MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION / FÉDÉRATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO
ONTARIO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO SEPARATE SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Monday 15 April 1996
Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1995, Bill 30, Mr Snobelen / Loi de
1995 sur l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation, projet de loi 30, M. Snobelen
Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995, Bill 31, Mr Snobelen / Loi de 1995
sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario, projet de loi 31, M. Snobelen
Ministry of Education and Training
Toni Skarica, parliamentary assistant
Information and Privacy Commissioner
Tom Wright
Ontario Teachers' Federation / Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario
Ronald Robert, president
Pierre Lalonde, acting secretary-treasurer
Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens /
Franco-Ontarian Teachers' Association
Roger Régimbal, président
Guy Matte, directeur-général
Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association
Hank Hultink, executive director
Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association
Patrick Meany, president
Patrick Slack, executive director
Monsignor Dennis Murphy, director, Catholic education
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John
(Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)
*Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
*Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
Johns, Helen (Huron PC)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)
*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Gravelle
Froese, Tom (St Catharines-Brock PC) for Mr Preston
Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West PC) for Mrs Johns
Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North PC) for Mr Jordan
Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1533 in room 151.
EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'OFFICE DE LA QUALITÉ ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 30, An Act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office and to amend the Education Act with respect to the Assessment of Academic Achievement / Projet de loi 30, Loi créant l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation et modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'évaluation du rendement scolaire.
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO
Consideration of Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi créant l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.
The Vice-Chair (Mr John Gerretsen): I'd like to welcome everyone here. The first thing we have to do is adopt the report of the subcommittee. I believe a copy has been distributed to everyone. Could I have a motion to adopt the recommendations?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Any comments? All in favour? Carried.
Secondly, with respect to item 2 of the subcommittee report, it was decided to allow each witness a half-hour, and that includes questions and answers and comments. We have to decide how that time is to be allocated. Is it agreed between the parties that the time shall be allocated equally between all three parties? Agreed.
Now we can have our first witness, Mr Tom Wright, the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Mr Wright, welcome to our meeting.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I was going to have an opening statement, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr Skarica: I am pleased to initiate discussion on Bills 31 and 30 this afternoon. These pieces of legislation will create two important initiatives.
First, the Ontario College of Teachers Act will establish a professional body through which teachers of this province will regulate their own profession. Second, we will establish a new office operating at arm's length from government, the Education Quality and Accountability Office, hereafter referred to as EQAO. This office, I am proud to say, is part of this government's commitment to a comprehensive approach to testing, accountability and improvement.
These initiatives are among many that demonstrate our government's commitment to developing an education system that is based on excellence in achievement for Ontario students, and accountability to and affordability for all the taxpayers of Ontario.
We have, as you are aware, already announced our intention to reform the secondary school system in order to make it more relevant to the needs of students and the businesses that hire them.
To increase parent involvement in our schools, we are moving forward with the establishment of school councils.
We have taken action to deliver on our pledge to have an affordable education system, one that provides real value for the taxpayers of Ontario, by introducing a savings strategy that provides school boards with more flexibility and helps them to realize savings in the sector.
We are also committed to setting high standards for student achievement across the elementary and secondary system, as well as a demanding, province-wide core curriculum.
Our goal is to achieve a responsive and effective system in which taxpayers can see value for their investment and children can receive excellence in their education.
Through the standing committee I, as the parliamentary assistant to the minister, look forward to hearing the views of those concerned about Ontario's education system. We are here to listen, because our priority is to make sure that we are developing the best possible legislation. This is in the government's interest, the public's interest, and anyone interested in education.
Bill 31 represents a significant step forward for the profession of teaching in Ontario and for our system of education. Many eminently qualified people have come to the same conclusion: A self-regulating College of Teachers is essential to improving the quality of education in Ontario. This is an idea whose time has finally come.
By giving teachers the power to regulate their own profession, we are putting the responsibility for excellent teaching in the hands of those who are best qualified to know what a teacher should and must be today and in the future.
In creating the Ontario College of Teachers, we are fulfilling two important objectives of this government. We are fulfilling our promise to maintain and improve the quality of education in Ontario and we are fulfilling our promise to make our educational system more accountable to the public for how well our schools prepare young people for their future endeavours.
The Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates will, of course, continue to provide collective bargaining and other protective and professional development services for their members.
The college will strengthen teaching, increase public confidence in education and ensure public accountability by clearly separating the responsibilities of teachers' unions and the self-regulating body, and the responsibility of that body to the public. After all, it will be teachers who, like other Ontario professionals, will set the standards by which they are trained and by which they practise their profession throughout their careers.
In developing this legislation, we have learned from the same basic public policy that characterizes more than 30 other self-regulating professional bodies in Ontario.
With Bill 31, we are acting upon an idea that has been recommended and debated in Ontario now for about 30 years. Starting with the Hall-Dennis commission in 1967 and culminating with the Royal Commission on Learning last year, many task forces on education have recommended the establishment of a College of Teachers.
The royal commission's recommendation in its report For the Love of Learning was based on consultations with hundreds of individual teachers, parents, students and taxpayers from all over the province. Teachers told the commission that a more coherent approach to teacher education is needed, along with meaningful, professional learning opportunities for both new and experienced teachers.
1540
I would like to express appreciation to the former government -- I don't see any of them here -- which established the College of Teachers implementation committee and to members in all parties for their suggestions. I look forward to continuing to work with everyone and so does the ministry, so that the best possible legislation comes out of this process.
This new initiative will have important benefits for Ontario's teachers, parents, students and taxpayers.
The college will give teachers more say in defining and controlling the quality of professional conduct and practice. The public and students will gain greater confidence in the education system because they will know what standards of performance to expect from their teachers, and how teachers pursue their own professional development. As part of their professional growth, teachers will be required to develop skills and knowledge throughout their careers. The College of Teachers will establish a process for teachers' ongoing education, recognizing that many of Ontario's teachers are already engaged in these activities.
The college will have a governing council of 31 members, more than half of whom must be qualified teachers. The public will also be represented on the council, ensuring the college serves the interests of the broader community as well as the professional interests of teachers.
What will this governing council of teachers do?
Through the college, teachers will develop standards of what teachers should know and be able to do in a classroom at each stage of their careers. The standards of practice the governing council establishes will apply to all educators who are certified to teach in Ontario. This means all educators, whether working in the classroom or in school administration, will have high standards of professional training and requirements for professional development relevant to their experience and particular assignment.
The college will be responsible for the certification of teachers. It will be responsible for developing a process of ongoing education for their profession. The college will investigate complaints concerning the professional conduct of college members. The college will be responsible for the accreditation of pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, ensuring they meet professional needs. Through the college, teachers will be responsible for accrediting the groups that deliver professional development programs.
While designed for teachers, the college will also have important implications for and accountability to the public.
As is the case with other self-regulating professional bodies, the College of Teachers will have significant public representation on its governing council and committees. The governing council will report annually to the minister and to the Legislature on its activities. Meetings of the council and its disciplinary committees will be open to the public.
Through this legislation, we will be able to take a positive step forward towards excellence in teaching as well as excellence in education.
As I've said from the outset, we are proud to introduce two pieces of legislation for discussion at the standing committee today. The other is Bill 30 which will establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office. Our goal is to achieve a responsive and effective education system in which taxpayers can see value for their investment and Ontario's young people can achieve excellence in their education.
An independent, comprehensive assessment program is a key element in this plan. The decision to establish an assessment and accountability authority, independent of the Ministry of Education and Training, also follows a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Learning. It responds to public concerns regarding objectivity in the development of tests and in the reporting of test results.
The mandate of the EQAO will be to evaluate the quality of elementary and secondary education in Ontario and provide strategies for improvement. A significant part of this mandate will involve the province-wide assessment of students' academic achievement and the reporting of the results to the minister and the general public.
The assessment program meets the Common Sense Revolution's commitment to assess the achievement of Ontario students on a regular basis.
The program will be developed in conjunction with and will be based on a demanding provincial curriculum setting high standards of achievement. It will be tied to classroom work, will model good teaching practice and will lead to educational improvements. As such, the program is the key component of the government's strategy for accountability and excellence in education.
The office plans to commence province-wide testing in grade 3 in reading, writing and mathematics during the 1996-97 school year. This testing will be conducted annually thereafter. Sample testing in reading, writing and mathematics in grades 6 and 9 will also be conducted, starting with a grade 6 math test in 1996-97. All-student testing in grade 11 is planned for the 1999-2000 school year, following the establishment of new secondary school graduation requirements.
Beyond assessing student achievement, the EQAO will provide a wide range of information on the quality of education in Ontario. This will include system quality indicators and reviews of selected education quality issues of importance to Ontarians.
The benefits to the province will be considerable. For students, parents and teachers, the test result information will help to identify individual strengths and weaknesses, and support appropriate intervention measures, where needed. Test results will also provide important feedback to teachers on the effectiveness of their classroom programs and teaching practices.
Teachers recently had an opportunity to participate in shaping the Ontario assessment program through a series of consultations held across the province. We appreciate their thoughtful input, and I can assure teachers that the EQAO is listening.
For the taxpayers who fund the system and for those who share responsibility for the quality of classroom education, the evaluations will strengthen accountability and identify the system's strong points. Ontario will have a cost-effective testing program that responds to public calls for closer scrutiny and greater accountability in education. Through testing and reporting, we will provide our taxpayers with a clear, objective picture of how our education system and students are performing.
Like Bill 31, Bill 30 is a vital component of the government's long-term investment in Ontario's education system. I'd like to say, in advance, how much I look forward to listening to taxpayers, parents, educators and my colleagues in the weeks ahead to ensure the best possible legislation is passed as soon as possible.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Skarica. That came as a bit of a surprise to me. I would have thought that would have been something that would have been discussed at the subcommittee meeting, that there were going to be opening statements by the different parties, because we have the agenda set for the first witness to be heard by 3:30, so we are going to be backed up now by -- yes, Mr Wildman.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In the second reading debate, as you know, I was summarily cut off at 6 o'clock when I was only halfway through. I'd be glad to give the other 40 minutes of my presentation here.
The Vice-Chair: Well, maybe you can do that after 6 o'clock.
Mr Wildman: I'd rather listen to people who are here for delegations.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any comments before --
Mr Patten: Firstly, I hope Toni appreciates the courtesy we afforded because he wasn't on the agenda. Secondly, rather than just respond to the comments which are essentially a reiteration of the introduction of the bills in the House, I would rather the full time allocated to our witnesses is reinforced and that it does not take away from any of that.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, Mr Wildman, any comments?
Mr Wildman: Oh, no, I just made mine. I'm here to listen, not to --
The Vice-Chair: Unless I hear something to the contrary, I think we should give each delegation that's listed at least a half an hour; so we may go 20 minutes longer than originally scheduled.
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
The Vice-Chair: Once again, welcome, Mr Wright. You have 30 minutes to make a presentation and you may want to leave some time at the end for questions and answers from the members of the committee, which is all part of the 30-minute package. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Tom Wright: I can assure you there will be plenty of time for questions; my remarks this afternoon are brief. I'm not sure why I seem to have the honour of being the first person to come before you. But with me this afternoon is Ann Cavoukian. Ann is the assistant commissioner with responsibilities for privacy matters. David Good is to my right. David is a lawyer in my office. They're here this afternoon to -- again if questions go beyond my ability to respond, they're here and I'm sure can assist members of the committee as we go through the comments I have.
Specifically, I will be sharing with members the comments we have relating to the personal information issues which arise from Bills 30 and 31. I'd also like to inform the committee that we have met with staff from the Ministry of Education and Training concerning these issues, and I intend to bring the committee up to date on the discussions we've had with the ministry.
The meeting took place last Thursday, and I can tell the committee that, speaking on behalf of my office, we now have a greater and better understanding of the operational issues faced by the ministry, which they hope to address in these bills.
1550
I also want to indicate that I appreciate the opportunity of that meeting. It will allow me to comment in a more informed and, I think, more effective way this afternoon with respect to some of the issues we are discussing.
Ministry staff at that meeting made it clear that they understand the privacy concerns we've raised, and I am pleased to say that, in my view, have demonstrated a real sensitivity, both for the privacy issues and the role of my office, in attempting to resolve them.
I turn first to Bill 30. If the EQAO, if I may use that short form, were to be designated as a scheduled agency covered by the access and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it would go a considerable way to alleviating our general concerns about the creation of an agency which has broad powers to collect personal information, both directly and indirectly.
Mr Wildman: I'm sorry. Could you speak --
Mr Wright: I'm sorry. As a scheduled agency.
Mr Wildman: Okay.
Mr Wright: I will actually take you to the next point, which is that, based on the discussions we had last Thursday, it is my understanding that the ministry intends to do this. I understand they will be consulting with the freedom of information and privacy office in Management Board which has responsibility for these matters and to discuss this a little more fully. That's my understanding of where that stands.
Bill 30 also grants broad powers to collect "theoretically" -- and I put quotation marks specifically around that word -- unlimited types and amounts of personal information. There is a limit; that limit is for the purposes of carrying out the objects of the office. I would also note that the objects themselves -- I think there are seven in number -- are themselves quite broad.
Which leads me to the remark that there is a danger in not being as specific as possible in identifying the purposes for which personal information can be collected and the type of information to be collected in those circumstances, since it appears that most of the information collected may, by its nature, come from and relate to students, this is of particular concern.
As a way to address this, we encourage the introduction of an anonymity clause in the bill, which could provide direction for protecting the privacy of individuals -- and I would emphasize the following words -- wherever possible.
My recommendation would be that, except for limited specific exceptions, personal information be collected and disclosed in an anonymous fashion, thus protecting the privacy of individuals while still gathering the information necessary for the office to carry out the assessments and analysis its object is intended to permit it to do.
Again, this was discussed at the meeting we had and since that meeting we've provided the ministry with a sample anonymity clause for their consideration. We have not heard back from the ministry at this point and I think time alone would not indicate that would be much of a surprise.
The other thing I'd like to comment on before I move to Bill 31, and it is a general comment from a privacy perspective, is that I think this bill benefits from tighter language in the personal information area and less use of regulation-making power when it comes to the purposes for personal information. I think the drafters thought very carefully about the personal information issues when putting together the various provisions that talk about the collection and disclosure of personal information and, in my opinion, they are to be complimented.
Turning to Bill 31, the concerns we have expressed related to Bill 30, the broad powers to collect personal information and the need for an anonymity clause, also apply to Bill 31. I would also note that the College of Teachers will not be covered by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
I don't feel able to fully explain why that is. We did discuss this at our meeting and, to my mind, it does make sense as to why it wouldn't be designated as an agency, but I would defer to others around the specifics of why that is. All I would indicate to the committee is, I'm satisfied that the reasons we were offered do make sense.
The types of personal information that the minister may collect from and disclose to the proposed College of Teachers are very broad. The college may be required to examine a number of potentially delicate situations and broad powers are granted to investigators.
I would suggest that there be some guidance regarding the type of personal information that can be collected or disclosed and the requirement to do so in an anonymous fashion, wherever possible, and this would provide greater privacy protection to the individuals involved. Once again, the ministry is aware of that and is considering how they might be able to respond to that particular direction.
We've also asked that consideration be given to the means of maintaining the current privacy rights of individuals, such as access to their own personal information, once functions currently provided by the ministry are turned over to the college. This matter was discussed with ministry officials at the meeting, and it appears there is a mechanism for doing this kind of thing. What I'm talking about is right now under the freedom of information legislation, you have a right of access to your own personal information.
The question that arises under Bill 31 with the college is where would a similar right exist, since the act doesn't apply? How would it be created? My understanding is that this can be done either through a form of regulation or possibly through a bylaw that would be created by the college, thus permitting individuals who would have a file with the college to have access to their own personal information, which is a very fundamental privacy right which is enjoyed by people who have files with other government agencies.
The last point relates to the contents of the proposed public register. I'm pleased to note that processes have been developed which are privacy-sensitive, but it's still my view that there is the potential that more personal information than necessary could be included in the register, which is available to the public. I think it's a very difficult issue in terms of the balance between the public's right to know, what the public should know and the privacy of an individual teacher whose name and other details may appear on that register.
So what we've suggested, and this came after we'd had the meeting with the ministry, was that we would offer the assistance of my office to design some kind of parameters, privacy-sensitive parameters, I would call them, before the register is actually made operational. There was an experience earlier on with one of the regulated professions -- I believe it had to do with nurses -- and our office received a large number of letters raising concerns that one of the things a member of the public was entitled to obtain about nurses was their work location. A lot of nurses, I think we all can recognize, are female. There was a concern around safety if in fact their work location was available to literally any member of the public. When you have a public register, there is no obligation to go in and say, "I want to find out this information because I want to know more about this teacher." The fact is, when it's public, anyone can go and look at it for any purpose. I'm certainly not suggesting this is something the college is contemplating; in fact, quite the contrary. I just raise it as a sample or an example of the kinds of concerns when you start making information available on a public register.
To keep your committee moving along this afternoon, Mr Chair, I'm going to conclude my comments at that point. I'm more than happy to try to answer any questions members may have.
Mr Patten: Welcome, Mr Wright, and your staff. I have a couple of questions and then my colleagues to my left may have a few questions as well.
I'm pleased that indeed the meetings have taken place. There was one thing you said at the end, and that was that in terms of Bill 31, the college would not fall under the act as such. However, in spite of that, you have made some suggestions that you believe the ministry is responding to in terms of the concerns that have been raised. I would say to you that we have received, as I'm sure all members have, and certainly the critics and the government, some grave concerns about the nature of the information, about the issue of confidentiality, the concern around the extent.
In terms of our caucus, our belief was that there were similar concerns raised as a result of Bill 26: Was this truly necessary, all of the gathering of this information? Some of it being personal and sensitive we felt could certainly contravene the spirit of the act, if not the act itself, even though it may not technically fall under the act.
The question I would have, though, first on Bill 30, with your discussions related to anonymously collected information where the information is deemed personally sensitive, in your opinion, would that satisfy or be equated to the confidentiality provision that would be actually in Bill 31?
1600
Mr Wright: Actually, there are two ways of looking at that. Where I would begin in terms of responding would be that you're in the act under Bill 30, and I think that in itself changes the dynamics of the situation. You've got the privacy rules the legislation contains, which I think put a very real control around the collection and disclosure of information.
To pick up on your comment about Bill 26, I was quite deliberate in the remark I made around the drafting, because I to think it makes a very real difference when you can actually see that personal information is being collected and it's tied to objects which appear in the statute itself. I think that makes a difference, as opposed to the possibility that at some later date objects or personal information or something would be defined in a regulation that you may or may not see, depending on timing. The whole structure of the bill and the approach just make a very real difference as far as the protection that is there for personal information is concerned.
Just one final comment: On the anonymity, the reason why we're stressing anonymity in these comments is that it's all well and good to say you can collect personal information and you have a confidentiality provision and it has to be protected, but once you've captured something in identifiable form, there is the possibility for inadvertent disclosure. Who knows what might happen to that information? Our thinking is that if you don't collect it in identifiable form in the first place, then you eliminate a lot of the potential for the risk of inadvertent disclosure. We see this as a compromise that will allow everyone to achieve what they want and also to protect privacy.
Mr Patten: This was your offer to design the registry itself in terms of the information that would be relevant to decision-making or for access, right?
Mr Wright: I'm sorry?
Mr Patten: This is in relation to the registry? No, I'm sorry, on Bill 31, your offer to help design the nature of the registry in terms of the information that would be collected or may be required to make a decision, which the public would have access to.
Mr Wright: Right.
Mr Patten: Your comment was that the ministry agreed with that offer that you had made?
Mr Wright: No, my comment was that this was something that, as we were preparing for coming to the committee, came up after we met with them.
Mr Patten: So this is a suggestion of yours?
Mr Wright: It is and we would certainly want to pursue that with the ministry and would expect that we'll have further meetings as well when that would be discussed.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): As Bill 31 now stands, does this give the investigators the right to, as you understand it, enter the residence of a teacher they may be investigating based on a procedure of getting a warrant of some type? Does this bill now give that power to an investigator to do so?
Mr Wright: I looked at that section and that would be my reading of it. As I understand it, I would indicate to you that hasn't been a major area of focus, but as we read the sections, there's a two-part process. If it's a place of employment, there's one procedure. In accordance with the standard search practices that go on, if you're going to move in a way which affects the person's home, then there has to be some involvement of the judiciary before that can happen.
Mr Agostino: The concern I would have, just elaborating for a second here, is that clearly what you're doing is giving investigators at this point generally what only police officers across the province would have after going through a certain procedure. There have been concerns expressed. I have a copy of a letter sent to our education critic, and other members have received it as well, about whether this process can be used for witchhunts. Is there a danger, in the way the legislation is now in regard to the protection of privacy, that issues of a personal nature can be disclosed, and also the gathering of information? It talks about things like hearsay information, sexual orientation, psychiatric/psychological history, those kinds of facts. There's a real concern that it can be used as a political agenda and a witchhunt to go after a teacher based on any of those factors rather than the merits of the thing. Are you concerned, with the way the legislation is stated now and the sweeping powers it does give the investigator, that it becomes a potential danger for teachers across Ontario?
Mr Wright: Any time you offer or provide someone search powers, you're setting up the potential for things going the way they shouldn't. I don't think there's any way you can avoid that. It is a very significant power. Where I think, once again, the legislation makes its distinction relates to certainly moving into the home, where there is the involvement of the judiciary. There would have to be affidavit material provided to a justice of the peace and they would then sanction a search for particular kinds of documents. I think that kind of control is in place. My understanding, and I would have to defer to others on this, would be that the rest of the practices do follow the normal kinds of search powers that would exist not only here but in other types of legislation where regulation has been introduced.
Mr Wildman: Quickly, I must say that during our debate at second reading of Bill 30 I raised the issue of why there would be this requirement for personal information and what kinds of purposes it might be put to for Bill 30. I note that you've said that you've suggested an anonymity clause to the ministry staff. Would you be prepared to table to the committee a sample clause that you've provided them so that we are aware of the wording you're proposing?
Mr Wright: Sure. I'd be glad to do that.
Mr Wildman: That's fine. That's good. Then I won't pursue that.
You also indicated on Bill 31 that the college is not covered by the freedom of information and privacy act and that you had discussions with the ministry staff as to why that was, what the reasons were. You said you were satisfied with the reasons given. Can you paraphrase or summarize what those reasons were?
Mr Wright: Sure. I'll do my best. My understanding is that it has to do with the nature of the way it's structured, how it's set up, how members are appointed, this kind of thing. I'm looking for the right word here. It's distanced from the normal scheduled agencies that you would see, the agency, board and commission type of operations, and it's just that much more removed from the general ambit of government organizations that, following the kinds of rules that are in place for deciding what agencies should be covered by FOI and privacy legislation, this does not fall within that. Again, I'd be happy to go back and discuss with the ministry people more detail and provide it to you. Or perhaps, if they're somewhere on your agenda, they could do it as well. Either way, I'm more than happy to provide the information.
Mr Wildman: I think that would be helpful, if you could.
Also, my concern is that since they're suggesting that questions around right of access, public access to personal information could be dealt with by regulation or bylaw, the problem with a regulation or a bylaw is that it can be more easily changed than if it's subject to your act, since that would require an amendment in the Legislature if it were to be changed.
Also, just in terms of the public register, you indicated that you had some concern about the potential for more personal information being made available to the public than necessary. There has been concern raised -- this was raised by one of my colleagues here -- that personal information, such as sexual orientation, might be collected and might be a problem obviously for the individual and his or her family if it became public. You're offering now to help design some parameters for this. Would the parameters that you're dealing with deal with that particular concern that has been raised by some members of the teaching profession with regard to that minority of people for whom that might be a serious problem?
1610
Mr Wright: I think it flows back to the use of the word "necessary" and balancing the public right to know with privacy concerns. I think you're quite correct when you say that the balance will shift, depending on the kind of information we're talking about. An example is sexual orientation. I would suggest areas around health information. As soon as you move into that, then the balance would weigh in favour of the protection of individual privacy as opposed to the public right to know. It's a very difficult issue to address when you're trying to define something like balance, and where does the balance lie. But one of the options we would offer could well be to identify certain kinds of information that, prima facie, presumptively, should never appear on a public register. That is an approach we, in fairness, have not thought through, just exactly what we'll be proposing here, but I think there are various options for doing it.
Mr Wildman: If I could just ask the parliamentary assistant if the ministry would be interested in having those kinds of -- I don't think he's listening to me --
Mr Skarica: Yes, I am.
Mr Wildman: -- discussions with Mr Wright and his staff to develop a list of the kinds of information that should not appear as part of the personal information that might at some point be made available, for whatever reason, to the public?
Mr Wright: I made the offer and I'm certainly in the ministry's hands as far as how they choose to respond.
The Vice-Chair: The six minutes is up. Thank you.
Mr Wildman: I'm just asking if you'd be interested, that's all.
Mr Skarica: I'll just follow up on that in my questioning.
Mr Wright, thank you very much for coming today. I'd like to refer you to your letter that you wrote to the ministry on March 26, 1996. You had outlined a number of concerns you had with the legislation as proposed at that time. Is that correct?
Mr Wright: That's correct, yes.
Mr Skarica: Since then you've had some meetings with the ministry, I understand? I think April 11 was the last meeting.
Mr Wright: We have.
Mr Skarica: In Bill 30, the major concern you had was with clause 27(1)(d)?
Mr Wright: It was one of the areas we identified. I wouldn't describe it as a major concern. In fact, I'm glad you've raised it because it pointed out the value of the meeting. We received a clarification of what clause 27(1)(d) was about and we're satisfied that the concerns that we had didn't exist.
Mr Skarica: All right. With reference to amending that particular section, are you content with the way it's worded or do you have any suggested amendments to address the concerns you had in this letter?
Mr Wright: There was a suggestion that came up at the meeting last Thursday, and it had to do with tying in the objects of the office somewhere within the wording of the particular section itself. It wasn't a major change. This was, as I recall, going to be discussed with legislative counsel to see if it was a workable solution. It wasn't a major concern, but it was one that we felt might be included as a matter of consistency with certain other collection and disclosure sections.
Mr Skarica: Has the ministry indicated to you that it will give you a copy of the proposed clarification, if any, or a proposed amendment, if any, before we proceed?
Mr Wright: We hadn't got to that point in our discussion. I guess I've assumed that there will be further back-and-forth. I see no reason why not. We had an excellent meeting.
Mr Skarica: I can tell you there will be.
Mr Wright: That's good. I'm pleased to hear that.
Mr Skarica: Moving to Bill 31, the College of Teachers, again referring to that same letter dated March 26, 1996, if I could go to page 3 of that letter, you seem to have what I --
The Vice-Chair: Is that a letter that has been filed with the committee?
Mr Skarica: It certainly can be.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. It's just that we have some reference points then.
Mr Wright: I'm sorry, I wasn't sure whether members of the committee had seen the letter or not.
Mr Skarica: I thought they had too, but I've been mistaken about that.
Mr Wright: I hadn't circulated it.
Mr Skarica: If I can go to page 3 of that letter -- again, you can correct me if I am wrong -- your two main concerns seem to be with the anonymity clause?
Mr Wright: Yes.
Mr Skarica: After your discussion with the ministry, were you satisfied with any proposed changes or do you have any amendments you would suggest in that area?
Mr Wright: Specifically related to anonymity?
Mr Skarica: Yes.
Mr Wright: I don't believe our discussions have proceeded to the point of how the ministry has responded to it. It was a suggestion tabled. The ministry agreed to go away and think about it. At this point, we've not had any more discussion. We provided a sample clause, and I believe that's where it stands.
Interjection: No resolution.
Mr Wright: That's been confirmed for me. There's been no resolution of that.
Mr Skarica: Moving finally to the other concern you had about the right of teachers to have access to their own personal information, what's the status of your discussions with the ministry in that regard?
Mr Wright: It was an interesting discussion when we raised it because the person -- I'm not sure whether you call them acting registrar or the person who will be looking after the college, but the response was: "Well, of course. We really didn't think of that. It won't be a problem. It'll be done in a bylaw or something of that way." There was certainly no issue around any objection or opposition to the notion that someone would have access to information about themselves in a file maintained by the college. That's by way of my concern, and I felt that had been addressed.
Mr Skarica: It's my understanding the ministry intends to meet with you again. Would you be prepared to provide the ministry and the committee with copies of amendments you're proposing?
Mr Wright: Absolutely. Anything that we are involved with we'd be happy to share.
The Vice-Chair: The same thing applies to the earlier matter that was raised with Mr Wildman. If you could forward it to the clerk of the committee, Lynn Mellor, we'll make sure it gets distributed.
Mr Wright: I'd be happy to do that.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION / FÉDÉRATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO
The Vice-Chair: Next we have the Ontario Teachers' Federation: Ronald Robert, president, and Pierre Lalonde, acting secretary-treasurer. Welcome to our meeting, gentlemen. You have 30 minutes for your presentation. That includes any questions and answers, so you may want to leave some time at the end of your presentation to allow for that to happen. If you'd like to introduce yourselves for Hansard's purposes, you can then proceed.
M. Ronald Robert : Vous allez peut-être avoir besoin d'écouteurs à certains moments donnés dans cette présentation. Je ne sais pas si les gens sont équipés. Vraiment, je suis en train de vous préparer pour la prochaine présentation, qui sera toute en français.
Mon nom est Ronald Robert. Je suis le président de la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario. Avec moi aujourd'hui j'ai deux collègues : le secrétaire-trésorier par intérim de la FEO, Pierre Lalonde, et le président du comité de législation de la FEO, Guy Matte, qui est aussi directeur-général de l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens.
Ce mémoire que nous vous présentons aujourd'hui est de la part de la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario. Nous représentons 130 mille enseignants qui oeuvrent dans les écoles publiques et séparées de langue française et de langue anglaise. Notre mémoire a reçu l'appui des cinq filiales de la FEO.
Notre présentation aujourd'hui comprend deux volets. Premièrement, nous élaborerons nos préoccupations en ce qui concerne la présente législation, le projet de loi 31. Ensuite, nous préciserons des changements spécifiques que nous mettons de l'avant pour la considération du comité.
The Ontario Teachers' Federation and its members have not asked for a College of Teachers to be created and we do not believe that a new structure as proposed in Bill 31 is necessary.
Some of the functions proposed for the college are presently carried out by OTF, in particular in the area of discipline of teachers. Furthermore, OTF has sought since 1992 to have the regulations made under the Teaching Profession Act amended to allow for representation by the public on its relations and discipline committee to provide for a wider range of sanctions and more openness in terms of public disclosure. The OTF represents the teaching profession in this province, and we believe it can perform the duties and responsibilities that would be attributed to a college, for example, teacher certification, the establishment of a registry and the accreditation of teacher training programs.
1620
In September 1995 the federation requested the minister to consider granting to OTF the powers and functions of a College of Teachers, and we believed the minister was prepared to seriously consider this matter. We were deeply disappointed when Bill 31 was tabled for first reading on December 14, 1995, and those discussions had not taken place.
For teachers in Ontario the creation of the Ontario College of Teachers as outlined in this legislation merely establishes another bureaucracy that complicates their lives and does nothing to make teaching a self-governing profession. The proposed legislation is unnecessary since teachers are already accountable to their school principals, to their school boards and to the federation through the Teaching Profession Act. In addition, more than many other professionals, teachers are accountable on a daily basis to their students and their parents. There are also well-established evaluation processes in place with school boards. Finally, teachers believe in, and model, lifelong learning.
Having reviewed Bill 31, the federation has many concerns, but in particular in the following areas: the structure of the governing council; the investigative powers; the issue of ongoing professional development; the powers of the minister; the question of incapacity and incompetency; and the areas of natural justice and due process within the scope of this legislation.
The proposed legislation, which purports to make of the profession a self-regulating body, will have a significant impact on the lives of every single teacher in Ontario. OTF believes that its membership, working in all the publicly funded elementary and secondary schools of Ontario, will make up more than 90% of the members of the college. Therefore, you will understand that OTF is disturbed and concerned that the federation, its five affiliates and many individuals and groups of teachers have been given little or no time to present their views and concerns to this committee on such an important piece of legislation.
For those reasons, OTF honestly believes that it would be to the detriment of the Ontario education system to have a model of self-governance go forward without the enthusiastic endorsement of the teaching profession. We assure you that the model as proposed under Bill 31 does not have the endorsement of the teaching profession, and for that reason in particular, we urge you not to lightly dismiss OTF's concerns regarding this legislation.
We have expressed these in the following pages by proposing both amendments and comment. Once again, we urge each member of this committee to give these serious consideration at this hearing and, in particular, when the committee will undertake the clause-by-clause study of Bill 31.
I will now ask the acting secretary-treasurer, Pierre Lalonde, to pursue certain of the elements within the bill.
Mr Pierre Lalonde: Thank you very much, Mr President, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. Following the introduction made by President Robert, you will note that our document has 84 pages. Thank God, for you and for us, there are a number of pages where on occasion there are no proposals from OTF or no comments from OTF.
I'm sure the members of the committee understand that this particular piece of legislation means a lot to someone who is a teacher. I would suspect that members of the general public are probably not that interested in such a bill, but for us as teachers and the 130,000 of our members, this means a lot. As the president indicated, our legislation committee, knowing the concerns of our members out there in the field, spent many, many hours going over each clause and each word, if you wish, of this particular Bill 31.
Obviously on paper it is difficult for us to express all of the thinking that is behind each one of those amendments. The legislation committee, knowing full well -- and Ron referred to that in his presentation a few moments ago -- the fact that OTF believes it would be to the detriment of the Ontario education system to have a model such as the one proposed in Bill 31, a model of what is supposed to be self-governance, if that particular model were to go forward without the enthusiastic support of the teaching profession, I repeat, we honestly believe it will be to the detriment of the education system; not just the teachers, the whole system. It is with that in mind that the OTF legislation committee spent the many, many hours looking at each clause of this bill.
President Ron indicated in his introduction that OTF still believes this legislation is not necessary, but it certainly appears there is some determination that this or some kind of legislation creating a College of Teachers will go through, so in examining clause by clause, we sort of resigned ourselves to having some kind of legislation being passed in the House. We looked at each clause, and with a lot of effort we have tried to propose changes to this bill which would be such that it would get some kind, maybe not 100%, but some kind of endorsement from the people whom this bill will affect, the 130,000 teachers of Ontario and certain other members of the profession.
We would have hoped, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, to be able to go through this on a page-by-page basis with you and discuss and explain to you the rationale behind each of our amendments. We realize, and Ron made a reference to that in his introduction, that in a half-hour that will be impossible to do, when we consider that we probably spent anywhere between 15 and 20 hours studying the bill.
What I would attempt to do -- and I would hope that my colleague the chair of our legislation committee, who walked us and guided us through the bill, would feel free at any time by indicating to the Chairman that he may want to clarify or add to some of the comments I might be making -- we indicated in the introduction that we tried to highlight six large areas of concern.
I would like to make my first comments and direct the attention of the members of the committee to that area of the bill which deals with the representation of teachers as they are defined in the Teaching Profession Act, on the council and, I would suggest, also on two of the committees, the investigation committee and of course the discipline committee.
1630
The first reference to composition or representation on council is made on page 4, so under that particular clause there is a reference there to the composition of the council. You can see what is being proposed in the bill and the amendments we are making in the middle column. Particularly I'm referring to clauses 2(a) and (b).
On page 22, the bill talks about the representation on the investigation committee, and a few pages further, on page 26, there is a reference also to representation on the discipline committee.
It is our belief that for a College of Teachers whose intent is to make the teaching profession a self-regulatory body, to us it is quite clear that the members who are most affected by it should have a clear majority on the council in particular, and also on the investigation and the discipline committees, two committees which will affect the lives of our teachers.
I am not going to walk you through the content of our amendments, but I just want to bring to the attention of the members of the committee that as to membership on the council, investigation committee and discipline committee, having a majority of teachers is critical to us and to our membership if you are looking for some kind of endorsement of a college in Ontario.
Mr Wildman: Excuse me, can I just ask a very short question? Page 26, is that supposed to be 13 or 15, subsection 26(1)?
Mr Lalonde: You're talking of page 26?
Mr Wildman: Yes. Section 26 on page 26, sub 1, is that supposed to be 13 persons or 15?
Mr Lalonde: We're saying 13 here.
Mr Wildman: It says "of whom 4...and 11.
Mr Lalonde: Yes, we have an error there. That should say probably 15, yes. Our apologies. We were still discussing some of these amendments with legal counsel as late as yesterday.
With your permission, I would like to make a few comments on part VIII of the legislation, which in our document you will find beginning on page 43. On that particular part of the document, part VIII, "Registrar's Powers of Investigation," I think it would be fair to say that at first reading of this bill this is the part that probably turned off most of our people.
You will note that in the OTF proposal our amendment is quite succinct and simple, "Delete all of part VIII," and we felt quite strongly about that. Then I guess we probably took some kind of connecting flight to reality and said, "What are the chances of part VIII disappearing totally from the bill?" I think our conclusion was they are pretty slim. Therefore, we gave it some more thought and we are suggesting on page 43, you'll note in the last column, "Should it be determined that all of part VIII is not to be deleted, we would then propose the following amendments," and you will find those in the third column of pages 44 and 45. I think that about covers it. Also, a last bit which deals with section 36, which again is under part VIII, you will find in the middle column an amendment we are proposing, and I suppose we could have put that in the third column.
I don't want -- because I know we don't have the time, but we believe, as a first choice, that when we say, "Delete part VIII," that is our first choice. Coming back to what might be the reality, we would hope and seriously urge this committee to consider those amendments we are proposing under part VIII, if there is no wish on the part of the House to delete part VIII.
The third large area of concern dealt with that notion of what is referred to in the bill I think as "ongoing education" or what we as teachers refer to usually -- the terminology we use is "professional development." I'm using those as synonyms, if you wish. There are a number of references. I'm not going to name them all, but if you turn to page 51, the paragraphs are part of section 37, which is either the regulations or the bylaws; I forget. If you look at paragraphs 21, 23, 24, 29, there are references there made to ongoing education/professional development.
The Ontario Teachers' Federation believes that professional development/ongoing education is part and parcel of teachers' lives ever since teaching was invented, and we do not believe this should be a concern of the college. Those are just samples, but you will note throughout the bill, whether it be that section dealing with bylaws or regulations, any reference made to ongoing education and/or professional development, OTF suggests be deleted. Did you want to add anything there, Guy?
Mr Guy Matte: No.
Mr Lalonde: In Ronald's introduction, we made reference to an area of the bill which is of concern to us which we described as the question of incapacity/incompetency. I would refer the Chair and the committee to page 11 of our analysis. Under section 15, OTF is proposing an amendment there that where we say, "The council shall establish the following committees," we are suggesting a fifth committee be added. I don't know what it will be called. We're suggesting here a name such as fitness-to-practise committee.
We believe it is not appropriate for a discipline committee to deal with people who are not fit to teach, if you wish, because of either a physical condition, a mental condition or disorder. That is not a question of discipline and it should be treated in a totally different manner, and we are suggesting here in our proposal that by having this fitness-to-practise committee which exists in other professions, it would be more appropriate to handle those physical and/or mental conditions or disorders.
1640
We make two or three other references where under the current proposals, we have pulled out -- I won't bring them to your attention at this time but I think it's clear in our brief -- where either under the regulations or the bylaws we have indicated that particular clause being proposed in the bill would shift to this section dealing with a fitness-to-practise committee.
Finally, on the very last page of our brief to you, we've added a brief comment there. The incapacity proceedings and the fitness-to-practise committee, in particular we looked into the Regulated Health Professions Act, and that route, particularly under nurses, I believe, and medicine has a number of valuable features which we would be more than pleased, at some future time, to sit down with either members of this committee or any other appropriate group to discuss with you, hopefully, before the legislation is passed.
The other main area of concern deals with the area of the powers granted to the minister. I won't point out, because there are a number of them here, and hopefully members of the committee will look at each of our proposed amendments and our comments, it is our understanding and belief that if the college is to be, it should be as arm's-length as possible from the minister, and therefore the suggestions we are making for serious consideration you will find are to make the proposed college as arm's-length as possible from the minister.
I realize our time is passing quickly. I will address the last major area of concern we have and that is the area of natural justice and due process. I will refer you to, starting on page 23, I believe -- most of our concerns regarding natural justice and due process are related to those aspects or those parts of the bill which deal with the investigation committee and of course the discipline committee.
Starting in section 25 -- and I refer here on page 24, for example, in the middle column of pages 24, 25 and 26 for that particular section, you see we have a whole number of amendments that are proposed and the majority, if not all, of these amendments are to better deal with what we consider are those issues of natural justice and due process.
If the chair of our legislation committee has nothing to add, that will end my part of the presentation.
Mr Wildman: I obviously will go through your presentation and the amendments. I'll just use one: the structure of the governing council as proposed. You're suggesting on page 26, and also on page 4, a change in the discipline committee, that the total number, as I read it, should be 24, that 18 of those should be elected by members of the teaching profession and should be members of the teaching profession, that you want a clear, substantive majority of members of the teaching profession. In your view, that's required for it to be a truly self-regulating body, is that correct?
Mr Lalonde: Yes, and of the 18, we're saying that 15 should be teachers as defined under the Teaching Profession Act.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Good afternoon, M. Lalonde, good to see you again. I'll have to be brief. You mentioned that if the College of Teachers is implemented, or once implemented, it would be to the detriment of the entire education system.
Mr Lalonde: If.
Mr Newman: If. Can you briefly, in the one minute we have, tell us --
Mr Lalonde: All I'm suggesting is that if the college wants to operate and those who are its members hate it, fight it etc, that's not going to be very good for education in Ontario. If the bill stays as it is, I have fears that they'll hate it and fight it.
M. Patten : Premièrement, je veux dire que c'est évident que vous avez fait beaucoup de travail sur ça, et j'espère que ça va nous aider.
I don't know if you heard our opening comments in the House, but the points you raised are important. Obviously, a self-regulating professional body that is hated and dreaded by the majority is not a good premise on which to build. However, I appreciate your very positive suggestions. Like you, having heard some of your affiliates raise issues of concern about the ominous powers of investigation, the issue, for example, of incapacity and incompetence, I think that's a very good suggestion. I like the suggestion of a committee that takes it out of the realm of some kind of unprofessional behaviour. When someone is ill or somebody becomes incapacitated or disabled, truly it does not belong in that kind of situation and in the area of due process.
On representation, I believe likewise that if you trust a profession, you must demonstrate you trust it by awarding it a significant, clear majority. In the present model, my fear is that if a classroom teacher is ill and all of a sudden not able to attend a meeting, it's such a delicate balance, and even that's in question. On that I would support and hope the committee will address that concern as well.
Mr Robert: It would be important that we have the right motives to want to establish a College of Teachers. If we're trying to be vindictive or trying to put teachers or affiliates in their place, those are the wrong motives. If I were in the classroom and I had motives like that in front of children, I'm sure you would put me in my place, and I would deserve to be so. If we're going to have a College of Teachers, let's have it for the right reasons, but first consider what we're bringing forward here, that we should not put in another bureaucracy.
The Vice-Chair: Your time has expired, sir.
Mr Robert: Okay. Just on EQAO, we're not making a presentation, but we've left the document with you to read.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Lalonde: The suggestions in this one are as great as in the other.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sure they are.
1650
ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS / FRANCO-ONTARIAN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: Next we have l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, M. Roger Régimbal and M. Guy Matte. Bonjour. You have half an hour, which includes time for questions and answers.
M. Roger Régimbal : Je me présente : Roger Régimbal. Je suis le président de l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, l'AEFO. J'ai avec moi aujourd'hui, qui m'accompagne, mon directeur-général, M. Guy Matte.
L'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens apprécie le temps mis à sa disposition par le comité permanent des Affaires sociales de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. L'AEFO représente les 7000 enseignantes et enseignants qui oeuvrent dans les écoles de langue française de la province. L'AEFO est une filiale de la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario, la FEO. En tant que telle, l'AEFO appuie totalement les recommandations et les amendements au projet de loi 31 proposés par la FEO.
En début de présentation, nous tenons à signaler notre insatisfaction vis-à-vis de la façon cavalière avec laquelle l'actuel ministre ainsi que l'ancien ministre de l'Éducation traitent les enseignantes et les enseignants de la province. En effet, dans tous les discours que nous avons entendus jusqu'à présent, l'Ordre a été présenté d'une part pour favoriser la prise en charge de la profession enseignante par les membres de la profession et, d'autre part, pour servir et protéger l'intérêt public. Or, le projet de loi 31 n'offre pas une vision adulte de la profession mais plutôt un encadrement qui laisse entendre que la profession doit être contrôlée. En plus, ce contrôle doit être fait au niveau de l'Ordre par des non-membres de la profession qui y seront majoritaires. En même temps, le développement de ce projet de loi n'a pas permis et ne permet toujours pas une rétroaction valable pour faire valoir les préoccupations légitimes des enseignantes et des enseignants.
Votre comité n'aura entendu que trois heures de présentations de la part des représentantes et des représentants des 200 000 enseignantes et enseignants qui formeront cet Ordre. Voilà l'étendue de notre participation à l'élaboration de ce projet de loi.
Lorsqu'on sait que la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées a eu une période de gestation de plus de cinq ans, il est extrêmement difficile pour nous de voir ce projet de loi comme étant positif. Nous ne le voyons pas comme tel et nous sommes persuadés qu'après son adoption, cette loi contribuera à créer un climat de tension entre les enseignantes et les enseignants et cet Ordre. Ce n'est pas avec dynamisme que l'on entrevoit l'avenir de la profession si le texte proposé est adopté tel quel. Il y a lieu d'y faire des modifications importantes pour changer le ton et le message de ce texte de loi pour vraiment refléter ce qui est visé, c'est-à-dire la prise en charge par la profession.
L'AEFO veut signaler trois préoccupations particulières vis-à-vis du projet de loi créant l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario : premièrement, les services en français ; par la suite, la représentation francophone au conseil de l'Ordre ; et finalement, les élections.
Les services en français. Le projet de loi, à l'article 41, ne fait qu'une brève mention des droits qu'auront les membres francophones d'utiliser, dans leur rapport avec l'Ordre, le français. À l'alinéa 41(1), le droit est affirmé, mais il est aussitôt limité par les alinéas (2) et (3). Le français dispose d'un statut particulier comme langue d'éducation en Ontario. Ce statut a été reconnu par les cours de justice ainsi que par le ministère de l'Éducation et de la Formation lorsque la province s'est engagée sur le plan de la gestion des conseils scolaires par les francophones. L'Ordre devrait reconnaître cette réalité, et l'AEFO croit qu'un énoncé à cet effet devrait apparaître dans le préambule de la Loi créant l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants.
De plus, l'article 41 du projet de loi devrait comprendre un article semblable à celui que l'on retrouve dans la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées qui définit le mot «rapports».
Le terme «rapport» s'entend de tout rapport ou service aux membres ainsi que toute formalité administrative, et s'entend en outre du fait de donner ou de recevoir des communications, des renseignements ou des avis, de présenter des demandes, de passer des examens ou des tests et de prendre part à des programmes, à des audiences et à des réexamens.
Finalement, il devrait être clairement établi que l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario sera assujetti à la Loi de 1989 sur les services en français.
La représentation francophone au conseil de l'Ordre. Tout comme la FEO, l'AEFO est choquée par le fait que les membres qui auront à assumer les coûts de l'Ordre ne puissent disposer d'une claire majorité au sein du conseil. Ceci est encore plus clair lorsqu'on parle des francophones. En effet, la proposition du comité de mise en oeuvre prévoit qu'il y ait jusqu'à sept francophones au sein du conseil de l'Ordre, dont deux seraient des enseignantes ou des enseignants. Il y aurait lieu de renverser ce ratio. Cela pourrait se réaliser si votre comité adopte la recommandation de la FEO qui amende les articles 4(2)a) et 4(2)b).
Une claire majorité d'enseignantes et d'enseignants doit siéger au conseil de l'Ordre. Parmi les francophones siégeant au conseil de l'Ordre, les enseignantes et les enseignants francophones doivent en constituer la majorité. Ce sera la seule façon pour les francophones d'assurer leur pleine participation aux divers comités du conseil puisque ces derniers seront constitués de membres de l'Ordre.
Mon troisième point, les élections. L'AEFO reconnaît que la méthode d'élire les représentantes et les représentants des membres sera déterminée par un règlement du lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil. Cependant, elle tient à signaler qu'elle insiste pour que les francophones qui seront élus au conseil d'administration de l'Ordre le soient par les enseignantes et les enseignants qui proviennent des écoles de langue française. Même le comité de mise en oeuvre a indiqué que la structure du conseil d'administration doit garantir la représentation des besoins particuliers des diverses composantes du système d'éducation de l'Ontario. Par exemple, les élections auront une composante régionale. Nous croyons que votre comité devrait clairement exprimer le souhait que la réglementation concernant les élections puisse reconnaître le fait que le système d'éducation de langue française en Ontario est une composante particulière du système et que les membres francophones de l'Ordre devraient être élus par ceux et celles qui y oeuvrent.
L'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens regrette que ce projet de loi n'aura pas eu l'avantage d'être discuté par l'ensemble des enseignantes et des enseignants de cette province. Ce projet de loi, adopté en catastrophe, n'obtiendra pas l'appui des enseignantes et des enseignants, appui nécessaire au succès de la mise en oeuvre de l'Ordre.
Le projet de loi 31 ne présente pas une vision dynamique de la profession, et si à courte échéance les politiciennes et les politiciens croient avoir mis les enseignantes et les enseignants à leur place, à long terme cette loi servira mal l'intérêt public.
Maintenant pour le projet de loi 30, créant l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation. L'AEFO appuie toutes les recommandations et tous les amendements de la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario en ce qui concerne le projet de loi 30. De plus, les amendements que nous avons présentés au projet de loi 31 et qui concernent les services en français sont également pertinents pour le projet de loi 30. Le préambule de la loi devrait contenir une disposition à l'effet que le français dispose d'un statut particulier comme langue d'éducation en Ontario. De même, l'Office devrait être assujetti à la Loi de 1989 sur les services en français.
Je vous remercie.
1700
Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): Thank you very much for coming today. My apologies for not being able to address you in French today.
One of the concerns, I guess, and one thing that has distressed me a little bit when I've heard your association and I've heard OTF talking about the lack of support of teachers, and one of the things I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on is, given the fact that you have 24 regulated health professions, many of which are in similar situations, employee situations, to what teachers are, accountable within hospital structures etc, they wanted to be self-regulating. They saw it as a mark of maturity to sort of separate the professional interest from the public interest. You have social workers who are clamouring at the door of government to be self-regulatory as well. The Association of Early Childhood Educators is also asking to be a self-regulated profession. I guess I'm a little curious as to why you do not see that as a good thing, if you will, for teachers and education.
M. Régimbal : Premièrement, au niveau de pourquoi on voit ça d'une façon négative, je crois et notre association croit que la FEO est l'endroit où le tout devrait se passer. S'il faut élargir ce que la FEO fait, s'il faut le redéfinir, c'était l'endroit. Là, on va avoir deux structures, on va avoir un mélange entre les fonctions de la FEO, entre les fonctions de l'Ordre. De plus -- oui, continue.
M. Matte : Je pense qu'il y a un deuxième élément, et projeter au premier : n'oubliez pas que l'enseignement, c'est la seule profession qui, jusqu'à ce qu'on fasse ce que vous avez signalé, le Regulated Health Professions Act et les autres -- il y a une loi qui traite de la profession de l'enseignement depuis 1943, et cette loi permettait des instruments tels que des comités de discipline, et la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario faisait la discipline de ses membres à la demande du ministre de l'Éducation. Lorsqu'un enseignant ou une enseignante fait quelque chose qui est inopportun, il y a des méthodes dans la loi qui sont prévues à l'heure actuelle et qui permettent à la Fédération de traiter tout comme le fera le collège. Donc, ce que l'on fait, c'est de prendre des obligations qui à l'heure actuelle sont tenues par la Fédération dans la loi de la profession de l'enseignement, et on les met dans un autre projet de loi. Pour nous, il y aura donc deux projets de loi, deux endroits où les enseignants et les enseignantes pourront être disciplinés. Nous croyons que la loi sur la profession de l'enseignement est suffisante à l'heure actuelle et s'il faut y mettre des amendements pour ajouter des gens du public sur nos comités de discipline, c'est une proposition que nous avons déjà faite dans le passé.
Le deuxième item qui nous est important, c'est que c'est le seul projet de loi où les enseignantes et les enseignants -- donc, ceux qui seront régularisés par la loi -- sont un minorité sur le conseil. Dans tous les autres, c'est une très claire majorité, jusqu'à 75 %, des membres du conseil qui sont de la profession. C'est un amendement dans ce sens-là, et vous aurez peut-être un plus grand engagement de la profession enseignante vis-à-vis le collège.
Mrs Ecker: Do we still have some time?
The Vice-Chair: About 30 seconds.
Mrs Ecker: My understanding is that the regulated health professions, the people who are in faculties, who are teachers as opposed to actually -- they are also on the council and are part of the majority. So my understanding is that that's a similar concept to that with the teachers.
M. Régimbal : Les personnes qui sont dans la faculté de l'éducation aujourd'hui n'ont pas besoin d'avoir un BEO. Ce n'est pas un prérequis qu'ils aient un BEO pour aller à la faculté pour enseigner là. Si, pour appartenir à l'Ordre, tu dois avoir un brevet d'enseignant de l'Ontario, on pourrait les compter parmi la majorité.
M. Matte : Même si vous regardez dans la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées, vous verrez qu'il y a des ajouts, c'est à dire qu'il y a les membres et qu'on ajoute à ceux-là les gens qui proviennent des facultés de médecine, par exemple, ou de «nursing». Mais ils font partie de la majorité, et on n'a pas inclus à l'intérieur des documents de la Fédération que les membres qui viennent des facultés sont inclus dans la majorité. Cependant, nous insistons que celles et ceux qui sont dans les salles de classes, dans les écoles, doivent --
Mrs Ecker: They're part of the majority, though. Without them, they don't have a majority.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): You'll have to excuse my northern French as well. Something I'd like to get comments on from you is the portion of the act in terms of ongoing education and professional development. There seems to be a lot of concern out there in teachers I speak to. I'm just looking for further comments from you in that area of the bill.
M. Matte : Il y a deux éléments. Nous comprenons que si la loi doit être adoptée et qu'il y a un ordre en place, cet ordre devra réglementer les cours de profession, les cours de qualifications additionnelles, les cours pour changer de catégorie, peu importe, ou les cours d'éducation. C'est en accord avec nous. D'ailleurs, les amendements que nous avons faits ne font pas que nous enlevons le droit au collège ou à l'Ordre d'accréditer les cours. Ce que nous leur enlevons, c'est le droit d'en fournir. On ne peut pas en même temps être le fournisseur de programme et le groupe qui va réglementer ces mêmes programmes.
M. Régimbal : J'ajouterais sur ce point-là que les enseignantes et enseignants, si on regarde majoritairement, prennent des cours et continuent leur développement professionnel et personnel. Ce n'est pas en imposant quelque chose, en le mettant de façon obligatoire, qu'on va avoir un meilleur engagement. On va avoir un désengagement parce que, à un moment donné, l'enseignant va dire, «J'ai rempli le quota que je voulais, et en ayant rempli mon quota ils vont dire, "Viens plus m'achaler pour en faire d'autres."»
Mr Wildman: I noticed that when my colleague mentioned northern French, Ronald Robert jumped about it. I don't blame him.
I want to thank you for your presentation. You've made the point very clearly that if the college is to be established and is to be truly self-regulating, then the clear majority must be those who are regulated. In terms of the francophone representation on such a college, what number are you proposing, as opposed to what is currently set forward in the legislation?
M. Régimbal : Dans la législation à ce moment-ci, on dit qu'on peut placer jusqu'à sept personnes francophones sur l'Ordre. Nous, on vous dit d'inverser les nombres d'enseignants et de faire un «switch» entre la minorité pour les enseignants. Je pense que, indépendamment du nombre final, si les francophones représentent à peu près 20 % du nombre final, on serait bien représentés.
Un autre point qu'il faut faire avec la question de nombres qui est très important c'est le travail que les comités auront à faire. Dans les nombres qu'on a présentement, il n'y a pas assez de personnes pour peupler tous les différents comités et nous représenter adéquatement un peu partout.
M. Matte : La proposition de sept membres francophones vient du comité de mise en oeuvre. Il n'y a pas de référence directe dans la loi là-dessus, mais dans la façon de laquelle ce comité l'a mise, on voit deux enseignants pour cinq non-enseignants du côté francophone, et ce n'est pas un collège des enseignants, ça.
Mr Wildman: If I could just ask one further question, you would obviously have a very serious difficulty as francophones, with the current situation, in ensuring that each of the committees had a proper representation from the francophone teaching profession to be able to ensure that the committees served the francophone community properly.
M. Régimbal : Définitivement, parce que ce qui arriverait, à moins que vous embaucheriez ces deux enseignants-là pour travailler à plein temps pour l'Ordre, vous ne pourriez pas faire autrement.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much to both of you for your presentation.
1710
ONTARIO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: I'd now like to invite the Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association, Mr Hank Hultink, the executive director; Henry Wiersema, principal; and Rick Klooster, principal, to come forward, please. Gentlemen, if you could identify yourselves for Hansard's purposes, I just remind you that you have 30 minutes for your presentation, and that includes any time for questions and answers from the caucus members who are here today.
Mr Hank Hultink: My name is Hank Hultink. I'm the executive director of the Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association. This is my colleague Henry Wiersema -- without the "n" that is on your sheets. Henry is principal in the Christian school in Strathroy. This is my colleague Rick Klooster, who is principal of the Christian school in Chatham.
We appreciate the fact that we have gone considerably beyond the traditional 9 to 5 workday. As a matter of fact, the hardworking bunch out here, we couldn't even find a coffee shop. We are now part of the cutbacks, I guess. The coffee shop closes --
Interjection.
Mr Hultink: Yes, I saw it in the meantime; I appreciate it -- at 2:30 for the general public. So here, if you don't work, you don't drink coffee.
Mr Wildman: This is part of our preparation.
Mr Hultink: Is that what it is? Okay. Thank you.
On behalf of the Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association, we want to thank you for the opportunity to represent 800 active classroom teachers employed in the independent school sector on the matter of the establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers. We appreciate you taking time to listen to our association, which serves 12,000 Ontario Christian school children.
The report, by its very nature, is quite condensed. I don't think we're going to need our allotted time. We have one or two matters in particular that we wish to share with you and draw to your attention and make a case for, if you will.
I think it's fair to say as a generality that the members of the Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association are not, in principle, opposed to the College of Teachers as we see the present format. We are aware, through Hansard and copies of papers from other presenters and discussions, that you are aware, and it's been drawn to your attention, that there are some matters, the privacy and intrusion matters, that are of genuine concern to almost everyone, I suspect; members of all three parties, for that matter. We don't want to be repetitive about that particular concern.Our concern was that there was some type of adversarial tone here, which I'm sure wasn't intended and I'm sure can be corrected in some of the amendments and revisions that may be coming down the road.
In principle, we're speaking from the perspective that we have always taken ownership of our own education in the sense of direct parental control, so the college as the vehicle, as presently proposed, is not something we take great issue with.
We'd like to walk you through who we are, which is our logo on the top of page 2. We identify ourselves as, "Certified professional Christian educators committed to providing quality instruction promoting the values of the Christian home and church in parentally directed day schools." I appreciate that that's a mouthful, but I think as we walk through the next several pages you'll find that we take pieces of this and identify who we are.
OCSTA, the Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association, is comprised of approximately 800 certified teachers. We value certification and accreditation highly. We serve 12,000 students in approximately 75 schools from Wallaceburg to Williamsburg and points in between. Our members are employed in an association called the Ontario Alliance of Christian Schools, OACS, and it in turn is a member of the Federation of Independent Schools of Ontario.
We do want to make one distinction in the language, and it's not a question of semantics -- we don't want to quibble about the word -- but repeatedly schools in the independent sector are referred to as "private schools." Traditionally, that's the word the Education Act has used. Even though these schools register with the Ministry of Education, in essence, at least until a few years ago, and now it's only the secondary level, there was not much concern about what we did or how we did it or what we taught or whatever the case may be. Other than meeting local requirements for purposes of health and safety and fire regulations, the Ministry of Education really had no input, nor did it care, about what it then called private schools.
I think it's fair to say that gradually over the years the word "private" has become somewhat narrow in its definition. We think of a specific set of schools, we think of a certain atmosphere, we think of certain class ratios, we think -- without being pejorative -- of an élitist type of format associated with the traditional private school, be it British or otherwise. Over the years our association and others have argued, and I think fairly so, that we are independent in the sense of away from immediate public scrutiny or away from immediate public support and hence we are independent of the traditional parochial/public school format. It's in that sense that we prefer to be known as the independent school sector rather than the private school sector. That's the case we're making on page 2: Member schools are independent public schools. They are accessible to the public, they're wide open to the public and they're not private in that sense.
Within the independent public sector there are about 4,000 teachers who serve 120,000 students. That's a number we ought to pay attention to. Of those 4,000 teachers, OCSTA in turn represents about one fifth, or 20%, of those teachers.
OCSTA, the Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association, has had its own norms or standards almost from its inception. Some of our schools in our system on the Ontario scene are in excess of 50 years old. Almost from day one there has been a real emphasis on certification, on accreditation. The standard for our members to teach in our schools -- and I can't speak for all independent schools here; I can only speak for the 20% of the independent schools that are members of the Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association -- is that our members need a degree from a recognized university or college, plus they need to be a graduate of a recognized teacher training program. In addition to that, they need to earn what is called a Christian school teacher's certificate. So our criteria, our certification standards meet or exceed, if you will, the standards for the norm in the average Ontario classroom.
OCSTA, as a professional organization, has standards for teacher training. We run our own certification program. We run our own teacher training program. We have a standing professional development committee which organizes in-service activities, professional development days, related summer activities, whatever the case may be.
There's been discussion in the presentation on the College of Teachers on the matter of parental control, parental ownership, parental involvement -- wanting parents to embrace and take ownership of the educational system of Ontario. I think you'll find that's one of cornerstones of the existence of the independent schools in the Christian school area. Our parents are integrally involved at all levels of our operations. I quote Mr Arnott, from Hansard, April 1, who said that teachers need "a practical, current and hands-on understanding of educational challenges, techniques and problems." I think that covers OCSTA. We are involved with day-to-day activities. Most of our people are regularly involved in that.
1720
I took time to read several issues of Hansard, so some of you may see your name appearing.
Our next contention, on page 4, is that an active classroom teacher employed in an independent school ought to serve on the governing council. That phrase "active classroom teacher" repeatedly is used by your colleagues throughout the presentations and throughout their discussions. The concern, and I think it was mentioned in the prior presentation, is that if it's to be for the teachers, it ought to be by the teachers. The matter of 17 and 14 in representation is a concern that the federation and its subsidiaries have also. Our argument is that most of our teachers are classroom teachers. They are fully certified Ontario educators. Most of them, if they chose to and if there were positions, could find a job in a separate or public school tomorrow. That's assuming they'd get in line and wait while all the other vacancies were filled.
The independent school sector represents a significant portion of Ontario educators, and within this independent school sector Ontario Christian School Teachers' Association members can contribute the following: OCSTA members are qualified teachers; the Honourable Mr Snobelen repeatedly uses the words "qualified teachers" in Hansard. OCSTA members are university grads certified to teach in Ontario. OCSTA members are active classroom teachers. OCSTA members currently participate significantly in the educational process. OCSTA members currently are responsible for their own full spectrum of teacher education.
Having an OCSTA member serve on the governing council is the essence of our presentation. Even though the recommendations there use that there ought to be "a private school member," we want to use the words "independent school member." "Federations have argued" -- Mr Wildman was quoted to that effect in Hansard of April 1 -- "that three of the 17 are non-teaching" positions. The federations said that one of them was a representative, or would be eventually, a representative of the private schools. I think the fact is clear that our 800 teachers are certified Ontario educators, do have their OTC and related degrees, and hence the particular concern that the federation has on this particular issue I don't think is warranted.
OCSTA members are not for private schools, as some of the language has indicated; rather, they are from independent schools. We don't have a personal agenda. OCSTA members will work to promote the good of education in Ontario, not just within a particular sector of that. OCSTA members on the council will ensure that "we truly have a board that's representative of the teaching profession and not just of the management people within the teaching profession." That is a quote from Mr Bisson.
In electing the representative for the independent school sector, we argue that because of the numbers -- 4,000 teachers and 120,000 students in Ontario -- independent school teachers, and only those, ought to elect the independent school representative. There's some concern that if all OTC holders, if all stakeholders in the potential College of Teachers voted for the representative of the independent sector, that would be rather meaningless because they don't speak for or understand or take ownership of the independent sector. Our argument on this particular page is that if there are 4,000 or 3,000 or however many who have OTCs, those are the people who ought to vote for the independent representative on the governing council, not all the teachers but the teachers who are represented by this particular individual.
The argument is that since OCSTA members have long had a sense of ownership of their profession, are fully certified, it is from their ranks we suggest that nominees for the independent school representative ought to be selected. Our opinion is that any active classroom teacher employed in a registered independent school, having earned an Ontario teaching certificate, ought to be able to vote for his or her representative.
In conclusion, OCSTA's concerns about the invasion of privacy and intrusion have been well stated by others, and we trust that this committee will seriously review those matters. The criteria for having a governing council representing as wide a selection of professional, active classrooms as possible include the election of a qualified, independent school member.
As Mr Cooke said on April 3, "If you've got private" -- and I call them "independent" -- "schools, you can't say to those teachers, `We're going to regulate you but you're not going to be represented on the council.'" The election process of the independent school nominee must clearly be, and be seen to be, as representative of and meaningful to independent school teachers.
In conclusion, our sincere appreciation is extended to all committee members for your time and efforts as you continue your work to make the Ontario educational system professional, accountable and worthy of all our trust.
Mr Miclash: Excuse me if I've missed something here, but somehow I was looking for more of an example of how the independent school varies from the private school. If you could give me an example -- obviously, we don't have any of your independent schools in our region, and I'm not that familiar with the background -- would there be a tuition to attend the independent school and things along that nature versus a private school?
Mr Hultink: The question of governance is frequently a noticeable difference between the private schools and the independent schools. The independent schools are started for a variety of reasons, including philosophical differences, including sometimes teaching styles; Montessori, for example, or a French-speaking school. Sometimes they're for religious grounds, whatever the case may be. None of those today typically weighs heavily with the establishment or the maintenance of a private school.
The operations are very grass-roots in the independent schools. The parents are an integral part of all the committees in the school society. It's basically a corporation, usually incorporated without share capital, in Ontario, which means that the responsibilities of the directors fall to the board members. But the parents are, in effect, the stakeholders, the shareholders in the corporation.
Mr Miclash: I mentioned tuition in terms of your children attending. Can you give me an example of how the attendance of those children would compare to the attendance of children at a private school, the cost?
Mr Hultink: I can make a general comment. In those areas with which I am familiar where there are private schools, the tuition traditionally is considerably higher. In my own case, my home is near Hamilton, and I pick, for example, Hillfield-Strathallan. I was principal of Calvin Christian School in Hamilton, just down the street from Hillfield-Strathallan, which is called a private school in that sense, and whereas our community makes it a community event to sustain the school, like a per-family tuition, for example, Hillfield-Strathallan, and there are others, choose to have a per-child type of tuition.
Mr Wildman: Basically you're saying that if there is to be an independent school nominee on the council, and you want there to be one, that individual should be elected from the teachers in the independent school sector.
Mr Hultink: Yes.
Mr Wildman: Where does that leave those teachers who are in the private school sector? Would you see two representatives on the council?
Mr Hultink: No, I don't think the numbers warrant having two representatives. We are acutely aware of the fact that there are 17 at best and that they have to be spread around, whether that's geographically or in terms of population or whatever the committee ultimately recommends. No, I don't think that's warranted. I think you would simply include that percentage of teachers who are in the private schools, as they would be called, and lump them all under the umbrella of other than public/parochial, Roman Catholic.
1730
Mr Skarica: Just dealing with the makeup of the council, you've indicated that you'll have one member, and that's been recommended by the implementation committee, page 13 of their report. Dealing with that section, and it's subsection 4(2), the makeup being 17 who are members of college, and you'll have one of those, the member who's elected by your organization, would that person be a fully qualified teacher or not?
Mr Hultink: It would be a fully qualified teacher. It would be an active classroom teacher. It would not be someone in a managerial position or administrative position or related. No. And it would be someone with an Ontario teaching certificate.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I was just going to come back to the question that you've raised about the fact that the constituent group should be the person who elects this, and obviously the federations have talked to us about the need for a representation and the question of the numbers of practising teachers. My question then to you is, how dangerous do you see this for your particular constituent group if it were allowed that everyone who has an Ontario teaching certificate has the opportunity to vote for the individual who would represent the independent sector?
Mr Hultink: I'm not sure it's dangerous. It's just overwhelming in terms of numbers. The only way to answer that is to cast aspersions on the intentions of the federation, and I have three brothers-in-law in the federation and I'm going to meet one of them afterwards for -- but anyway.
I think would be less meaningful if the committee allowed all OTC holders to vote on the independent school representative. The implementation committee has specifically recommended, though they use the word "private," someone from that area for a reason. I think the reason is, there's a group of you out there who aren't OTF members, and we want to ensure that if this is going to be a by-the-teachers, for-the-teachers format, you as the independent block have some voice. Technically, we could be outvoted every time, 16 to 1, hypothetically. Okay, that's not the point. The point is, in principle, the committee would show that, "Hey, we're considering the factions that are out there and we want you to have a voice at what's out there."
If we're not represented, if we're not even closely represented in the group from which we come, then it's kind of an exercise in, "Well, it's just a number." So we would argue that it would be meaningful if the committee picked someone from among the 4,000, and that's a substantial enough number. You ought to be able to find someone from among that number, and the OTF ought to have no problem with that.
Mrs Ecker: One of the first groups who was in my door when I was elected were representatives of some of the independent schools in my riding. So I've certainly received the message of the difference between independent and private, and the financial sacrifices that many of those parents have made to choose those schools have certainly impressed me.
I go back to the question I raised earlier. Why is it that your teachers' group supports in concept a College of Teachers, yet some of the other teacher groups are not supporting something which, coming from the health background, I've sort of seen as a positive thing, a step ahead for the professionalism of the teachers?
Mr Hultink: I can't quite explain why the others don't. I think the best answer is to try to explain why we do. It's not foreign to our milieu to be accountable as much as we are. Since you've spoken to independent school supporters, you know that it's very much a partnership type of arrangement. The parents constantly know what the teachers are doing, and I think the success and growth of the independent schools over the years is partially due to the fact that we represent and reflect very closely the values and standards of those homes. So when a qualified parent becomes part of an education committee and makes comments about classroom activities, he or she cares.
So we're not frightened by this accountability, for want of a better word, because it's been part of our going all the time. There is really nothing scary, if you will, in the College of Teachers proposal, other than my comment about the whole matter of invasion of privacy and related, and I'm sure you'll attend to that in due course. But other than that, this is how a lot of us operate already in terms of the credibility of our relationship with our parents. They are, in effect, to a degree, a College of Teachers already.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Hultink, Mr Klooster and Mr Wiersema.
ONTARIO SEPARATE SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: Next we have the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, Patrick Meany, president, and Patrick Slack, executive director. I notice you've got a few other people with you, if you could identify yourselves for Hansard. I'd just like to remind you that you have half an hour for your presentation, and that includes any questions and answers there may be from any of the committee members. The floor is yours.
Mr Patrick Meany: I'm Patrick Meany, president of the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association. Beside me, on my right, is Patrick Slack, executive director of our association. With us are Monsignor Dennis Murphy, on Patrick's right, director of Catholic education in our association, and Carol Devine is also with us, who is Catholic education consultant.
The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, OSSTA, represents 53 Roman Catholic separate school boards of all sizes and from all regions of Ontario. These boards provide Catholic education programs and services to 600,000 students.
Teachers are the single most important element in the provision of education for students. The 53 Catholic school boards in Ontario continuously strive to ensure that the teachers they employ are well able to carry out the mandate of Catholic schools -- that is, to provide students with an excellent, well-rounded education, delivered within the context of Catholic teachings and traditions and based on the values of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Anything that improves and recognizes the professional status of teachers is good for education. OSSTA supports the concept of an Ontario College of Teachers. We view it as an appropriate mechanism for overseeing the certification and professional standards of teachers. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the draft legislation which would establish such a college.
Our comments make reference to several of the major issues dealt with in Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes, including governance, the objects of the college, accountability, investigations and discipline, as well as several issues which are not detailed in the legislation but will be included in regulations yet to be written.
On governance: It is critical that the council governing the Ontario College of Teachers includes representatives from all of the province's publicly funded school systems and from all other constituent groups. OSSTA is concerned that Bill 31 does not specify within the legislation itself how representation on the council will be allotted. Instead, the bill merely makes provision for the writing of regulations regarding membership on the council, for example, subsections 37(2), (3) and (4), clause 39(1)b and clause 39(1)c.
Regulations, rather than legislation, to establish the rules to govern membership do not guarantee that all publicly funded school systems and all other constituent groups will have adequate, ongoing representation on the college's governing body. Regulations are written to reflect the legislation. If that legislation is not clear and sufficiently detailed, adequate regulations may not follow. Therefore, guarantees of proper representation for all constituent groups must form part of the legislation governing the college.
OSSTA recommends that Bill 31 be amended to include details regarding specific representatives on the governing council and to provide for representation from all constituent groups.
1740
The perspective and needs of Catholic schools must be consistently reflected and embodied in the persons with governing authority. Ontario's Catholic school boards must therefore be adequately represented among the 17 persons elected by the members of the college and among the 14 persons appointed to the council by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
OSSTA recommends that the process for election of the 17 persons representing the membership of the college provide for adequate representation from teachers employed in Ontario's Catholic schools.
OSSTA believes that it is essential that trustees be represented on the college's governing council. As the elected representatives of the public, accountable for the provision of high-quality public education and the wise spending of local tax dollars, and as the employers of the vast majority of teachers in Ontario, trustees have a critical interest in the work and decisions of the College of Teachers. Since school boards are the primary consumers for the college's product, they must have representation on the college's governing body.
OSSTA therefore recommends that the governing council of the College of Teachers include one trustee representative from each of the province's four publicly funded school systems among the 14 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Mr Patrick Slack: Under the section of "Objects of the College," we would like to put forth the following. Each and every object of the college, as described in section 3 of part II of Bill 31, must take into account the perspective and needs of Catholic schools.
OSSTA recommends that section 3 be amended to add a provision that in carrying out its objects, the college must know and respect the needs of Ontario's Catholic school system.
Ontario separate schools require teachers who have achieved, during the course of their educational training, the distinctive outcomes required for Catholic teachers. Catholic schools need teachers who are professionally prepared to teach in a Roman Catholic context and tradition, who are skilful in delivering the religious education and family life education programs taught in our schools, and who can create and deliver curriculum within the context of our faith. To meet the needs of Catholic schools, it is necessary that all faculties of education offer the necessary preparatory courses.
OSSTA recommends that the bill be amended to require that all faculties of education offer the pre-service religious education course and the foundations of Catholic education course, and that these courses be recognized for credit purposes.
OSSTA believes that high-quality professional development programs must be available across the province, and that Catholic boards are the appropriate providers of such programs.
OSSTA recommends that the legislation be amended to ensure that separate school boards are among those accredited by the college to provide professional development programs for Catholic educators, and that support and financial assistance be provided for this purpose.
Paragraph 3(1)9 deals with the provision of educational programs leading to certificates of qualification additional to teachers' certification, including those for supervisory officers. Such programs belong within the mandate of the college. At the same time, OSSTA must express our strong support for the supervisory officers' qualification program presently being offered by the Catholic community delivery organization.
Recognition should also be given to courses designed and run by Catholic educators for candidates preparing to be principals in Catholic schools. Existing principals' courses cannot and do not prepare principal candidates to meet many of the expectations placed upon them by Catholic schools.
OSSTA recommends that paragraph 3(1)9 be amended to add "certificates of qualification as a principal," and further that courses designed specifically for candidates for Catholic schools be accredited.
Paragraphs 3(1)7 and 8 deal with the establishment of professional and ethical standards for members of the college, with investigation of complaints against members, and with the discipline of members. OSSTA supports these as legitimate functions of the college. Catholic boards will continue, however, to develop and to enforce standards for their teachers in regard to denominational issues.
OSSTA recommends that subsection 3(1) be amended to ensure that any regulation or activity of the college will not infringe upon the denominational rights of Catholic school boards.
Under the section of accountability, we would like to say that we strongly support those aspects of Bill 31 which address the need for the College of Teachers to be publicly accountable. Such accountability is reflected in a number of the sections of the bill.
Subsection 8(2): Council meetings will "be open to the public."
Subsections 10(1) and (2) state that council will "meet annually with the minister," in a meeting open to the public.
Under subsection 11(1), council will submit an annual report "to the minister on the activities and financial affairs of the college."
Subsection 11(2) says council's annual report will be submitted by the minister "to the Lieutenant Governor in Council" and will be tabled in the assembly.
Subsection 22(3): A public register of members of the college will be available to the public.
Under the section of investigation, the legislation details a process by which a member of the public, a member of the college, the registrar, or the minister can lodge a complaint regarding the conduct or actions of a member of the college.
It is important that parents, students and other members of the public be made aware of their right to initiate such a complaint, of what constitutes reasonable grounds for doing so and of the process for registering such a complaint.
OSSTA recommends that the legislation governing the College of Teachers mandate a process by which parents, student and other members of the public are to be made aware of the availability of a complaints process.
Discipline: Subsection 28(3) describes the term "professional incompetence." OSSTA notes that there are two fundamentally different categories, misconduct and incapacity, governed by the same discipline process. It is our view that these two categories cannot be governed by the same process. Rehabilitation, rather than punishment, must be the focus for incapacity issues.
OSSTA recommends that the misconduct and incapacity categories be separated and that appropriate responses and resolutions to incapacity problems be developed and included in the legislation.
As noted earlier, Catholic boards will continue to define and to enforce expectations in regard to denominational issues.
Mr Meany: The investigative powers of the registrar, as outlined in section 33, would appear to overlap the normal process by which employers supervise, evaluate and discipline employees. This draft legislation creates a situation where teachers may well be subject to a duplication of investigations, one by the school board and one by the College of Teachers, both empowered to carry out such investigations. The respective rights and responsibilities of boards and of the college in areas regarding teachers' performance, competence and misconduct must be made very clear for teachers, administrators, trustees and the general public.
OSSTA recommends that section 33 be amended to include a clear definition of the rights and responsibilities of school boards and of the College of Teachers in areas of teacher performance, competence and misconduct.
Under regulations and bylaws, many aspects of the structure and function of the college which are of particular interest to OSSTA are not included in Bill 31 itself but will be provided for in regulations yet to be written. It is vital that the needs and perspectives of all constituent groups, including those of the Catholic community, be considered in the writing of these regulations.
OSSTA recommends that an additional and overriding subsection be added to section 37 which acknowledges the need for all regulations to recognize the requirements of the Catholic school system.
As has been previously stated, OSSTA strongly recommends that guarantees of proper representation for all constituent groups form part of the legislation governing the college. Therefore, OSSTA recommends that subsections 37(1), (2) and (3) be deleted from the regulations, that the reference in paragraph 37(1)4 to qualifications be deleted and that these issues be fully dealt with within the legislation itself.
OSSTA does not support paragraph 37(1)24. We believe that the concept of recertification is not viable professionally, economically or administratively. Emphasis should instead be placed on the provision of a system of continuous professional development and updating for Ontario's educators. Therefore, OSSTA recommends that paragraph 37(1)24 be deleted from Bill 31.
1750
OSSTA does not support paragraphs 37(1)28 and 29, requiring school boards as employers of the members of the college to deduct and remit membership fees to the college and to suffer penalties if payments are not made on a schedule to be determined by the college. This would place an additional administrative burden upon school boards. The responsibility for payment of professional fees should rest with the member of the college, unless individual employers choose to facilitate such payments. Therefore, OSSTA recommends that paragraphs 37(1)28 and 29 be deleted from Bill 31.
Finally, in conclusion, as our brief has indicated, OSSTA is supportive of many of the aspects of Bill 31. However, we must express our deep disappointment that this draft legislation in no way acknowledges the existence of more than one publicly funded education system in this province. Ontario's separate schools are a large and important part of public education in this province. Bill 31 does not recognize the unique needs of a Catholic system. The recommendations contained in this submission address these omissions. It is our expectation that the omissions will be fully addressed in the revisions to the bill.
Chairman, that concludes our submission. We will try to answer any questions, any one of the four of us, but before we open up for questions, we would like to read 13 points we made on Bill 30, which establishes the Education Quality and Accountability Office.
(1) Catholic boards have always been concerned about the quality and effectiveness of education.
(2) The Catholic education community supports evaluating the quality and effectiveness of education.
(3) Good testing is that which helps children to learn.
(4) Evaluation is a notoriously difficult undertaking.
(5) Good testing must recognize the many variables in the educational experience.
(6) In Ontario an obvious variable is the radically different philosophies of education between the public and Catholic school systems.
(7) This variable must be recognized within the assessment process in Ontario.
(8) Catholic school board representation on the board of directors of the office is essential. All boards educate approximately one third of the students in Ontario. A proportional number is essential.
(9) There must also be Catholic board representation in the Education Quality and Accountability Office.
(10) Tests to be developed must be done in conjunction and in cooperation with the school boards.
(11) Requiring boards to administer tests, mark the tests and report on the results will be costly in time and resources. There is no clarity on who will carry those costs. Boards are concerned about additional and uncontrolled costs.
(12) The importance and value of accurate reporting must be emphasized. This should be carefully considered.
(13) Paragraph 29(1)3.2: Catholic boards would expect to administer, to mark and to publish the results of the tests. We have concerns about the costs, as stated earlier, and about how the test information will be used. The dangers of misuse are real and must be avoided. Test result publication must not result in damage to the educational opportunities for students.
They are our comments on the draft before you.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Obviously you're concerned about the role of the Catholic school system and its being recognized in this legislation, and I appreciate that.
I'm particularly interested in one area you've raised, that is, the possibility of duplication with regard to investigation and discipline between boards carrying out their responsibilities to protect children and to manage the school system and the college that might be responding to a complaint.
Are you familiar with the British Columbia college, that model?
Mr Meany: I am not, but perhaps one of my colleagues would be.
Mr Wildman: It's my understanding that in questions of misconduct the boards there carry out their responsibility as managers of the system, as employers, and it's only after the boards carrying out their responsibility that the college might become involved in a question of lifting a certificate, if the college deems the situation to have been serious enough to require an investigation and determination of whether the individual certificate should be removed. Would that be an appropriate approach, in your view, to the question of discipline as opposed to the other responsibilities suggested for the college?
Mr Slack: The first problem with what we've read is the lack of clarity between the roles of the college and the school board in terms of the discipline of or the control of the activities of a professional teacher. That system appears to give order to that difficult problem. To have both doing it is absolutely wasteful and wrong and probably going to come at different ends possibly.
We would want it clearer and more orderly in the sense that the board has a responsibility to do that for its employees, for all of them and for the students in the system, but to report it and to make it known to a college or to ask them or even recommend to them that the certificate is now in question would be appropriate too.
Mr Wildman: In terms of the responsibilities of the Ontario Teachers' Federation with regard to discipline, how do you see the role of the boards now in relation to the responsibility of OTF to carry out discipline? Is there unnecessary duplication, in your view, in that current situation?
Mr Slack: I don't think there's necessarily duplication there. There may be some, but it's clear at this point that the school boards accept and perform the responsibility of evaluating and determining the suitability of a teacher to remain in the classroom, and it's in the students' interest that is done.
Other issues of conduct outside of that may be an issue OTF would deal with within its own membership, or difficulties between members or that sort of thing. That would not necessarily affect the classroom in the direct sense. We think it's clear now.
Mr Meany: If I might add to that, in the quarter century or so that I have been a trustee, I haven't run into a case of a problem with that.
Mrs Ecker: I asked this of the last group and I'll ask you as well. Why is it that your organization can support the concept of a College of Teachers as something that might be a positive thing for the professionalism of teachers and the education system? What is it that you see as positive that other groups are having difficulty with?
Mr Meany: I think the monsignor would be the best one to answer that.
Monsignor Dennis Murphy: Let me give you an example by way of responding to that question. Some months ago I had occasion to meet with a large unit of the secondary teachers' association, and they were strongly critical of the report of the commission on learning because of its recommendation and suggested that the teachers' profession, through OTF, could adequately respond to any of the concerns that were raised.
I suggested that if they looked at the page they had handed out to every one of the members who walked into the room, where they listed issues they had about the commission on learning, they'd find there wasn't any question of professional development in all these questions. They were all teacher welfare questions.
By way of response to your question, the concern is that the natural tendency of teacher associations at present, as represented in their budget allocations -- where they have their human and economic resource is clearly in the area of teacher welfare and much less so in the area of the professional development of their own membership. It's the practical experience that I think has led this association to support this particular piece of legislation.
Mr Meany: Anything that advances the professional status of teachers we are in favour of, because teachers are the heart of teaching.
Mrs Ecker: Another question on your point about separating misconduct and incapacity categories. I take your point, because frequently incapacity can be something where a more supportive approach might be helpful. Did you have any further thoughts on how that might be done within the College of Teachers legislation?
Mr Meany: We got as far as saying they must be separate. I don't think we went very deeply into it.
Mr Slack: We actually didn't have time, but there is a need to explore that carefully and to be sure there is no injury to someone incapacitated -- some help. That doesn't exclude even those who are guilty of misconduct. There may be ways to recover their professionalism as well.
Mr Meany: In separating them, we didn't mean to say only rehabilitation for one, only punishment for the other.
Mr Miclash: I want to go back to a comment made in the second paragraph: "Teachers are the single most important element in the provision of education for students." As a former educator, I couldn't agree more.
Where do you see the actual college in terms of involvement in the ongoing education of teachers -- professional development -- as part of the lives of teachers? How do you see the college addressing that?
Mr Meany: We think they should certify, approve of, courses, but I don't think they should administer the rest of it. I think that's for the boards to do. Would you like to add to that, Patrick? As a trustee, I don't know anything.
Mr Slack: I think you've covered the point we would make, that the college would be responsible for ensuring and certifying the courses, having them there, but the actual requirement that they take them and their delivery should be more related to the local school board. This province is rather large and there are differences. To ask the same teacher to come to Toronto five times in five years from Atikokan is a different case than having them walk down the street from their home in Toronto. There's a totally different reality there that isn't addressed at all in what we think is being suggested in this act. We are fearful of the imposition of rules from one place that don't affect or suit the reality of the province at all.
Mr Meany: There would be a huge bureaucracy, we fear, also.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation. That's our last presentation today.
I remind members of the committee and ask you all to be here right at 3:30 tomorrow. The British Columbia College of Teachers is going to be tuned in to us by way of a teleconference call. I understand they only have a very short statement to make and then they're open for questions, so if you could all be here at 3:30, it would be greatly appreciated.
With that, the meeting's adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1804.