base. If we're not careful, they are going to clean our clocks once they get their economy sorted out.
1640
I also want to comment on classroom size. I am fully in favour of specifying student-teacher ratios, classroom size, but only if the word "teacher" is amended to read, "a member of the Ontario College of Teachers who spends at least 60% of his/her day in the classroom." Such an amendment would make the expression "student-teacher ratio" meaningful to the public at large.
Finally, previous participants have commented on desires to put the teacher in charge of education in the classroom. I agree fully. Let's start by asking the unions to put seniority, preparation, and whether to continue their current course of action to a secret vote. That will ensure that the decisions made by teachers are in fact made by rank-and-file teachers to the greatest extent possible. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for that presentation. We have approximately 30 seconds per side for a statement, starting with the government side.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much for your presentation. I found it informative, and appreciate your appearing before the committee today.
The Vice-Chair: From the government side, Mr Cullen.
Mr Cullen: Government side? Thank you for your prescience there.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, I'm sorry.
Mr Cullen: Mr Fitzgerald, I knew the Russians played good hockey but I didn't know that their educational system not only exceeded ours but exceeded Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, England, Norway, Denmark, the United States, Scotland and Spain. All these are countries that apparently are below Ontario in these international tests, and I'm sure that they too will be equally as enthusiastic in following the Russian model, which has proven to be so successful to date.
Mr Fitzgerald: I might respond by saying that is indeed true, but if you look at Ontario compared to Canada, Ontario right now is beneath worn-torn Cyprus. Clearly we have a lot of learn from a country that's 20 places ahead of us in the line.
Mr Cullen: I'm sure the Americans will be pleased to hear that.
Mr Wildman: I found your presentation thought-provoking. I would ask, though, one thing. You did mention Corel in passing. Is it not true that Bill Gates repeatedly has hired almost the whole graduating class at Waterloo? Isn't that an indication that our education system must be training at least those students well?
Mr Fitzgerald: It's an indication that the élite from Canada's educational system do in fact compete with the élite anywhere. But we're looking at the people who are in the next 95 percentile. We're looking at the average person. What are their chances in an information-based economy? Unless they're at the top of the class --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Your time has expired. I appreciate your presentation.
WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Women Teachers' Association of Ottawa, if you would come up and introduce yourselves for Hansard. I would also like to welcome Jean-Marc Lalonde to the committee hearings. Go ahead.
Ms Lisa Falls: How do you do? I'm Lisa Falls. I'm with the Women Teachers' Association of Ottawa. I'm the president. I have brought two classroom teachers from the Ottawa Board of Education to speak to you about non-professional personnel in the classroom. I'd like to introduce Gretta Bradley, on my right, and Jane Burton, on my left.
Ms Gretta Bradley: When we were informed that we would be given the opportunity to speak to the issue of non-professional personnel in our classrooms to this committee, we immediately began to examine the reasons why children benefit from committed teaching specialists. Simply presenting the arguments wasn't very satisfactory. It didn't begin to describe the complex nature of teaching children. I would therefore like to describe the knowledge, skills, experience and dedication one committed teaching specialist in our school brings to her children.
Jane is the drama teacher at our school. It has been suggested that Jane could be replaced by non-teaching personnel. Jane is typically at school at 6:30 am and does not leave before 6 pm. She teaches every child in our school, which has a population of nearly 500 students, 11, 12 and 13-year-olds. She begins her day with rehearsals for choir or for any one of the many productions that students will perform throughout the year. These productions often include up to half the student population, a student population which is as diverse as any you will find in the Ontario school system.
Fisher Park school has children from at least 20 countries who speak upwards of 30 languages. Our school has children living in public housing, children who have physical challenges. Some are gifted, some are struggling to acquire English, and some come from homes that are violent or chaotic. Although we value highly our diversity, these productions are one of the few opportunities where we can forget our differences and work together towards a common goal. They are the glue that binds our school together. Due to Jane's tremendous abilities as a drama specialist and her knowledge and skill as a teacher, these productions are not only of the highest quality but bring kids of diverse backgrounds together to accomplish something of which they are tremendously proud.
By 8:45 am her home room is streaming in the door. She dons her teacher's cap and records the lates and absences. She speaks to a student about a concerning pattern of absences to determine its causes and possible solutions. She lets students know that she wants them at school and she cares about them being there. She sees that Hung is squinting and makes a note to contact the multicultural liaison officer to make arrangements for a Vietnamese translator to assist his mother in getting glasses for Hung. Sarah has arrived sullen and uncommunicative and is ready to explode at the slightest provocation. Jane takes the time to speak to her privately as students are moving to their first class. She empathizes, discusses some coping strategies, and arranges for Sarah to talk to the guidance counsellor.
When her first class arrives, she begins to implement a program that has taken hours and hours of careful planning, preparation and revision. Her training as a teacher tells her to begin with the objectives as outlined in the curriculum, search for resources appropriate for the age and ability of her students, design activities appropriate for the young adolescent learner that not only accomplish her objectives but motivate her students, and modify her program to fit the needs of individual children: children who are gifted, children with learning disabilities or children who don't speak English. She designs methods of evaluation that give her information about how well her students have accomplished these objectives.
As the class proceeds, Jane carefully introduces each activity in a logical sequence of skills. She again relies on her teacher training and uses proactive management strategies to ensure a safe learning environment where the class runs seamlessly from one activity to the next. What materials are needed when, how materials are distributed, arrangements of students in the classroom and classroom routines are all given careful consideration. Jane's training as a teacher allows her to adapt to the needs of her class.
Chantal's group is causing a minor disruption. Jane realizes the class does not have the social skills to carry out the assignment. They are calling each other names, interrupting each other, and some are sitting back and not participating at all. She changes her lessons in order to teach in the social skills that they need to work effectively in a group. Jane then modifies the language for an ESL child so they that they can take part to the best of their ability. Another student is confrontational. She uses humour this time to turn the situation around without major disruption to the class.
During her preparation time, she fills in the paperwork for an educational assessment for a child who is not achieving her learning potential. She adds her observations as a trained teacher to those of her colleagues. She is a functioning member of a team of professionals who are dedicated to helping children achieve their potential, not just a drama coach. She phones one parent to discuss the child's progress and another to arrange a meeting. At lunch she is rehearsing Ebony Road, a play written by a teacher in our school to celebrate Black History Month.
Finally, her home room class returns to wrap up their day. Jane teaches the skills that will help her students become self-directed learners. Young adolescent learners often lack the organizational skills needed to cope with a seven-period, seven-day schedule. She encourages students to use a student planner and shows them how it can be used to organize their long-term assignments. For those on individual logs, she cajoles, rewards and lectures. In other words, uses every skill in her teacher's bag of motivation techniques. The bell rings and her home room files out.
Jane decided a few years ago that she would like to involve the community in school drama productions. This meant long hours of her own time. It meant dealing with adult schedules and commitments alongside the arrangements for students to attend practices out of school time. When Fisher Park school and community performed that night, Lucy Maud Montgomery herself would have been proud to see kids of all sizes, shapes, colours --
Interruption.
Ms Bradley: Is that the fire alarm?
The Vice-Chair: I would think it's a fire alarm. It's not the school bell, I'm sure. We'll recess at least until the noise stops.
The committee recessed from 1652 to 1701.
The Chair: Could I call the meeting back to order. Thank you very much, Ms Falls. I understand from Mr Rollins that there's two minutes left for your presentation. Please proceed.
Interruption.
The Chair: We'll make allowances. I think you should just proceed. You have two minutes, but we will certainly make allowances to make sure that you have a full opportunity. It must be very disconcerting to have an alarm go off during your presentation. We understand that. Please continue.
Ms Falls: It's not disconcerting for teachers to be interrupted by the fire alarm or anything else.
The Chair: Touché. Please proceed.
Interjections.
The Chair: Could we give the presenters our attention. Thank you.
Ms Falls: So when Fisher Park school and community performed that night, Lucy Maude Montgomery herself would have been proud to see kids of all sizes, shapes, colours, creeds and religions as kindred spirits in their production of Anne of Green Gables.
Ms Bradley: Although this describes my day, these scenes repeat themselves in different ways in Frances and Marco's gym classes, Sherry's design and technology room and computer lab, Greg's art classes, Yan and Fern's ESL classes and Susan and Ara's ESD classes.
We already have specialists in our classrooms, specialists who are teachers trained in curriculum development and modification, evaluation and testing techniques, classroom management, child psychology, child development, learning and behavioural psychology. They are committed to learning the skills of teaching over a career. They do not drop in and out of teaching, never acquiring the experience and skills of this complex profession. Our teacher specialists are people who care first and foremost about children and their learning.
The question is not can we afford the Marcos, the Franceses, the Sherrys, the Gregs, the Yans, Ferns, Susans, Aras and myself, but can we afford not to have them? Educating the whole child is extremely complex in nature, as each child has his or her own unique way of learning and each carries an individual sense of self-worth. Your children and my children, the children of Ontario and their futures are at stake. This bill must go. Thank you.
The Chair: Is there anything that you would like to say in conclusion? I'm willing to give you a little more time simply because of the interruption.
Ms Falls: I understand there's question. Is it you who has the opportunity to ask?
The Chair: No, usually the caucus would, but there was only two minutes left so there really is no time to do a proper caucus question unfortunately. Yes, ma'am?
Ms Burton: I would like to say that it has crossed my mind many times when I think to myself that perhaps you don't understand that we do bring different people into our classroom to add to it already. These are great expenses we go to. Some of these people who are very special in their area of art, drama or whatever cost us a great deal, perhaps $250 for one morning, or $350 for the whole day, but they will only take 12 to 20 children at a time. But they require a different timing that is not within our schedule in our schools.
We have done fund-raising. Parental committees have provided money. We have gotten businesses to add money so that we can do these kinds of things. This is already happening in school, but I do not believe that they could come in and, on a day-to-day basis, deal with all the things that you have heard that are in just one of my days. I might add that each and every day provides me with those challenges and even more.
Ms Bradley: Those specialists always require a teacher's presence as well. I've never had one say they would take the children on their own.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.
GARY, KELLY AND DANIEL O'DWYER
The Chair: Gary, Kelly and Daniel O'Dwyer. Welcome. Please identify yourself once you start to speak for the purposes of the record and proceed.
Mr Gary O'Dwyer: My name is Gary O'Dwyer and I take great pride in stating that I have been teaching for over 20 years. As a classroom teacher, I have been privileged to teach some outstanding citizens, the young people of Ontario.
In the past two years, I've been very fortunate to have met with the former Minister of Education and engaged in discussions regarding educational reform, along with students in a senior politics course. At the time, I believed that the Minister of Education, John Snobelen, had taken student questions and recommendations quite seriously. In the end, we have Bill 160.
Ms Kelly O'Dwyer: My name is Kelly O'Dwyer. I'm currently a first-year student at Carleton University.
In discussions with the minister, students asked whether education cuts would impact negatively upon the classroom and they were told no. Students asked if the cuts would total over $1 billion. They again were told no.
Since their discussions --
Interruption.
The Chair: I think, so that you can get the train of your thoughts, we'd best start right from the beginning, if we may.
1710
Mr O'Dwyer: My name is Gary O'Dwyer and I take great pride in stating that I've been teaching for over 20 years. As a classroom teacher, I have been privileged to teach some outstanding citizens, young people in Ontario.
In the past two years, I've been very fortunate to have met with the former Minister of Education and engaged in discussions regarding educational reform, along with students in a senior politics course. At the time, I believed that the Minister of Education, John Snobelen, had taken student questions and recommendations quite seriously. In the end, we have Bill 160.
Ms O'Dwyer: My name is Kelly O'Dwyer and I'm currently a first-year student at Carleton University.
In discussions with the minister, students asked whether education cuts would impact negatively upon the classroom and they were told no. Students also asked if the cuts would total over $1 billion. Again, they were told no.
Since their discussions, students have found via media reports that they were given incorrect information. It is with little wonder students view politicians with so much disdain and contempt.
In his address to the citizens of Ontario the Premier stated that Bill 160 was about improving education in Ontario; that the bill was about limiting class size; that the bill was about putting teachers back into the classroom; that the bill was about curriculum change, standardized testing and standardized report cards. The students who have read the bill cannot find any of this in the bill. Thus, they have come to the conclusion that either the Premier has not read the bill or is misleading them -- not a very pleasant scenario.
The conclusion which students who have read the bill have come to is not very positive. Allow me to cite in detail some student concerns and observations regarding Bill 160.
When one studies the bill, he or she is left with more questions than answers. Legislation such as this should provide a definite plan for the future of Ontario's education. Instead, it provides rather ambiguous proposals to grant absolute power to the Minister of Education without accountability. Decisions could be made without debate in the Legislature or public consultation, which seems somewhat less than democratic. This leaves one to make speculative predictions about what the education system will be like in the next few years. The pressing question is this: Are the proposals made in Bill 160 truly meant to improve the quality of education?
If we, the youth of Ontario, are to re-establish our confidence and faith in the political system in general and politicians specifically, then the government must clarify what its true ambitions are regarding Bill 160. Remember, I along with many other young people will be voting not only in the next election but in many to come and we will remember who was honest and who was dishonest with us in the Bill 160 debate. I urge each and every politician to state clearly what Bill 160 is really about.
Mr O'Dwyer: The gentleman seated to my left is my father, Daniel O'Dwyer. As you can see, he's a veteran of the Second World War. I am exceedingly proud of him for his contribution to democracy and to the quality of life we enjoy in Canada and specifically Ontario today.
You see, committee members, we are here today as examples of the tremendous benefits our country has offered its citizens due to the efforts of my father and others like him. I was the first of our family to graduate from university. My daughters enjoy the same opportunity that I had due to the quality of education and opportunity which exists and has existed in Ontario.
The assault on democracy demonstrated in Bill 160 is an insult to those who gave so much for our country. Bill 160 has the potential to destroy the opportunity to excel in life that I had and which I want for my children. It is an undeniable fact that this bill is not about quality education but about taking money out of a strapped education system in order to benefit a few wealthy individuals.
I direct the following questions to the members of the committee through the Chair. You can think of it as a quiz or a test. You seem to like tests.
(1) The Premier has stated that Bill 160 is about smaller classes. Where in the bill is it stated that classes will be smaller? That's zero for that question.
(2) The Premier has stated that Bill 160 is about reforming curriculum. Where in Bill 160 is the section which deals with curriculum? Zero out of two.
(3) The Premier has stated that Bill 160 is about putting teachers back into the classroom by reducing prep time and hiring unqualified individuals. Where in the bill does it state that teachers directly impacted by this policy will be put into the classroom and not dismissed? We do have remedial work.
The answer to these questions is regretfully and painfully obvious. These issues are not in Bill 160. If you do not want to answer me, then surely you must answer someone who put his life on the line for our country.
I wish to address a few personal comments to conclude. Much has been made about education systems in other countries, and I've been very fortunate to have had teaching experience in a variety of countries: Russia, and not just in Moscow, Honduras, Israel, Poland and Northern Ireland. I've had students from those countries come to my school and I've had students from my school go to those countries. Every one of the students who has come to Canada has talked about how great our education system is. They greatly appreciate critical thinking. Critical thinking: That's something that we do.
Much has been made about having or not having, as it were, I suppose, qualified or unqualified individuals in the classroom. Do you know where the very first group of Soviet veterans of the Afghanistan war were on a panel with American veterans of the Vietnam war? Do you where that first took place, the very first meeting, that historical event? It took place in a high school. Those were veterans from the Soviet Union at the time who came to North America specifically to do that.
Chief Buthelezi from South Africa, his last visit to this country was specifically to speak to a group of students. Even the Prime Minister phoned me to make an appointment to see him.
We have people coming in on a regular basis. We have politicians. In fact, Canadian politicians are the hardest to get into the classroom. They don't want to talk to critical thinkers. I invite you, members of the committee. You want to find out what the kids think of this? Come and talk to them. I dare you to come and talk to them and find out what the kids think of this, because if you're not here to do this for the kids, if you're to line your pockets or to benefit business, then you are cheating the future of this country, the future of this province. As an educator, I love my job. I would do it for nothing if I didn't have to pay bills.
You look at me in disgust. Come into the classroom and talk to the kids.
Interjection.
Mr O'Dwyer: Where and when and how much do you charge?
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me. Mr O'Dwyer has the floor. Continue, Mr O'Dwyer.
Mr O'Dwyer: I'll now accept questions.
The Chair: Unfortunately, there's precious little time left for questions, Mr O'Dwyer. You have about a minute. If you'd like to use that, I would offer the time for you to use to conclude your presentation.
Mr O'Dwyer: We geared the presentation in order to leave some opportunity for questions and it seems that there are some members who dispute what I've said. If they wish to question me on that, I would be more than pleased to answer their questions.
The Chair: I realize you would, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying that the time does not permit an equal amount of questions around this table, so that's why I've offered the time. If you do not wish to use it, then I would thank the three of you for your presentation here today.
1720
NEPEAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Our next presenter will be Bob Wilson. Good afternoon. We have allotted 10 minutes for your presentation. Please proceed.
Mr Bob Wilson: In the interest of saving some time, I'm going to paraphrase the first four paragraphs.
As chair of the Nepean Chamber of Commerce representing business in Nepean, thank you for this opportunity. Given the short presentation time, our brief will concentrate on the concepts of Bill 160 and the future of education in Ontario. Specific detail is provided on certain provisions of the bill in the addendum to our report that you have.
The Nepean chamber supports Bill 160 and its efforts to reform the education system. As stated in a previous presentation on Bill 104 -- and our views have not changed -- it's well beyond time to overhaul and reform drastically the education system in Ontario. The total cost of education -- school boards and trustees; curriculum; student achievement, as measured against national and international standards; provisions for teacher collective bargaining and working conditions; and the methods by which the taxpayers of Ontario foot the bill, among others -- must be brought under the control of the province. As a small business owner, chair of the Nepean chamber's board of directors, former teacher, teacher union president and negotiator, I also believe it's time for major reform.
At our business awards banquet last week, the recipient of our businessman of the year award had just returned from a business trip to India. In a very poverty-stricken village he visited, he found, because he investigated, that the literacy rate of its people was above 90%. Don't we all wish that same statistic was true for Ontario students, and even those in the rest of Canada?
Technology has brought hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development into this region, yet we face a major shortage of qualified personnel to fill the jobs generated. Why hasn't our education system produced qualified graduates? Examine carefully the forward-looking, high-tech education training students receive in the Far East. Why haven't we produced similar results? Why don't we require or provide similar training and expectations?
The move to a global economy with its free trading blocs has opened major new initiatives and markets for business, but this also means that jobs, due to the growth of technology, can go anywhere. If a company can pay $35 a month to an assembly line worker in a Third World country, they are not going to pay $600 a week, plus benefits, to a union worker in Ontario. The death of non-democratic forms of government has introduced more than one billion low-wage workers into the capitalist world, all of whom compete for jobs against workers in Ontario and Canada.
Technology is the driving force in our economy in this region, but what is the loyalty of our present companies? Technology permits offices, and the accompanying jobs, to be opened anywhere in the world. Corel could close its offices here one day and open up in Ireland the next.
The Nepean chamber believes that unions, including teacher unions, don't recognize or accept this reality. Unions would like us to believe that more regulations on employment to limit layoffs, to prevent specialized hiring outside of union skill requirements -- and that includes teacher union demands -- to boost benefits, to limit corporate restructuring, including education and the determination of instructional group size, are the answers. They are not. All companies have had to restructure in light of current economic realities. Why should teachers believe it should be any different for them?
Education is the future of Ontario. The only real solution to creating a better world for us and our children rests in changing, in a very drastic and fundamental way, the structure of education in Ontario. The only way we can raise our standard of living and eliminate the gap between the rich and the poor is to increase the skill levels of our students to provide them with an edge in the worldwide competition for high-paying jobs. Those who have the highest skill levels will have access to the high-income jobs in the new world economy. Low-skilled jobs will go to those who will work for the lowest salary.
With the sophisticated technology available and the ability of international business to utilize it, jobs will go anywhere business can achieve the best return on investment. We must ensure that our education system provides our graduates with skill levels that match the best in the world to ensure that we can compete for, and keep in Ontario, these high-paying jobs.
This requires leadership and long-term thinking, and major changes in the thinking of vested interest groups. The education agenda must be combined with business requirements. Business partnering with education is not a dirty concept. It doesn't mean that McDonald's will control our classrooms. We must utilize the very best instructors from the private sector to bring real-world experience and instruction into the classroom. Would we deny the ability and the right of a Terry Matthews of Newbridge to deliver a top-notch business marketing course to students simply because he does not possess teacher certification? Teacher unions and government legislation must recognize this fact.
Business must provide input to education to define the future needs of the workplace, and hence the skill levels of school graduates. Business must further existing partnerships with government and education leaders, from the earliest grade levels, to create a new education system that provides graduates with the skills required for the future work world. We must ensure that our students are cocooned no longer in terms of their ultimate ability to compete in the global economy. Otherwise, Ontario and our students will be shortchanged in their ability to be major stakeholders in the realities of the new millennium.
All this change must be accomplished within new realities, new realities of continuing technological revolution, fiscal responsibility, government reclaiming its role in the policy-setting process and the recognition that our students, regardless of what we would like to believe, really don't measure up in terms of skill levels, as they did 25 to 30 years ago. Thirty years, in terms of today's technology, is a blink in time, and none of us, in the best interests of our students, can afford to blink. Measurable educational achievement standards must be reinstituted, consistently applied and students must be required to meet them prior to graduation. Excellence and scholarship must become standard in our schools. We believe that is what the Ontario government is trying to do with the provisions of Bill 160.
Unions do not set policy, despite what previous governments and the public have permitted them to believe. Our government was elected on its stated platform to set policy and to provide legislation to implement that policy. It's time unions realized this fact. Teachers must realize that they do not have any special entitlement to be protected from restructuring initiatives that have swept the rest of the industrialized world due to economic and technological change.
We believe also that the government of Ontario, beyond its current proposals in Bill 160, should proceed to:
Restrict the ability of teacher unions to hold the economic future of this province to ransom, by vigorously pursuing the enactment of right-to-work legislation.
Implement non-strike provisions for teachers and other essential workers currently enjoying this privilege if the first suggestion is not able to be implemented.
Investigate the structure of education governance in New Brunswick, specifically with its provisions for no boards of education and the use of district superintendents and district councils of stakeholders to set curriculum, among other things, with a view to deciding which of its structural elements might be suitable to Ontario.
Restructure proposed revised boards of education eventually to eliminate them and replace them with an education councillor elected to the local municipal government. These education councillors could be part of the proposed district councils.
Rigorously pursue alternative forms of education with business that reflect business's ability to provide instructional assistance, funding and increased cooperative education opportunities.
Develop realistic, measurable achievement standards that reflect the needs of the future economy.
Pursue the development of charter schools and enabling legislation.
Eliminate research departments in boards of education and replace them with a directed, structured and accountable division within the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to design and provide a common curriculum with measurable standards.
Develop, with other provinces, a portable curriculum to enable students and parents to have national standards for curriculum content and achievement.
Thoroughly investigate a process and structure to institute one-level bargaining at the provincial level with one teacher union.
We believe the government of Ontario is on the correct path with its proposals under Bill 160 and must stay that course.
We had a business breakfast last week. It was sold out, limited -- I will be very honest with you -- to only 55 people because that's what the room would hold and you have an hour and a half to get business people in the morning from 7 o'clock. We hosted that with teacher union representative Doug Carter, who is the local spokesperson here, and the government, through John Baird, our MPP. They were able to present their views on Bill 160. They then submitted themselves to a bear-pit question session. Subsequently, a simple questionnaire was presented at the meeting which asked: "Do you support the provincial government's efforts to reform education through Bill 160? Yes or No?" With final results in, 89.7% supported the government's efforts.
As I indicated previously, specific suggestions to particular portions of the bill are contained in the addendum. Thank you for this opportunity. I appreciate it.
1730
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Wilson. There's only about 30 seconds left. There's no time for questions. Is there anything you wish to add during that 30 seconds?
Mr Wilson: No. I appreciate the tolerance of the committee.
BOB BONISTEEL
The Chair: Our last presentation for today, Bob Bonisteel. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.
Mr Bob Bonisteel: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. Comfort's not a factor at this point.
My name's Bob Bonisteel, as you said. I'm a parent with two children in the public education system. I'm a taxpayer and in my time I've paid a lot of money into the education system. I've been a teacher in this region for 27 years. It used to be uninterrupted service. At this point you can't say that.
I might also add that I've taken on a bit of a new job as a director of an organization for parents and teachers and taxpayers in Ontario who are interested in school reform.
I had a few preface comments before I got into addressing Bill 160, but sitting here for the last hour and a half, I've decided to change those comments. Someone I think on the panel suggested that you could -- what should I say? You suggested that you can estimate the effectiveness of Ontario's education system by looking at the graduates of Waterloo university.
Mr Wildman: No. I was responding to the fact that the presenter had said Corel was having difficulty, and I pointed out that Bill Gates hires the graduating class there. So there are two sides to it.
Mr Bonisteel: Interesting point, but it seems to me that the graduating class of Waterloo university could get educated in the jungle by reading a cereal box. These are the absolute supercream of the crop.
Mr Wildman: That come out of our system.
Mr Bonisteel: When one wants to defend the education system in Ontario, what we tend to do is find the very best examples and say, "See how good we are." When someone wishes to bash the system and the teachers, you find the opposite end of the spectrum and hold them up. That is what we do. I am here today to represent the 85% to 90% of the people who are in the middle, and most unfortunately those people by and large are not well served in this education system.
As a teacher, parent and taxpayer, I'm here in support of Bill 160 because something drastically has to change in this education system. I think the key word there is "drastic." I appreciate those graduates of Waterloo. I've maybe had the pleasure of teaching some of them. They aren't there much because of my effort. I think we have to get a little bit beyond that.
The other thing, sitting here in the past hour and a half, that has struck me is the audacity that anyone would have to mention "democracy" and "teacher union" in the same breath. It boggles my mind that at this point in time, with everything that has happened, anyone who supports what a teacher union is doing right now can accuse any other group of abusing democracy.
Mr Cullen: I can accuse this government of abusing democracy.
Mr Bonisteel: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Cullen. You know the rules. Please. I know it sometimes gets difficult around here, but we try to abide by the rules. Please proceed, sir.
Mr Bonisteel: I will. Thank you.
I've mentioned already that teachers in Ontario are not in their classrooms, they're walking picket lines. Even at this moment, I'm still surprised at the number of teachers who seem to relish that opportunity. They have lived for these confrontations. They are purposely created. It justifies the existence of so-called teacher leaders. That makes my skin crawl.
Most teachers, however, and I really want to emphasize the word "most" -- this is fact; this is not speculation on some right-wing wing-nut's perspective -- are absolutely sick about this strike. They are absolutely sick to their stomachs. But you know what? They are still out there. I don't want anybody to have any confusion about why they are out there. They are out there because they are dead afraid. They are sick with fear with the retaliation and the ostracization. Is that a word? Yes? Good. It is beyond comprehension that this kind of atmosphere can be perpetrated in our society. I've been here for 27 years and we have never been without it. It's time to stop. That's why I asked to make this presentation.
Another myth: That unions are said to speak for most teachers. They do not speak for most teachers in this province. What they do, though, is control most teachers in this province.
Teachers in Ontario have had their careers dominated by and littered with collective bargaining confrontations. They are incessant. Most of the time it is with a board of education. Our union leaders have told us that these are evil people who are trying to take our money away and our job security away and we must fight them, and fight them we have: a couple of strikes, a couple of work-to-rule campaigns, perpetrated bitterness, anger, and finally, just sort of resignation to the inevitable; whatever happens, happens. Hopefully we can just go back into our classrooms when our leaders say, "This is over now and you can go teach."
During our careers we've been directed by our unions to throw out the NDP government, before this one came along. I remember it so well, how evil these NDP people were: "Get them out of there. We will rise up, don't you know." Before that it was a Liberal government, I believe, that were the evil people on the block and they had to be trashed at all costs: "We must get rid of these people." I know that in my 27 years whichever government preceded that, they were the beast then.
It's interesting. I think the problem has been twofold: teacher unions adamantly opposing any change to the status quo in public education -- that's their job -- and another one is that all of these successive governments, which have been too weak in the face of a powerful union, have meekly backed down. You might notice also that they also backed out of office soon after they backed down. This has to stop.
There are some assumptions in this particular situation. I think it's assumed that because governments before this one, any government before this one that proposed and implemented some faddish changes in education -- and some of them have been really bad and teachers have had to put up with them. Now we have this mindset that says anytime a government is going to suggest a change in education, then it is political interference in education and it must be bad. Those are the mindsets that have been created by preceding governments.
Honest, I'm not a right-wing fanatic. I'm not a political creature. I don't belong to a political party. But I said I'm a teacher, I'm a parent and I'm a taxpayer, and my perception at this moment in time is that this government is different. They've proven that they are different. This government has recognized that it has been elected by people in Ontario to do exactly what it is doing. People are depending on this government to gain control of education. Just as important, they are waiting for this government to control the cost of education.
1740
Another point is that parents and taxpayers are confident, from what they've seen so far, that this government is one with guts enough to stick to its intended course. It appears as though that would be the case.
The changes this government has suggested and implemented so far don't appear to be faddish. As a matter of fact, the changes that have been offered so far have been welcomed by teachers and they've been welcomed by parents; they have not been endorsed by teacher leaders for some reason.
I've got a list of some of the things this government has done so far.
Curriculum: There is a new model for curriculum in Ontario. It's a good one. Teachers who have to teach it say it's a good one. Enough said.
This government says it wants testing, and you like tests -- I'm not sarcastic this time -- but the testing, I feel, at this point in time, needs to be expanded and it needs to be improved. We need each school to be tested and we need those results posted, published for all to see, so that we can find out which schools are performing and which schools are not performing.
If that were to happen, it would be very nice to throw in a rule that says there are open boundaries. If I find out my son is going to a school down the road that is not performing well, then I want the right, thank you very much, to take my son to a different school. Whatever happened to me controlling where he goes and who teaches him? It's a ridiculous situation when you can't do that.
There's a new report card, with glowing reports from people who matter: the teachers. Congratulations to this government.
Four years in high school: If I could take you through, I think you'd have to spend five years with me as a high school teacher. I would like any parent, any politician, any union leader to look at what a student does in five years of high school. In almost all cases, a student can graduate very nicely in four years -- very nicely -- and many do, with way more than enough credits according to the present stipulations. A four-year high school program is ideal. I'm not concerned whether that's a cost-saver or not. If it is, then let's take the money that is saved and let's buy new teachers for K to 6. Let's put the money where it belongs.
Interjection.
Mr Bonisteel: Okay, Bud.
Probably the most important thing I wanted to get said as I sat here today was that this fewer boards, fewer bureaucrats mentality is phenomenal. When you get letters from ministers of education and you talk to people who seem to know what they're talking about, you find out that for the $14.2 billion that is spent on education in Ontario, 46% of those dollars goes into some big conglomerate board before it ever sees a classroom. That was a statistic I received from a government official. I hate throwing stats around because they are so easily manipulated, but Mr Cullen, I don't care exactly how much, I know that it is twice as much; too much. We have got to do something about reducing the money that goes into board level in Ontario education. We absolutely must stop pouring the money in that direction.
I can't even remember if this government is responsible for the College of Teachers, but I'll tell you, as a teacher, and living the experiences that I've lived as a phys ed teacher, as a guidance counsellor, as a history teacher, as a biology teacher and even English at one point in time, you have to work with an awful lot of people.
Interruption.
Mr Bonisteel: I'm not sure who is screaming at me back there right now, but I have apparently gone on record as saying that I'm not very pleased with the teaching profession in Ontario, and that is a huge mistake. Teachers are absolutely phenomenal. I said to a media person at one point that I think there are some bad ones, though; not very many, but there are some bad ones. It was no big deal because there are bad lawyers, there are bad doctors, there are bad engineers, but I don't care about those. I can choose a different doctor and I can choose a different engineer, if I needed one, but I sure as hell can't choose a different teacher. A bad teacher is a perpetuating, destructive force in our society. We can't afford them. So hurray for the College of Teachers, I said. Whoever brought it in, good for you.
But then you know what happened: This so-called organization, which seems to use the word "democracy" this month because it's a cute one for them, decided that they would throw out a slate of candidates, run a campaign for them in the most undemocratic fashion, and proceeded to elect all 17 elected positions in -- I hesitate to use the word that I'm thinking of using, so I won't, but it certainly isn't a democratic process.
I have a very good friend who is now an appointed member of the College of Teachers. This person is one of the governors of the College of Teachers and I have it now at first hand that the College of Teachers is not a professional organization representing teachers in this province. It has thrown away its mandate to do that, and until things get changed on a legislative basis, it is not going to be a factor in improving education in Ontario, and that is most unfortunate. Anyway, I appreciate this government trying to put in the College of Teachers. That's another positive step that you are responsible for.
I'm sorry, how much time do I have?
The Chair: Fifteen minutes.
Mr Wildman: Oh, this is one of the half-hour presentations.
Mr Wettlaufer: Just like you, Bud.
Mr Bonisteel: There seems to be some dissension about that.
Mr Wildman: No, no, go ahead. I'm sorry, we didn't realize --
The Chair: Mr Bonisteel, it's just been a long day. There's no dissension. You have 15 minutes left of your presentation.
Mr Bonisteel: I was just talking at the back with some people who I don't think agree with me very much, but we all agreed on something, and that is that this is an incredibly long day for you people. However, I don't expect to be taking the rest of my 15 minutes.
Interjection.
Mr Bonisteel: Okay, however long.
The length of the school year: Many parents and teachers have found Ontario's short school year rather embarrassing when it is compared to situations in other provinces and other countries.
Interjections.
Mr Bonisteel: I'm a teacher. I never speak in my classes when some kids are speaking.
It almost seems like we're saying, "Ontario kids do worse than most on a national and international test, so why don't we just shorten the school year and give them less time with their teachers?" Lengthening the school year slightly at all grade levels will bring us more into line with other systems so we don't have to suffer that embarrassment any more, and hopefully, it might help students learn a little bit more.
This prep time issue, I gather, is a huge one. As a high school teacher, I am allowed 165 hits each year -- a hit is a kid, so I get 165 of those -- and absolutely no more than that. The collective bargaining agreement says not more than 165. If we get 166, we have to change some people around. Bill 160 means that I might move up to 190 hits or so. I really like hits. However, I have to say that I don't think personally, as a teacher, I am going to be a better teacher because of 190 hits, and I don't think those 190 students are going to be better served from an educational standpoint. So I expect that over time also, my effectiveness as a child-centred educator is probably going to be diminished. I'm a little concerned about that aspect of Bill 160.
I'm not suggesting at this point that the government back down on anything. I have a few reservations in an area or two of Bill 160 and I've suggested that maybe we could all back away from it a bit, reconsider some, get some people to sit down at a table and really look at what this might do. If it's so incredibly controversial, why don't we make a change here? We can make some other changes to deal with it later, but for now, the prep time thing is not going to make for better education, not the way it reads in Bill 160.
Non-certified teachers: There are an interesting couple of points here and real ironies, I think, as you listen to the howls of discontent from the critics of this part of the bill. I want to point out that in Ontario we offer, I think, as many as four co-op education credits per graduating student if they choose to exercise that option. I think it's a great part of getting 30 credits to graduate from high school. Technically these credits are "taught," or maybe just monitored, by workplace officials who have never been near a teachers' college. I know that these onsite co-op teachers are a most valuable part of the education process and it seems to me there probably are many, many others that we could take advantage of if we had a chance to.
Another irony here is this one year at teachers' college. I'm going to start by saying I loved my year at teachers' college. I had a great time, I really did. I think I learned a lot and I got great marks. It was an extremely valuable year for me, but I think the onus was on me to make it valuable. However, if you talk to many, many teachers in this province in casual conversation, they will tell you that year was essentially a waste of time. It seems somehow, some way, to be a cool thing to say, "We partied; we messed around; I waited for some significant contribution to my educational experience," and they will tell you, by and large, that never really developed.
At this moment, with Bill 160 and the controversy of non-certified teachers, how is it that suddenly only that one year is the big divider? I'm not suggesting that I want non-certified teachers in all areas. I don't want a law to say that we will have non-certified teachers in these disciplines in all situations. Don't forget, I'm a phys ed teacher, and I have been a guidance counsellor -- gone, if that were to happen. I don't suggest the bill is going to allow for that, but there is an incredible wealth of talent in our society, an unbelievable amount of knowledge. In combination with that knowledge, I think it is the responsibility of the school, when it's necessary and when it's possible, to locate some of that so-called non-certified talent and employ it. It would be wonderful if we could, but I can't see any government or any individual school using this part of the bill to undermine the integrity of a certified teacher. I can't see it happening.
Class size: In spite of some unusual research to the contrary -- I wrote that part. It's funny, when you read this stuff you see there are people who are finding out that it doesn't matter how big classes are; it matters more about the enthusiasm of the instruction; it matters more about the commonality of the people in the class, and learning will happen. But there is no question, and don't anybody fall for the notion that smaller class size does not bring about better education. It just does. We need smaller classes.
From my perspective, watching collective bargaining happen over the years, boards of education and teacher unions have abused their opportunity to control class size. They've abused it. It's time for somebody to take control of the notion and put it in the right place. This government has to do that. I don't think any government with a conscience is going to increase class size. The very suggestion is not warranted.
School councils are more than just necessary. I have purposely left out the word "advisory." I think we have to advance, we have to evolve to the point where school councils have some bite. We need them to have teeth. I'm hoping that section of Bill 160 will give these people -- these are parents, these are teachers and administrators, these could be business people, but certainly they will all be people who have a direct ownership into their own personal site. They will make responsible decisions for their school and they need to have their decisions mean more.
I like this idea of uniform education property tax rates and the education funding formula. This is probably the key in Bill 160. We need to have a pricetag on each student's head. We need this. It has been done in an unfair manner across this province for too long. Everyone needs to know how much it costs to educate each one of our students, and when this number is discovered, we can then move along to the next step.
I like that idea of moving along to the next step. I'm calling Bill 160 a gateway to more change. Bill 160 is an opportunity to build and I'm certainly hoping that whoever finds themselves in a position to build on Bill 160 can do it.
For reasons that I've already stated, I believe it is mandatory that this government take control of education. This really, really evil situation that we have right now simply underscores the fact that change is desperately needed. We cannot have this ever again, not ever again. As a parent, a teacher and a taxpayer, I am going to make sure it never happens again. I am going to have join with me hundreds -- no, thousands -- of fellow teachers, fellow parents and fellow taxpayers and we are going to make sure this never happens again.
I have one other thing to say to the government officials, and that is, I've said already that there are so many people in Ontario who are almost demanding that you stay the course here. You've been good at this so far. It is so important that you stay the course. But when you stay the course and when this thing is over and you have the control that is necessary for any government to have, then --
Interruption.
Mr Bonisteel: My goodness, can you believe that? Yeah, I can believe it. After the last three days, I can believe it.
This government is going to have to see what it can do to pass this control downwards. You must bypass the unions with this control, you've got to bypass the boards of education with this control, and you have to put it into the hands of the teachers and the parents at each individual site. You have to make sure they have control over how their kids get education, and not only that, but where their kids get educated.
I'm also very much in favour of far more education dollars going to those schools as well. We want to see the money in the schools, not inside the walls of a board of education. I think if that happens, we can probably hire a lot more teachers and buy a lot fewer cube vans.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Basically our time has elapsed for this evening. I know there are many questions that members would like to have asked but there is not time.
I thank the committee very much and the members of the audience for their cooperation today. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1800.