ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF DEANS OF EDUCATION
CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS, ONTARIO REGION
HEALTH PROFESSIONS REGULATORY ADVISORY COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Wednesday 17 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
Ontario College of Teachers Implementation Committee
Frank Clifford, chair
Ontario Association of Deans of Education
Terrance Boak, past chair
Stan Shapson, chair
Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region
Bernie Farber, national director, community relations
Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council
Christie Jefferson, chair
Jerry White, vice-chair
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
Parker, John (York East PC) for Mrs Johns
Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North PC) for Mr Jordan
Wood, Len (Cochrane North ND) for Mr Laughren
Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC) for Mr Preston
Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 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.
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
The Vice-Chair (Mr John Gerretsen): Good morning, everyone. Is Mr Frank Clifford here, the chair of the Ontario College of Teachers Implementation Committee? Welcome, sir. You have 30 minutes for your presentation, and that includes any questions and answers there may be from the members of the different caucuses. If you could introduce yourself, we look forward to your presentation.
Mr Frank Clifford: I had the privilege of chairing the implementation committee. It's produced the report, The Privilege of Professionalism, upon which the bill you are debating and studying is based. My remarks this morning are based on the report and I trust your questions will be based on the report as well, because that's the part I was involved with.
I'm here representing the members of the Ontario College of Teachers Implementation Committee, and those members are listed in your package. The committee had 12 members and, over a period of eight months met several times, met also with 70 different groups representing as broad a spectrum of educational interests as you could think of, and presented its report on time -- I'd like to stress that -- on October 1, 1995, and then was disbanded.
As members, you received that report that day, October 1. With respect, I take for granted that you've read the report and you know the contents of the report, because the legislation which you are debating is based on the contents of that report.
What I would like to do, rather than give a synopsis of the report, is to take one particular area, an area upon which the committee based and made its basic premise, and then to follow through the implications of that into the recommendations and into the bill. There are four basic positions I'd like to outline for you that the committee took in its deliberations.
The first was that the College of Teachers would be a self-regulatory body and not an agency of government. That's of interest to me particularly and personally because for three years I had the privilege of chairing the Teacher Education Council of Ontario, and that was an agent of government. It and the experiences we had there led to some of my thinking, at least as I came to this first one, that the college itself should be a self-regulatory body.
The second was that membership in the College of Teachers would be mandatory for any position which required an Ontario teacher's certificate. I trust and I hope, as we debate this morning and discuss with each other, that you'll realize this means more than just classroom teaching experience. When I served as a director of education in Ontario, it was required that I have a teaching certificate. I personally would feel very badly if it wasn't considered that in that particular position I was eligible for membership in the college.
The third is that the college activities would primarily focus on the certificate or the licence to teach. That's what I'm here to talk about this morning.
The fourth is that the college's activities would apply to all those who hold membership in the college.
I'd like to talk about the certificate, the licence to teach, not what the person who has a certificate or who has a licence to teach does with it, not where they go to enter into a contract or an appointment, but the right to teach. Because, you see, if you focus on the certificate, then you allow the creditable and respected role of the Ontario Teachers' Federation to work for and to protect its members as it applies to the contract that those who hold the certificate enter into. That's quite different, by the way, from the last major thrust towards a college in this province, in 1983, when one of the objects of that particular college that was suggested was to do away with the teachers' federation. That's why I'm talking about the college and the professional nature of the college as it applies to the certificate.
The certificate then leads to four of the main clusters of recommendations in the report: (1) how you acquire the certificate; (2) how you maintain the certificate; (3) how you lose the certificate; (4) keeping up-to-date statistical records regarding the certificate holders.
A major element in this report is the pre-service or the preparation stage of obtaining a certificate in the province of Ontario. The report recommends that the length of that pre-service period be determined by the profession itself. It's within the last two or three years that two of the faculties of education in the province were proceeding towards a two-year program, as under the present circumstances they have a right to do. That would have left two colleges requiring two years. It would have left other faculties with two, three, one, whatever it might be. This report suggests that the determination of the length of the preparation to obtain the certificate should be part of the college's mandate.
1010
Second, the programs offered by faculties should be monitored and accredited by the college. To one who has had experience and a lot of years in teacher education, the support we received from the faculties of education and the deans of the faculties of education was overwhelming in this one. It's a big step to accept that on the part of an autonomous body such as a university. It's been 11 years, by the way, since there has been an external monitoring of any faculty of education in this province, and to move into a situation where the graduates and the certificate would be accredited by the college is a big step.
Third, the certificate would be awarded by the college. For all the certificates that have been issued in this province since 1944, they have always been issued by a Minister of Education, and this one suggests that it should be administered by the college.
Maintaining the certificate: The report requires that an ongoing program of professional development be a mandatory requirement for the members of the college. All the colleges established in Ontario under the Regulated Health Professions Act are required to have, or may include, mandatory continuing education by 1996. The British Columbia college, which you talked to yesterday, and which we had several conversations with during the time of our study, had a professional requirement for development, an ongoing plan at the beginning. That is no longer part of their mandate. The Scottish governing council, now in its 27th year, and which some of us visited as far back as 11 or 12 years ago, is now in the process of establishing a professional development plan. That's a big part of this particular proposal.
The report suggests, in regard to losing the certificate, that a discipline committee be established to conduct hearings into allegations of professional misconduct, incompetence or the fitness to practise. Cases for this committee would come from an investigation committee which would study complaints referred by government ministries, school boards, individuals or the registrar of the college.
I expect that you have already been briefed by or will be briefed by the drafters of the legislation who took that recommendation and turned it into the parts of the bill which talk about discipline and investigation.
Finally, maintaining records of certificate holders: At the present time, the name of every person receiving a certificate since 1944 in the province of Ontario is known. I don't mean this next remark to be crude and I would like to make very sure it's understood that way. The only thing is that when you go to those records, no one knows who is dead or who is alive, and the need to cry out for a system of records in which we would have that information is very, very powerful.
There are in Ontario at the present time no up-to-date statistics regarding supply and demand; and add distribution to that, who wants to teach not just in downtown Toronto, but in the places where there are needs. In this time of downsizing of educational complements, we continue to graduate approximately 5,000 graduates from our teacher faculties each year. Many of those are graduating into unemployment. An up-to-date record system and a reliable prediction of supply and demand needs would be a priority challenge for a new college.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to speak to the area of the report which, from my reading at least, has received the most attention, and that's to the governing council. That was a large part of the debate of the committee itself. Every delegation we met, very interestingly and very naturally, wanted representation on that council until you could see renting a hall to hold the meetings of that particular council.
Let me go back. I've been talking about those who hold the certificates, not those who hold contracts which the certificates allow you to enter into. As such, the 17 members elected to the governing council do represent a majority of the members of the college. The royal commission report said professional educators -- I'm underlining the word "educators" -- should form a majority of the membership of any governing council. The committee's report meets that mandate.
The committee and I personally respect the role and the influence of classroom teacher representatives, but the committee did not overlook certificate holders who are in supervisory positions, who work in government ministries, who teach in faculties of education, who take their certificates and choose to teach in aboriginal or private schools.
The Ontario Teachers' Federation has approximately 130,000 members. The committee believes that any college that's formed in Ontario under its recommendations will have a membership approaching 200,000 members. That's a difference of 70,000 when you talk certificate holders or classroom teachers and members of the federations. Obviously, this particular recommendation will continue to receive attention and your discussion.
May I just in closing suggest to you that the 17 members represent not only a majority of those who would be qualified and mandated for membership, but they also acknowledge linguistic influences, geographical influences, and public and separate realities. To make simple numerical adjustments would not only disregard the underlying basis for the committee's report but would challenge the sometimes fragile balance upon which the proposal is made.
Your questions.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Clifford. We have 15 minutes left for questioning, five minutes per caucus. We'll start today with the NDP.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Thank you very much. I'm sorry I was late in arriving. We had, as you are probably aware, a presentation, a discussion with officials of the BC college by electronic hookup. They made a number of assertions about how their college operates that raise some questions about the proposal before us. For instance, I think they said they had 20 members on their board, five of whom were appointed, and the 15 were elected from the teaching profession. So there's a clear majority of teachers.
Could you clarify why, in the setting up of this self-regulatory body, the implementation committee has proposed 31 members, 17 of whom would be from the teaching profession?
Mr Clifford: Seventeen of whom would be elected and 14 of whom would be appointed. I'll give you two reasons the committee came to this recommendation. The first is basically what I have said in this whole presentation this morning, that the 17 do represent people who hold licence to teach in Ontario.
Mr Wildman: I'm not questioning that. I know the federation's positions it's taken with regard to them. Why so many other members from the public?
Mr Clifford: I thought, for instance, when this report was tabled there would be more discussion on that part, not whether there would be a clear majority of classroom teachers etc. That particular number is based strictly on the committee's debates and decisions about public accountability. I'll tell you, as one of long standing with a teaching certificate and very proud of the profession, I think it's time we put right out in front all the things the profession does. By doing so and having these members appointed to the college governing body, I think it opens up the process. It opens up the process of professional development.
You hear, by the way, of teachers -- you know, 10-month positions etc. You don't hear how many people are taking all these things we're recommending at present. The committee thought that with this number of people in the various appointments made to the committee, this would open it up, and the discipline process, by the way, would be opened up as well.
Mr Wildman: Do you think there would be a problem if the numbers of the general public on the board were diminished or made smaller?
Mr Clifford: I don't think there would be a problem if they were diminished or made smaller; it would be what you would do with the others. As I mentioned, those 17 represent geography, represent public, separate, French etc. I'm more concerned that the particular relationship between the elected members and the total number be maintained than I am about 31 or 32 or 33.
Mr Wildman: I was thinking perhaps 25, but anyway -- the BC group also raised some other questions with regard to discipline and their functions there. Before I raise that, a number of the delegations that have come before this committee so far have suggested that with regard to questions of incapacity or fitness to practise or incompetence as opposed to misconduct, there should be a separate committee to deal with that rather than a discipline committee, that if someone is suffering from an illness or some kind of condition that makes an individual incapable, this should not be a matter subject to discipline but rather some other process.
Mr Clifford: I wouldn't have any hangup about that. If you went back in the history of Ontario, I think there's one case where a person who was blind with a teaching certificate did teach in Ontario and then had that position cancelled.
Mr Wildman: That was in my riding, as a matter of fact.
Mr Clifford: Then there are two, because I was thinking of another. I'm not hung up on whether that's called discipline or something else. I'm hung up on dignity and fairness and process, as that would go.
1020
Mr Wildman: The BC college indicated that in matters of misconduct, alleged misconduct, the boards, as employers, dealt with the issues, and of course the teacher would have access to a grievance procedure, if required, and so on. It was only after that whole process was complete -- unless it related to a criminal investigation or a criminal conviction; separate from that. The college didn't become involved until after that process in determining whether the certificate should be lifted if the matter was such that that kind of action would be warranted. Do you have any problem with that process, or do you think there should be the possibility of the college carrying out investigations prior to or simultaneous to actions being taken by boards?
Mr Clifford: Let me go back again to my basic presentation. The report of this committee is based on the continuing investigation by boards, by employers, by protection of collective agreements etc, as long as it applies to the contract. When it applies to the certificate, I believe the college has a role and should have a role, not to just wait until some other process has reached a certain point.
I had time as a senior person in one of the ministries represented around here, and I used to be the one who would run it up the street on Monday mornings to the teachers' federation and say, "Would you please give us back some recommendations regarding this particular occurrence that has come in," requests for a board not to terminate the contract but to remove the certificate. That's why I would like to keep going back to the certificate and the contract.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move to questions from the government side.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, Mr Clifford, for that most informative presentation. I understand that previously you were involved with the Teacher Education Council of Ontario. Is that correct?
Mr Clifford: Yes.
Mr Pettit: Based on your experience with that body, do you feel the creation of the College of Teachers will be a more effective body than the Teacher Education Council, and if so, could you please tell us why?
Mr Clifford: First of all, we did a provincial review of teacher education in the province in 1986. I had the privilege to chair that review. Out of that review came the recommendation for a central body, and that was the beginning of the Teacher Education Council of Ontario. We brought around our table at the Teacher Education Council of Ontario 16 different members, and they represented universities, unions, all the various groups you would want around that table. In the three years of existence of the council, my belief was that we did some good things.
In answer to why I think it should be taken a step further -- there are probably some deans sitting behind me this morning -- we worked closely together, but when it came time to implement something, it was, "Would you please?" and "Would you please" often did not get translated into the things that needed to happen. Therefore, when the Teacher Education Council went into its sunset lot, it was for the reason that we need to take the good study and the good work that's being done but we need to have a mechanism which says, "Do something about it." The accreditation of programs by faculties and by in-service type stuff is the first reason I believe we should have the kind of recommendations here.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): The teachers I've talked to tell me they have no problem with the function of the college. They argue about the form, and they make the argument that the OTF should be the organization, is the organization, and with a small change in legislation could handle the function. From your experience, can you tell me in easy-to- understand terms why the OTF is so strident in that position and why you believe that is the wrong position?
Mr Clifford: I'll answer the second part. I won't accept or speak to why they're so strident in their position because I, in many ways, respect the work of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and I have the honour of being a fellow of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I'd rather go to what I know.
If I were still active in education, if I were a director of education, I personally would resent, and that's a pretty strong word, the fact that I wouldn't have membership in this college if I were not a member of the Ontario Teachers' Federation; that when it came to setting standards for the profession, my view and the view of my fellow supervisory officers or the people in faculties of education or in the private schools -- I believe it's 200,000 we're talking about, not 130,000. One of the most interesting experiences for me in the eight months -- and it's nice at my age and stage to have new experiences -- was to meet with the people in the private schools, 80% of whom hold qualifications to teach in Ontario, and they were asking not for dilution of the teacher federation rights but that they had some group to come to and have some influence on the profession.
In answer to your question, to summarize, and you asked for simple language, I'd try to respect the role the teachers' federation is playing, its important role, but I believe there's another group out there that these recommendations apply to.
Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I can appreciate the concern around membership on the council. The percentage between public and teachers -- I know that was an issue that provoked a lot of controversy under the Regulated Health Professions Act. The previous government was very strong that the public percentage must be 47%, 48%, 49% in some cases. Are we still, in your view, in that kind of ballpark, or did you give some consideration about --
Mr Clifford: That goes back to the question Mr Wildman asked me. I'm more concerned about the elected number than I am about the total number or the relationship between the appointed and the total. You're going to have come before you almost every group that wants representation on that council. I think you have to decide, as you look at it. I guess my biggest thing is not to go beyond total 31, from the point of view of manageable numbers. How you take those 14 or whatever you end up with, I believe that's where you have flexibility to work.
Mrs Ecker: Is there any room to perhaps have other interests represented within the college structure -- because you're right, a lot of people feel they do need to be represented -- by having additional members on some of the committees? That's something some of the other colleges under RHPA have done to answer these concerns. Is there any room there?
Mr Clifford: No hangup from my point of view on that. When you talk about, for example, discipline committee and investigation committee, you will note it calls for a majority of elected members on those committees, and I would hold to that.
We had a lot of delegations, for example, the early childhood educators, who wanted some kind of associate membership. I understood; particularly under the particular times I understand what they were talking about. We have people in the faculties of education who have all kinds of academic qualifications who do not have teaching certificates who are looking for associate-type -- we've left all that to the governing council when it gets set up.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): The major criticism we've heard from the federations is that they're not self-governed, that 14 of the 31 are classroom teachers, that 14 of the 17 elected people are classroom teachers, so they're not self-governed. How do you respond to that criticism?
Mr Clifford: I've stressed from the beginning that the 17 who are elected to that council are certificate holders. I'm not trying to say, "The federation should this," or "The federation should that." I'm saying that from our mandate, it was that the majority of the governing council be certificate holders, and that is what this report has brought in.
1030
The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the official opposition.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It's good to see you, Mr Clifford. Pardon my cold. Let me continue along because, as Mr Skarica said, I think most representations have had to do with the concept of representation. I would use it as an example to make a distinction between a practising professional and a professional with the accreditation, the certificate, the licence, whatever it is. I suppose that's what the teachers seem to be saying. It's hard not to respond to that, especially when you look at how they feel about this, that they feel this is not bad, especially seeing as one of my colleagues from another party suggested that the reason this balance is so tenuous, so tight, is because of the worry of the influence of the federations in terms of the selection in the representation on the council, which I don't share, by the way; I must tell you that.
I would not agree with those who say that the private school teacher should not have representation. I do. They play a role. People who are big supporters of public education may not like that, but the fact is they educate a lot of people; they have a lot to offer; they must be learning things in the private school sector that could add and contribute. That I have no trouble with, but I do with the other two.
I'm a ski instructor, obviously not full-time. I only taught one lesson this year, one day. If I don't teach skiing, I can get away with it for one year, but if I didn't teach next year I would lose my accreditation. I would lose my membership as a ski instructor in the Ski Instructors' Alliance.
I think there is the premise, which I do appreciate and I respect, as you have proposed it, but I would pass on to you the challenge that practising teachers express and have dug in their heels around, that it means you are actually an active member of your profession in a teaching position. You've expressed your view on that, but it seems to me that is such a red flag for the profession that if that door were opened up somewhat, I believe some of the other issues would be perceived in a different light because at least they would feel they would be in a majority position. Do you have any further comments on that?
Mr Clifford: Let me ask you a question first, if I may. I guess that's within the rules.
The Vice-Chair: Sure.
Mr Clifford: Where do you classify principals of schools in your thinking?
Mr Patten: Do I classify them as teachers? No.
Mr Clifford: Then we have a difference that is greater than I thought in the beginning. They're front line. They're in schools. They must have a teaching certificate to hold that position. I realize directors of education seem vague and far off etc, but if you bring it down to the principal rank, I think that's the point where your discussion should continue, on whether they are or are not front-line people in the profession.
Mr Patten: I don't know if you had an opportunity to hear some of the representations that have been made, but I was particularly impressed last evening with the native educational council. I thought they made a convincing argument to me on their representation. As you say, every group that comes forward believes that --
Mr Clifford: No, I understand.
Mr Patten: -- they can justify representation, but in the case of first nations representation on here, one of the arguments they made was it would be very difficult to have one representative represent the aboriginal communities of the north, which are decidedly different -- have different kinds of needs, different kinds of educational contexts -- versus aboriginals who live in the urban situation etc. They made I suppose a number of points, but two in particular. One was that if you had two representing a northern and an urbanized aboriginal educational context, that would be of value; and two, they suggested a committee that would really deal with their own particular cultural context. Would you have any response to that?
Mr Clifford: We met with the same person who I understand presented to you, and I have met with that person over the years. I would hold to the one representative on the governing council and I would support the formation of a committee. I think that's logical and valid.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Clifford, for your presentation.
Mr Wildman: Just for the record, I would point out that, in our view, a principal is a principal teacher.
Mr Clifford: I'll leave.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you.
Mrs Ecker: Another simple issue.
The Vice-Chair: You've certainly stimulated our thinking early this morning.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF DEANS OF EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair: I would next call upon the Ontario Association of Deans of Education, Dr Terrance Boak, the past chair and the dean of the faculty of education of Brock University and Dr Stan Shapson, who's the chair and the dean of the faculty of education at York University. Welcome.
Dr Terrance Boak: Good morning. I'm Terry Boak. Stan Shapson had to leave because he has another appointment and he saw we were running a bit late, so he will return in a few moments. He was going to make the opening comments this morning.
I believe you have received our brief comments.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, we have, sir.
Dr Boak: I might say while we're waiting for Stan that the Ontario Association of Deans of Education is a body that represents the 10 faculties of education in the province of Ontario. There are eight faculties which are anglophone and two faculties -- well, one faculty which is predominantly francophone and that's in Laurentian; and there's Ottawa which has both anglophone and francophone students in the faculty.
Dr Pierre Calvé was going to join us this morning from Ottawa but because of the change in time he was unavailable to be here with us.
I might also state that we've had several discussions around the table and one of the things I think you need to know is that there's unanimous support from the 10 faculties of education in this province for the formation of the College of Teachers. We feel it is the right direction. We feel it is necessary to form a body of this nature which will, in our mind, truly be a self-governing body for the teachers in this province.
I see Stan has just arrived. This is Stan Shapson, dean of the faculty of education at York University. Stan, I've just introduced basically what the Ontario Association of Deans of Education is and maybe you want to pick up from there with your opening comments.
Dr Stan Shapson: Very simply we are strongly in support of the formation of Bill 31 and the formation of the college. We think the professionalism of teachers will be enhanced by this bill. We think that serves the students in Ontario very well. We also think that by doing so, it will enhance the programs we offer in the faculties of education.
Our perspective is that teacher education has probably been somewhat neglected in the province. It seems to be an aftermath of important policy decisions and it's only at the end of important policy decisions that people come to faculties of education and say, "Hey, this has implications for teacher education." We feel that by being represented around the governing council, we will work well with teachers to enhance the professionalism, thereby standards, and thereby the programs offered by faculties of education.
We feel, as well, in our analysis that, given these objectives of ours, the legislation before you is basically enabling. Certainly we would love to have more members around the governing council, but we're not going to ask for that. We feel there are other provisions that were represented. We understand that teachers have to be represented and other community groups, so we're not asking for more representation. We feel by being around the table, by having functional committees where in certain areas such as accreditation we have the opportunity to be more represented and to have ongoing contact with the college, that the partnership in teacher education, which is so important, will actually be enhanced by the provision of this bill.
1040
Terry, why don't I turn it over to you for a couple of comments about the brief and then I think we'll take time to answer your questions.
Dr Boak: Let me just elaborate a little bit on one of the points Stan made about faculties of education and their perception in the community and how the College of Teachers and the legislation proposed can enhance what we feel is our responsibility and role in the whole profession of teaching.
Despite our best efforts in the faculties of education in Ontario over the past dozen years or so to inform the public, to inform the teaching profession of changes that we are making in our faculty, how we are modifying and enhancing admission standards to give representation to a multiplicity of groups within this province, how we are not only admitting students to our faculties who are academically strong but have as well strong experiences within similar or related professions; despite the changes that we've made in terms of the nature of our research and working with schools and the partnerships that have evolved; despite our continuing work of our faculty members in schools working alongside teachers, teaching with teachers in schools and employing many people in the teaching profession, often seconding them from boards to work with our faculties, this message has been really difficult to get to the community. We still often hear faculties of education are rooted in the 1960s; they have not changed, they have not modified anything. That is indeed not the case.
The College of Teachers and the legislation we see here and the fact that we will be members of the College of Teachers, that the 90% of over 1,000 professors of education in this province who are certified in this province will be members of this college and therefore have a voice, we see then that the College of Teachers, because of that, will give us an opportunity to truly communicate with teachers and with the community at large about our responsibilities, our role for educating the young people and the older ones, the adults in this province, appropriately and with relevant educational experiences. That's one point I wanted to make. We see that the legislation proposed really does provide that opportunity.
We see the opportunity through the legislation and the formation of the college to really unify the profession. We think of ourselves as part of the teaching profession, not outside the teaching profession. Yes, we are part of a university environment as well and in that university environment there are expectations of our faculty for conducting scholarly work and doing research, but for the most part in our faculties the kind of research we are involved with is research on either teacher education or on teaching.
We see ourselves very much a part of the teaching profession, but with the current structure, we are really at the fringe of that. We are not eligible for membership in the union -- we are outside that -- but we do see with this, the legislation proposed, being truly a part of the profession of teaching similar to other professional bodies you are aware of I'm sure in terms of the medical profession, the law profession, other health care professions etc. We see the legislation really providing us with a true opportunity to have a voice in the profession, to have a voice in terms of curriculum in the profession and for the profession itself, of which we're part, to clearly have a role to play in our programs and in the relevance of our programs for preparing teachers for this province.
I'll also make one other comment. We have been for years providing in-service professional development opportunities for teachers. We see that although we are responding in most cases to the legislation that is currently in regulation 297 as to what is appropriate for teachers to take, we see the opportunity with the College of Teachers to enhance and enlarge the professional development opportunities for teachers and to have a voice with the other members of the council in developing the most appropriate and relevant experiences for teachers so that they can provide the best teaching for the students of this province.
Dr Shapson: Let me just make two other comments. As OADE, we're connected to COU, the Council of Ontario Universities, and they share our position as well. They have experience with other self-regulatory bodies that interact in a positive way with university professional schools, and they would expect the same kind of relationship with the College of Teachers.
We also, as Terry mentioned, see some parallels with the act here and acts for the other self-regulatory professions, in terms of size and composition of the governing council, in terms of the disciplinary process and in terms of the separation of powers between two important functions: professionalism and unionism and collective bargaining. So we see those parallels.
Finally, just on a personal note, I happened to be situated in British Columbia when the BC College of Teachers was set up. That happened a little more quickly than here. Someone just decided it was going to happen. The point I want to make is that it's had a positive influence. I think it's increased public confidence in education because of the way the processes, as proposed here, have been open. I think it's shaken up one or two faculties of education that had to be shaken up.
Here there's a greater advantage for success, because the mandate of the college in BC was a little narrower. It didn't include professional development. Given that we've all seen the demands on teachers and some of the tremendous changes in composition of students, technology and curriculum, all of us working together in a professional way to contribute to teachers' ongoing growth and professional development I think would even be more positive.
Mr Pettit: Thank you, gentlemen. I've got two quick questions. Let me get to this one first. Relative to teacher preparation programs, do you feel you're currently getting adequate advice as far as the supply and demand of teachers goes at the present time, in order to help the planning of the programming?
Dr Shapson: We are currently working with the ministry to try to get more robust models that will take us through some of the unpredictable times we're going through. So if that were successful, then we think, yes, we would have better data. Right now, the models couldn't predict things like the social contract and a variety of things like that. They're not as accurate as one would hope them to be.
I could just add that the approach we're talking about with the college would in one way help that issue, because we would have built more elasticity into our approaches. Sometimes you may have to be more involved in the pre-service supply side and other times we may have to shift. If there is less demand and if there are new provincial policy decisions, we would get involved in a collaborative way on the professional development.
Mr Pettit: Yesterday, one of the groups that was here was the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, and I thought they brought forward some legitimate concerns. Are there any programs currently available for aboriginals who want to teach or for teachers who want to teach aboriginal students?
Dr Boak: I might be able to respond. Yes, there are. There are four universities that have programs. There's our own university, Queen's University, Nipissing and Lakehead. I can speak of our own university and the development that's taken place over the last few years in providing both Ontario teaching certificate programs for students at Six Nations, which is in the south -- I was here previously when they were talking about the north, and Nipissing has parallel kinds of programs -- and then also summer programs, which provide for people in the aboriginal community who, for one reason or another, haven't accessed university but do want to obtain a valid teaching certificate to teach in the schools within the province, usually on reserves or just outside reserves. We've been offering over the past six years programs of that nature, supported by both this provincial government as well as the federal government in providing support and grants for these programs.
1050
One other comment I should make about that is that in the universities which are offering programs, we have aboriginal councils in place at the university level in which the community has a very strong voice in the nature of the programs and the people employed and working in the programs. We have been successful, as the other universities, in being able to employ qualified people from the aboriginal community to head up programs and to do a great deal of the teaching, although some of the teachers are not aboriginal as well.
Mr Carroll: As a government, we profess to believe in less government, less regulation and less bureaucracy. The Ontario Teachers' Federation says the College of Teachers is a new bureaucracy, unnecessary because in their opinion the OTF could and should and already does handle several of the functions that we're proposing for the College of Teachers. Can you comment on how you feel about the necessity of this "new bureaucracy"?
Dr Shapson: I'll comment on the latter part. We see attention to the professionalism of teachers being extremely important right now in Ontario, and therefore we support the setup of the college. Certificates currently are being issued and have to be issued, discipline hearings have to be set up, so we don't see it as setting up a new bureaucracy; we see it as shifting into some functions and then dealing with enhancements to the professionalism of teachers, which our whole brief suggests is very important to us.
Mr Skarica: We heard from the BC College of Teachers yesterday, and they told us that the formation of that college was a surprise and that initially there was, relatively, a tremendous amount of opposition by the teaching profession to it, and that appears to have now been resolved. How did that eventually evolve?
Dr Shapson: I think in two ways. One is that they are distinct functions, and they're equally important, but for public accountability reasons, they perhaps should be separate. I think it resolved itself for two reasons: one, that they were separate functions; two, when you get teachers around the table to deal with their own profession, they deal with what's best for the profession and what's best for kids. I think that basically happened around the governing council of the BC college, and we would suspect the same thing would happen around this college here, and that's why we want to be around that table.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, the time is up. I know you've got two more speakers, but if some of you want to move to the other side, you're more than welcome to.
Mrs Ecker: They wouldn't have us.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Think about it as a benefit.
Mr Wildman: Depends how reckless you are.
Mr Patten: Your comments have been positive, and you've embraced the idea, it seems to me, with enthusiasm. Therefore, I would like to ask you, while of course as an association you would have to say that all of your members are of equal value and equal quality etc, we know that's not what happens in the mind's eye of prospective students in things of that nature. In the relationship with the proposed college, would you see this as really enhancing that sense of standardization -- not standardization; I'm not sure what the term is -- but a sense of equal quality for all of the faculties of education? Would this be of help along that road?
Dr Boak: Yes, to your question. Let me give you an example of what we have in place now which we think really does ensure quality. Currently, the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies, which is a body of the COU, does provide review on a seven-year cycle of graduate programs in our faculties or other faculties of the university. It's been an opportunity for us to ensure that the quality is there. We see that this will be enhanced in our other programs in our faculty at the undergraduate level as well as in the teacher education programs by having a college, which on a cycle base will review our colleges.
Mr Patten: Mr Clifford quoted the figures of about 5,000 graduates a year. What is the uptake of those graduates? How many are employed?
Dr Boak: This year, for some really outstanding graduates, short term it's going to be grim. For example, I know in our university we're currently working with the graduates who will graduate within a month, providing some ESL background and we hope to work with some of the foreign countries that are introducing English at an earlier level in their schools to see if they could get placed there for two years and then hopefully they'll come back when the demand will be greater. So right now, short term, it's not wonderful.
However, I think I answered the earlier question about supply and demand. That might be very short term and some people are projecting -- I don't know how valid those data are yet -- that there'll be a tremendous shortage in two years. So what we're doing now is trying to work with our graduates who we think will be outstanding teachers for Ontario. Unfortunately, for many of them, it won't be in September, but we're trying to get them some related experience, perhaps overseas, in education, and then some data at least that we and other universities have is that after a two- or three-year experience, most of them return and are better for that experience when they come back to Ontario schools.
Mr Patten: Dr Boak, you mentioned the changes over time that others may not have seen in the faculties of education. As you address the future responsibility, what is the changing role of teachers as you see it and what does that mean for the preparation?
Dr Boak: That's a question that could take a long time to answer, but certainly, with the introduction of different technologies within schools the roles of teachers are changing. The young people coming into our schools now know how to access information and access the massive information out there and teachers are having to be more facilitators in the classroom of how they use that information, how they make sense of that information.
They have moved from being quite didactic some years ago, as maybe many of us experienced in schools, to being more encouraging and facilitating of students' learning. They've had to deal with the individualities of the students and their learning backgrounds, because there's tremendous diversity in the schools in Ontario now in terms of what children are coming to school with and their backgrounds and their language and all the rest.
You're seeing a teacher's role changing quite dramatically from one who might have had a very homogeneous type classroom to one which has such diversity. That's just starting to touch on the whole topic of the changing role and responsibilities of the teachers. On top of all of that, these teachers need to still have a really strong academic background, they need to have knowledge in many disciplines to be able to provide help and direction to students in their learning.
Dr Shapson: If I could add two factors, I think it shows the need for lifelong professional development and that's a key part of the college. The other area I would like to add is the whole area that they have to be more accountable in many ways to the public. In many ways we would be supportive, if we had time, of Bill 30, which you're looking at as well, for EQAO, because I think it's really important that teachers understand that as part of the increased standards and accountability, we have to find a variety of means to assess students. Some of that is based on teachers' judgement, but also on a variety of province-wide assessment mechanisms that will then feed into new curriculum development, and those standards are extremely important as well.
1100
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. Could you elaborate a little on how you see faculties interfacing with the college, not just in relation to the fact that you have representation on the board and will be involved in the design of programs and so on. How do you think this is going to change the faculty, if it will?
Dr Shapson: I think there will be an ongoing dialogue, of which we're a part, around the table that deals with all the issues, the accreditation, the programs. When a new model is put in place for accreditation of programs, then each individual program will be assessed on that basis. If a particular faculty comes up short, then it'll be accountable to change. In the standards and the accreditation, there will be a process that would then move to accountability at the individual faculty level. That's probably the most direct way.
What I see coming out of this as well are perhaps some new models of teacher development, some being more school-based, others more focused on certain areas like the issue of instructional technology that Terry brought up, or programs for first nations. I also think that with closer collaboration, we would look at the whole career development of teachers and how a faculty could add value throughout the teacher's career working closely with professionals in the field rather than just focusing on the part of the glass that we fill up before teachers get their first real teaching jobs. Those are some of the ways I see this as really justifying the need for the college.
Mr Wildman: You mentioned first nations, and we've had some discussion about this because of the presentation of Ms Maracle and the federations yesterday, and she'll be back wearing another hat before these hearings are over, which is typical of Sylvia's approach. Could you tell me what you see as the role of the faculties and the college together in meeting the diversity you talked about that is represented in our classrooms now, where we have many students from a large number of cultural backgrounds, some of whom have been in Ontario for a significant period of their childhood and others who have just arrived? What kinds of programs do you see developing that would help teachers to meet the needs of such a diverse group of students that they're now facing?
Dr Boak: There are a number of things, but let me start with what is really critical. As you're aware, I would think, in our programs we have a significant in-school placement. It's even proposed that this be extended and that it be longer, and we are piloting in some of our faculties now three-month extensions.
Where the real opportunity comes with our faculty and teachers within the schools, of our new teachers going out and working with this diversity, is actually in the schools, working in the schools with the children who are coming from these diverse backgrounds or coming with English as their second language, coming from different ethnic groups. We see that as really critical. It's the whole merging of theory and practice, and that is really significant and will, I think, be enhanced by the college.
It's always been somewhat of a struggle for a recognition of what we're doing in faculties and what's happening in schools and a merging of that theory and practice. To deal with this diversity, we've got to be in the schools and doing that. I think that's where there will be a freer flow of faculty members and teachers in the system, by the college. The college, I think, will recognize that they need to have this freer flow.
A number of our faculties have formed consortiums of one sort or another with people in the field, not only teachers but people in the business communities, because they're very interested in our graduates -- back to supply and demand. You might say that we are primarily responsible for preparing teachers, but some of the uptake of our graduates is going into a number of businesses, working in financial institutions, working at General Motors as educational trainers, so there's a lot of base in the value of our educational experiences for many.
Mr Wildman: One wag said to me, when he heard that you were coming, that the worst pedagogy takes place at the post-high-school level and wondered what we were doing and what should be done to enhance the pedagogy that takes place in colleges and universities.
Dr Boak: Many colleges and universities have probably recognized that point and have developed instructional development centres for the very real purpose of working with faculties in universities or professors in universities. I know many of the education professors who are working more in the teaching area and have a knowledge of that profession are indeed facilitating the teaching of our other colleagues in university environments.
Dr Shapson: Let me just add -- it connects to your earlier question -- one of the approaches we're using is not only getting the faculty of education members out to the schools but people in some of the other cognate departments. Their interacting with students and teachers at an earlier age I think starts to shift the pedagogy which has been content-based into a different framework that concentrates on different student needs but also on critical skill developments in addition to the important content development.
The Vice-Chair: With that, I'd like to thank you very much for coming before the committee today and for your presentation.
CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS, ONTARIO REGION
The Vice-Chair: I'd now like to call upon Mr Bernie Farber, the national director of community relations for the Canadian Jewish Congress. Mr Farber, you have 30 minutes to make a presentation, which will include questions and answers from the different caucuses. Welcome, sir.
Mr Bernie Farber: My name is Bernie Farber. I'm the national director of community relations for the Canadian Jewish Congress. In this capacity, I also direct the Ontario region of the Canadian Jewish Congress community relations committee. On the side, I am also a parent with two young children enrolled in a public school in York region, just outside of Toronto.
The Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region, represents the Jewish community to fellow Ontarians and to government. It acts as a vehicle for advocacy on a broad range of public policy and social justice issues.
Congress promotes intergroup relations and combats anti-Semitism and racism. It is committed to preserving and strengthening Jewish life throughout the province, it stresses the centrality of Israel for Jews and Judaism and fosters concern for the status of Jewish communities abroad.
The community relations committee is made up of members of our community with expertise in education, the arts, law, journalism and other areas that would impact both on the general and Jewish communities. The committee addresses issues of discrimination and human rights and combats anti-Semitism and racism. In fact, the congress has been a catalyst in the development of federal and provincial laws dealing with extremist racist expression and group vilification.
The committee also monitors the shaping of public opinion for negative impact on vulnerable minority communities. It ensures that religious observance is not a bar to a person's participation in the public realm, be it at school, at work or other venues. It assists victims of anti-Semitism and discrimination and counters the activities of racist groups.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to address the standing committee on Bill 31. For the purposes of the Canadian Jewish Congress's position, we will only be commenting on the specific issues that we feel impact on minority communities and the manner in which Bill 31 and an Ontario teachers' college can be of benefit to minority communities and to the general community. Our most specific concern deals with the role of teacher and so-called public trust.
In the past the congress felt that Ontario Teachers' Federation guidelines, as well as policy and public statements ensuring vulnerable communities that there would be a zero tolerance level for discrimination and bigotry from school boards, would be enough to deal with racist incidents and the rare possibility of teachers who discriminate either outside or inside the classroom. Unfortunately, history has shown a different record.
1110
The most notorious example of a public school teacher who was permitted to teach unadulterated anti-Semitism for 10 years, James Keegstra, was a matter not handled by the local Alberta school board, his employer, nor did the local union effect any significant change in his attitudes and teaching concepts. Indeed, it was the courage of one parent, non-Jewish, Lesley Maddox, who followed a complaint with dogged determination to ensure that James Keegstra would never again be in a position to teach his particular brand of hatred.
Thankfully, criminal charges lodged against Keegstra for promoting hatred were eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. None the less, it is difficult to come to grips with the fact that neither the school board nor the union ever placed themselves in the position of dealing appropriately with this most serious matter.
While the case of James Keegstra might appear obvious, less obvious was a recent Supreme Court case dealing with Malcolm Ross. Malcolm Ross was a Moncton, New Brunswick, teacher by vocation but a racist by avocation. Ross propagated the notion of an international Jewish conspiracy. He denied the Holocaust and saw Judaism as the root of evil, while holding Jews responsible for most of society's ills. While Malcolm Ross never brought his noxious views into a public school classroom, the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the fact that Ross published books and made public statements which clearly attacked the truthfulness, integrity, dignity and motives of Jewish persons.
Once again, what became apparent in the Malcolm Ross case was that the school board which employed him, while taking some minor disciplinary action, never effectively dealt with the fact that Malcolm Ross was one of Canada's leading public anti-Semites. It retained him as a public school teacher within the Moncton school board.
Again it took the courage of one parent to launch a complaint under the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, which alleged that the school board's ongoing employment of Ross as a teacher was tantamount to the excusing of his views. This applied a very negative example to students, it made it easier for children to act intolerantly and poisoned the school community's atmosphere. As a result, the complaint suggested that Jewish and other minority students would be denied equal opportunity.
The original decision by the board of inquiry was to remove Ross from his teaching position. If a non-teaching position became available, he was to be offered such, and to ensure that as long as he remained employed by the Moncton school board, he no longer produce anti-Semitic and racist material.
The issue wound its way through various levels of court, finally ending up at the doorstep of the Supreme Court of Canada. At the beginning of this month, it was the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to uphold the original order barring Ross from the public school classroom.
While this was a matter of great relief for a majority of Canadians, once again eyebrows were raised. Why did a parent have to take such drastic action? Where was the school board? Indeed, at its early stages, why did the union seem to more strongly support Ross's right to be an anti-Semite rather than the children's right to be free from a poisoned atmosphere within the school?
However, my friends, one need not look to Alberta or New Brunswick to see examples of potential racism among public school teachers. Only a few years ago, a racist teacher employed by a school board right here in Ontario for almost 20 years was free to preach and publish what many considered to be racist views, albeit outside the classroom, and without censure. He was a founding member and an active participant of several organizations which advocated white supremacy, banning non-white refugees and immigrants from entering Canada and promoting ill will and intolerance against gays and lesbians, as well as native people. He addressed rallies where well-known hatemongers were honoured and Nazi swastika flags, Ku Klux Klan and skinhead symbols were prominently displayed. He was also known to have attended a celebration in honour of Hitler's birthday.
Over the years, complaints of fellow teachers and of the Jewish community were ignored, and this teacher remained employed by a local board of education. Parents did not complain despite discomfort felt by many visible minority students in the school. Many were simply afraid to do so; many of them, of course, were new immigrants to this country. Neither did the teachers' union take any action, whose constitution commits teachers to "foster and promote the dignity of all persons regardless of race, religion and/or cultural origin."
During a public speech given by a native leader in Toronto protesting the activities of racist organizations in Ontario, this teacher, who was present, uttered the anti-native comment, "Scalp 'em." Following this incident, Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region, and the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto joined forces and developed a strategy to attempt to remove this public school teacher from his high school classroom. Our two groups utilized the media by providing it with information about his activities and were successful in convincing the school board to at least launch an internal investigation. As a result, he was formally reprimanded.
Yet this did not deter the teacher. He continued to sow the seeds of divisiveness. A few months later, the two community groups obtained a videotape of the teacher's address to a neo-Nazi rally in downtown Toronto. Congress and the native centre then used media scrutiny to persuade the Ministry of Education to finally conduct a formal inquiry. The resulting report found that a teacher has an obligation to be a role model in the area of human rights and ethnocultural equity and should not promote discrimination or inequity inside or outside the classroom.
Finally, exactly two years to the date of the first complaint, the teacher was removed from the high school classroom. The teacher in question, however, remains employed today with the school board and teaches adult education.
Teaching is a very special and noble profession. We have read time and again of responsibilities that teachers have as a public trust to be positive role models for their students. Codes of conduct, codes of ethics and guidelines found among teachers' unions and teachers' associations spell this out admirably. A school, especially a public school, is a unique place. A vital element of public education is to teach children to respect individual and group differences and to foster understanding among the school community's diverse population. Indeed, many school boards have specific race relations policies which identify this important endeavour.
None the less, minority parents and our community specifically have not reached a level of comfort that school boards and teachers' unions will effectively deal with the rare case of a public school teacher who is an admitted and public bigot. It has not happened in the past and we are not convinced that it will happen in the future. It is for this reason that we believe the establishment of an independent body known as the Ontario College of Teachers will help ensure that minority children in Ontario's schools are protected from the likes of the Keegstras and Rosses of this world.
Further, we are extremely supportive of widening the governing council so that it includes parents, students, school trustees, business and labour. We believe the entire Ontario community has a specific and necessary interest in our education system. By broadening the governing council to this degree, it will better reflect the entirety of Ontario.
A major impediment we found in dealing with the case of the Ontario school teacher was the secrecy and in-camera process, which created an atmosphere of mistrust. With the recommendation that disciplinary hearings of the governing council of the college would be open to parents, such mistrust will dissipate. While it is not always proper to deal with personnel matters in a public arena, where there is a definitive public interest, an open, public process is far preferable. Publicly funded professions that impact especially on our children's lives must be open to this kind of reasonable scrutiny. Further, the opening of investigations and disciplinary committees of the college to lay members, which will include parents, will add to the feeling of openness and accountability.
However, my friends, a word of caution is necessary. It is imperative, if this procedure is to work effectively, that proper protection be in place to ensure that any disciplinary complaints are deemed to be reasonable. As well, investigations into disciplinary complaints and procedures that follow must of course be in keeping with the law, human rights safeguards and the charter of our land.
We strongly urge and support the adoption of the college acting as a public complaints bureau for perceived professional misconduct or incompetence against its member teachers. This will give parents the added security of knowing that if a school board or union is not prepared to deal with perceived problems of racism and bigotry, a formal complaints procedure to the college remains an important and open option.
None the less, we are cognizant that any such endeavour carries with it the possibility of more bureaucracy and ultimately the potential for complicating the process even further. This must not only be resisted, but precautions established to ensure that the Ontario College of Teachers is accessible and open. If the college were to merely add to the already burdensome procedure that parents and communities have had to endure, it would only lead to a further souring towards the system.
1120
Bill 31 can become a beacon of light for vulnerable minority communities within Ontario. While we have not commented on specific areas of the legislation, we wish to urge in the strongest possible terms that this committee understand our community's call for the establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers as one of the safeguards necessary in ensuring that all children, regardless of race, creed, colour or nationality, feel welcome within Ontario's public school system.
Mr Patten: Thank you for the presentation. This is a different basis of support for the college than we have received heretofore. I would concur of course with the legitimacy of your concern and worry, particularly as you've laid out the historical examples of where the non-responsiveness has occurred.
On page 6 of your presentation you suggest widening the governing council further than what is there at the moment, and at the moment there are 31 members. Specifically, what would you be looking at?
Mr Farber: What we are supporting is the widening of the governing council to include parents. Our concept here is to have this as open as possible. The problem that we have discussed and that I've discussed here and that we have had in the past is that there is a sense, especially in minority communities, where we've had to struggle with the kinds of issues that I've discussed here this morning, that the school community protects its own. So if there's a problem with a teacher, if there's a problem around disciplining a teacher, especially in that very complicated area of racism and discrimination, what we have seen happen is the walls sort of closing in.
In the case that I mentioned -- and by the way, just for the record so you understand, because I know there are questions as to why we are mentioning Malcolm Ross and Keegstra and not mentioning this other teacher, we felt it more appropriate since this particular teacher, although faced with a ministerial inquiry, was never before the courts. The teacher's name is well known. If somebody wants to know, we have no problem making it public, but just in terms of our presentation, it was the model that was more important.
In that particular issue, I can tell you, because we were very directly involved in it, that the amount of secrecy and the amount of what was perceived to be non-openness was so apparent. Even the internal investigation by the particular board of education was held in secret, in camera. We have no idea what they found, why they found it, how they found it and how they came about putting together such a minor disciplinary procedure.
If one widens this governing council, and if of course it is this governing council that has responsibility around disciplinary areas, I think what it will end up doing is giving the needed impression out there that when we deal with teachers -- and I put teachers in a special category; I always have. We're dealing with teachers paid by the public purse who have, I believe, a sacred public trust. We entrust our children to them for close to eight hours a day, and that is pretty significant for us as communities and parents. We want this kind of situation as open as possible. That's why we were strongly supportive of widening it.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate your presentation and the work the congress has done and is doing now. I know of the case that you refer to from my involvement with the aboriginal community particularly.
I can understand your concerns and your desire for additional protections to deal with teachers who might be racist or be actively involved in discrimination against minority groups and aboriginal people, but I would like to raise with you a different aspect.
One of the groups that has appeared before our committee represented gay and lesbian teachers. They expressed a concern that the investigative powers of the college and the information they put on the registry might not properly take into account the right of privacy and might mean that, for want of a better phrase, some teachers might be outed, and this might then cause problems for them and their families. Do you have any thoughts about that difficulty? I know the interest of the congress in protecting all people, whether they be visible minority groups or members of the gay community, from discrimination.
Mr Farber: Thank you for that question. I was expecting it and I think it's an important question. You're right in suggesting that the congress has had a specific interest in dealing with minority communities. We've worked very closely with the gay community. We have been one of the only ethnic-religious groups that have strongly supported the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act and in dealing with criminal activity against gays and lesbians.
That being said, when we put together our brief, we were cognizant of that issue and cognizant of the concern that certain groups within the gay community may have in relation to the situation. It was for that reason that we chose our words carefully. The word, you'll note, that comes across more often than not is "reasonable." It is my sense, and I would believe, at least in my reading of the legislation, that it is unreasonable to attack, investigate or discipline -- terribly unreasonable, completely unreasonable to do such -- simply because a teacher may or may not be a member of the gay community. There are no reasonable grounds that I've read anywhere, that anybody has read anywhere, to believe that a teacher who is gay would deal negatively with a student any more than a teacher who is heterosexual.
If indeed there was any movement by the Ontario College of Teachers to investigate member teachers simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, it's clear to my reading and our legal counsel's reading that that would be completely and totally against charter rights, especially in the way the charter has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in dealing with the rights of people who are gay and lesbian.
I don't believe that's going to be an issue. I understand the group yesterday did. We humbly disagree with that. We believe the charter has been interpreted very clearly on that issue and that if, God forbid, that came up, rest assured that groups like ours and others would be strongly standing with members of the gay community to ensure that proper justice would be done. But I can't imagine that such a situation would occur.
Secondly, we have to look at the fact that there have been other Ontario colleges -- there is an Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, for example. Doctors also have a sacred trust in society, and to the best of my knowledge, I've never heard of any complaint being lodged against a doctor because of his or her sexual orientation. So I think we have to go with a little bit of history here as well.
Although I'm sympathetic to those concerns, mainly because the gay community has been a targeted community of discrimination, my best possible feeling at this point is that would not happen, it should not happen, by law it could not happen, but if indeed it did, there would be many standing on the side of the gay community to help them deal with it.
Mrs Ecker: Thank you, Mr Farber, for an excellent presentation. What you have done perhaps better than anyone to date -- without being critical of anyone previously -- is underline two really important principles about the whole issue of the concept of professionalism.
The first is to be able to take off the hat of what's in the best interests of the profession or the individual professional and to put on the hat of what's in the best interests of the public, which is what this debate and this discussion are all about. Second, that has to be balanced with the rights and the legal rights individuals have as well. You've put it very well.
One of the cautions you make in your presentation is that you're concerned about more bureaucracy, potential for complicating the process further. Is there anything specific in your examination of the legislation that has caused you to raise this concern, or are there specific pitfalls you see that the government and the college might fall into if we're not cautious?
1130
Mr Farber: This is a very good question. There was nothing specifically in the legislation. But what I found of great interest is that prior to putting our presentation together, we had the opportunity of speaking to a number of teachers, principals and vice-principals, school trustees, just to ask them what their position is on this matter, how they felt about it etc. We had a tremendous range of opinion, I can tell you.
Of the rank-and-file teachers, at least the ones I've spoken to, and there's nothing scientific about this other than that they came from different parts of the province, very few had a lot of information about the Ontario College of Teachers. I know the federation has been strongly opposed to it and has echoed serious concerns, but certainly among the rank and file I have spoken to, they're teaching day to day, and this is just not one of the issues high on their agenda, rightly or wrongly.
However, of those who know about it, their major concern was an issue that the college may be becoming another bureaucratic giant where there would be so many levels of disciplinary procedure that it would just bog them down in bureaucratic red tape. That's not our goal here. There is enough bureaucratic red tape in the education system. I've been dealing with it for years on various different levels, so I'm aware of it.
I'm also aware, when a disciplinary procedure is led by a parent, of how difficult it is for that parent to have support, because very often there is no support. A parent usually stands alone. You can take a look at the examples I mentioned, how difficult it was for these two parents in particular to do what they did. We couldn't even find a parent in the case of the Ontario teacher because of a lot of fear. That's why the two organizations had to do this together, and then we began to understand the issue. Literally, we had to go through reams having to do with the bureaucracy of the school itself, then with the school board and then with the ministry. It took over two years before that issue was resolved.
The caution I'm suggesting is that whoever is going to be hired to deal with the issues of establishing the process look at it carefully and ensure that it's open and accessible and isn't there just to create jobs for 100 other people and create reams of red tape. I think the caution should be well heard. The public would just throw up their arms in despair and say, "Another government giant."
I think this can work. It's got great potential to be a protector for children, for teachers and for parents, but if it doesn't work, it could also be a tremendous failure. We have to be careful of that.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Mr Farber, for coming to the committee today. On page 2 of your brief, you mention that the Keegstra situation in Alberta "was a matter not handled by the local Alberta school board, his employer, nor did the local union affect any significant change in his attitudes and teaching concepts."
Given that and the situation we have here in Ontario -- you mentioned the local board of education having an in camera process. What assistance, if any, did you get from the teachers' federations?
Mr Farber: "Assistance" is not the word I would use. As a matter of fact, they threw up all kinds of barriers, which surprised us. Listen, I understand the need for unions to protect their employees. I also know, because of work I have done with unions in the past, that within various locals and within various unions, one with local officials would weigh and judge particular cases to decide how far they're prepared to go with that particular member. If it's a case that's way off the other end of the stick, very often pressure would be put on that person to either drop the case or what have you.
We wrote to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in the case of this teacher and we wrote to the Ontario Teachers' Federation in relation to this teacher. We pointed out to them, from their very own constitution, the obligation they have to ensure that teachers meet the standards necessary and specifically around anti-racism and the statements they have made. Not only were we not answered, but the teachers' federation of course supplied legal assistance and legal counsel to ensure that this procedure wound its way for two years.
While on the one hand I guess I can understand the need to protect a member of the union, on the other hand what we were left in the dark about and were left terribly confused about was the lack of understanding from the union's point of view, about why they would not insist that their particular member adhere to their own guidelines and their own constitution. This teacher is still teaching and is still a member of the OSSTF and still a member of the OTF. In fact, even though I understand that a complaint may have been launched against this particular teacher at the time within the union -- it's my understanding and I can't verify it -- to the best of my knowledge, no action to this day has ever been taken by the union.
The union, to us, really turned out to be a lame duck. That being said, the school board didn't turn out much better either, and the school didn't turn out much better either. There was no help anywhere, and it was only because of the work that congress and the native centre did in tandem did anything happen.
Mr Newman: Do you feel the college will definitely help in this respect?
Mr Farber: Without any doubt. The college we see as an independent organization where parents finally would have a right to bring a complaint without the worry of one or the other side having an agenda.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Farber, for your presentation.
HEALTH PROFESSIONS REGULATORY ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Vice-Chair: I now call Christie Jefferson, who is the chair, and Dr Jerry White, the vice-chair of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. Welcome to our meeting.
Ms Christie Jefferson: Thank you very much for the privilege of addressing this committee on this important piece of legislation. Before I begin, I want to clarify our understanding of why we were invited to make a presentation to the committee; that is that we are a new council that advises the Minister of Health and were created by the new Regulated Health Professions Act, and as this bill is modelled at least in part on the RHPA, I gather it was thought to be helpful for us to do a comparison. I should add that we are both members of the public, and therefore our focus will be to talk about this comparison from the perspective of the public interest. Without further ado, Dr White.
Dr Jerry White: The Regulated Health Professions Act and its attendant legislation, 1993, is a model piece of legislation. Indeed, across the North American jurisdiction, it's been pointed to as legislation to be emulated, and recent national investigations in the US have pointed to us and said, "Let's take a look at that Ontarian experience." It's quite clear to us, at least, the relevance of this legislation to your deliberations in terms of College of Teachers legislation.
The first point I'd like to discuss is what I'd call structure and integration within the act. I don't want to bore you right off the top, so I'll try and make it as relevant as I can. In regulating the health professions, we had an incredible advantage. We put together -- I talk about "we" in terms of the province -- the Regulated Health Professions Act, the health procedural codes, the individual legislation for doctors, nurses, midwives, and also the regulations and bylaws as a continuous package, so they're synchronous. There's not the type of contradictions and difficulties and inconsistencies that face this legislation, because this legislation is being on the front of arguably one of the most complex pieces of legislation in Ontario today, the Education Act. It takes up some 250 pages -- I tried to study it, and gave up, before the meeting today -- of the Revised Statutes of Ontario.
1140
Let me just take an example. In the teachers' college act, unlike the health professions act, there's no legislative outline for what would be the scope of practice or standards of practice for a teacher. It's said this will follow in regulation: "This is what a teacher is and what they should do." However, in the Education Act, clause 264(1)(c) outlines the duties. If I could take a second and read, I think you'll see some of the difficulties.
Clause (c) says it's the duty of a teacher "to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance" -- it goes on.
This would take precedence in legislation over anything that was put into regulation. It would be a very difficult process for any college to try and administer and direct those types of parameters around a scope of practice of professionalism for a teacher, so you're faced with a problem of trying to deal with some of these inconsistencies because you have an act in place already.
A related problem is linked to the structure of the act; that is, the act says regulation shall take place only over teachers in the public domain workplaces. This sets a very dangerous precedent. In the health area, our principle is that we regulate the individual practitioners, professionals; all those acting in the capacity of or holding themselves out to be a regulated professional are covered by the appropriate college regulations. This act is a step towards regulating the workplace, and it sets in that sense rather than the professional, because teachers in a variety of settings will not be subject to the college's regulation; for example -- I pick one -- the private schools.
I spoke to the complexity in our regulated health professions regime. No regime can cover every kind of inconsistency and contradiction, but we have certain mechanisms within our act to deal with these. Christie Jefferson will comment about this.
Ms Jefferson: The first and most obvious is that RHPA created our council. Our job really is to provide advice based on the public interest after having a public forum or a public review of contentious issues. If you don't resolve them all, is there a way of establishing a similar kind of body in this legislation? Right now, there is no equivalent. What you've got will only be able to be addressed through further legislative action.
A number of other issues around public interest are expressly addressed by the RHPA where there is no mirror, or a minimal mirror, in the proposed act. For example, one of the most innovative and interesting sections of the RHPA is section 3, which specifies the duties of the minister responsible for health and expressly talks about what the public interest is. It's kind of a buzzword. It can mean almost anything if you don't have a bit of an idea in the legislation of what the legislator's intention is.
Let me take a moment and read that short section to you. "It is the duty of the minister to ensure that the heath professions are regulated and coordinated in the public interest, that appropriate standards of practice are developed and maintained and that individuals have access to services provided by health professions of their choice and that they are treated with sensitivity and respect in their dealings with health professions, the colleges and the board."
Again there's no equivalent statement in this legislation, and it's something you may want to consider. We found that section to be absolutely essential in interpreting our mandate, and I know many colleges did as well, to understand how colleges are to regulate in the public interest. That's a common piece between the two bills. Both bills spell out that colleges are to serve and promote the public interest, but if you don't have an indication of what that is, that can be somewhat of a vague statement.
Another place of difference is in the question of corporate legislation. Both acts say the college shall be a non-profit organization. The RHPA, on the other hand, specifically says the Corporations Act will not apply to the colleges being established; in other words, it's setting up a completely independent corporate regime, a non-profit organization. This bill, however, we found somewhat confusing. It says on the one hand it doesn't apply, but then goes on to say in subsection 2(3) that the Corporations Act and the Corporations Information Act could specifically be made applicable by the act or regulations, and later, in 37(1), specifically allows the council of the proposed College of Teachers to make regulations such that the two acts already mentioned and the Business Corporations Act are applicable to the college.
It's very unclear what kinds of profit corporate provisions would be appropriate for a non-profit regulatory body. We were left wondering, is this a double message? What was in mind, if anything, in allowing this open door?
Finally, paragraph 3(1)10 of Bill 31, which is the objects of the college, states that the college's object is the promotion of the profession. This flies in the face, in our view, of the historic and important separation in Ontario of having the professional associations take care of professional interests and the regulatory body take care of the public interest. This is an extremely contradictory message to give to this new regulatory body.
Dr White: I'd like to talk a little about public involvement in regulation. Public involvement is very crucial in this act. We find the proposed numbers of public members to be very positive, but there are a couple of issues we'd like to clarify from our experience in working with the Regulated Health Professions Act.
The public should have a sizeable and not token representation, and we feel the act as it sits now does give the public that sizeable representation. The public must have a role in the regulation of professionals. That public should also reflect Ontarian society. That said, we also wish to reiterate that this must be self-regulation. That's the key, that people are regulating themselves through a mechanism they can control themselves. This means that the majority of the college council must be made up of the regulated profession's own members. This is quite crucial to the principles of acceptable democratic governance. We would see that it's the kind of proposal that makes governance possible within a college and makes the college's activities reasonable to its members.
The involvement of the public in committees of the college, as is set out for the investigation committee and the discipline committee, is also very important, and we see this as positive.
We would also like to note, though, that Bill 31 does not preclude public members from being teachers, ie, college members could sit as public members. This is something we have in our acts in the health area, and this is very critical because one can't have the public excluded by having professionals sit as their entire numbers in the health area, as I say. Even in our HPRAC, we do not allow members of any of the professions that are regulated to sit. I'm an academic, not a medical doctor, in case somebody was going to notice that there's a contradiction.
A further problem we see is that the RHPA and the specific health acts create something called quality assurance and patient relations. Some sort of reflection of this would be very good within the act, because these committees tend to work on questions of relations between practitioners and patients, between college and the public and raise the quality of professionalism. We would suggest that they might be considered for addition.
Last, I'd like to raise a problem we noted. The act proposes that the teachers' college will accredit university education programs, in paragraphs 3(1)3, 3(1)4 and 3(1)9. This is a substantial departure from what we have done in the health care area. In the health professions, this would be like giving the College of Physicians and Surgeons the responsibility to accredit the University of Toronto medical program. That's a job that I don't think they would like to put their resources and time into, and it's a very intensive process and needs particular skills and particular moneys.
This may seem an economy in some circles, but it treads over academic jurisdictions, in our opinion, and gives the college an unacceptably difficult task to carry out. We would probably caution the committee to look very carefully at this set of recommendations.
1150
Ms Jefferson: One final point before we close, in terms of an obvious difference between the two pieces of legislation, and that is the lack of any specific provisions concerning sexual abuse of students by teachers. As many of you will recall, Bill 100, in the final hours before RHPA was finalized, revised that legislation in several significant ways to address what we've seen, I think, as the vulnerability of patients and the power imbalance between patients and health professionals, and that special attention needed to be paid to that.
One could argue that a similar kind of power imbalance, particularly between young students and their teachers, needs to be addressed in this legislation. Just to refresh your memory, some of these provisions included a specific definition of "sexual abuse" to make it clear to the professional what was acceptable and what is unacceptable. It included mandatory reporting by professionals of suspected abusers to the college; it included stiff penalties for convicted abusers, a fund for therapy for patients who had suffered sexual abuse; and allowed for third-party participation in discipline hearings in certain circumstances, particularly the complainant. The kind of situation envisioned is where that complainant's own reputation or character was called into question that the panel could say, "Yes, you have a specific concern here, and we're going to let you talk to us." So those are the provisions you may want to consider in this bill.
In summary, to conclude our comments, while Bill 31 and RHPA have many similar provisions in terms of the public interest, there are a number of important RHPA provisions that entrench and clarify the public interest that are absent in the proposed bill you're considering. I think that's it for our comments; I don't know if you have any questions.
Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. We may not have time, but there are two questions I have, really. If I use the College of Nurses of Ontario as an example, could you give us an idea of what the distribution of members of the profession elected and members of the public appointed would be on that college?
Ms Jefferson: It's one of the larger colleges. I think it's 30 --
Mr Wildman: That's why I chose it.
Ms Jefferson: Yes, I know. Off the top of my head, it's something like the high 30s, and I think it's similar proportion. It is different in that it specifies the number of RNs, registered nurses, and registered practical nurses in terms of the distribution of professional members, but it is a very similar proportion, just under half would be members of the public.
Mr Wildman: I see. Okay. The other question I had was in regard to your last comment in your presentation, when you said there are a number of provisions that are present in the Regulated Health Profession Act that are not present here. Is it possible for you to give us a short synopsis of some of the main areas that are not?
Ms Jefferson: Yes. I think, in summary, there is no expressed provision in the legislation that says what the public interest is, and what the minister's role is in ensuring that the College of Teachers would regulate in the public interest. There's no body, such as ours, that would be a source for resolution and public review of ongoing problems with the legislation. It is possible, too, that the balance between public and professional membership may not hold if it isn't clear that professional or public members can't be teachers, unlike in the RHPA which says that, and a number of areas around the complaints system. Particularly, I know that in the health arena, people who have been sexually abused feel quite strongly that when their personal reputation is being torn apart in the middle of a college hearing, they should have the right to be there, and this legislation does not allow for third parties; ie, the public member or the parent who's complained about the behaviour of a teacher will not have the right to address the committee that needs to make a decision. There are those kinds of really, in our mind, fairly significant gaps, if you will, in this legislation.
Mr Wildman: Could I ask the committee research -- I'm not a lawyer, and I know there are lawyers who are members of the committee, but I'd like some advice, some information as to what would be the situation if a parent believed that a child had been sexually abused, to use that as an example. What would be the role of the college vis-à-vis the other authorities, like the children's aid society, the police and so on? We all know there is other legislation in place in the province which requires reporting of that kind of incident. A teacher must report; a member of the public must report. If it is reported, then I would think other authorities such as children's aid and the police would be involved. I'd like to get some clarification as to the roles of the various groups, as well as the school board, which of course would also be involved.
Ms Jefferson: Absolutely. But just to mention that it is the regulatory body's job, if this legislation is passed, to certify or decertify that teacher. They have a very specific role, aside from any criminal action or the local school board firing that individual. If you want to make sure that individual can't teach any more in this province, you'd need to make sure that provision is clear.
Mr Wildman: We all understand that. The reason I was raising that was because of the concern you raised about the individual having the opportunity to present during a discussion of his or her reputation that might be part of the defence of the accused professional. I'm just wondering if the situation might be different in a situation involving children. I realize you could have a similar situation with a member of the medical profession being accused of this.
The Vice-Chair: We can get the researcher to do some research on that.
Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Christie and Jerry. It's good to see you again.
The previous presenter focused in on the experiences the Jewish congress had about the difference between the public interest and what they saw in some circumstances as the professional interest, and how some of the teachers' organizations did not, in those circumstances, seem to be able to make the distinction. Given the fact that you've been advising the health professions, many of those who are becoming self-regulatory professions for the first time, and that they've had to look at that challenge -- what is the public interest and what is the professional interest -- what do you see has worked in terms of helping professions make that shift and what advice do you think you would give either the new College of Teachers or the government about how to assist teachers in understanding the difference in the two roles?
Dr White: Possibly I could start and we could continue with it. I think one thing that's different is that Ontario does have some tradition in terms of the health professions about the division. We've had, let's say, on the one hand the Ontario Medical Association, and on the other the College of Physicians and Surgeons, since before the turn of the century. We have the same situation with the Ontario Nurses' Association. So in a way, for the teachers, they're going to be going through a brand-new kind of hurdle.
Mrs Ecker: Like the midwives and dieticians.
Dr White: But many of them didn't have advocacy groups as strong before.
I think the previous speaker did quite an adequate job in the sense of pointing out, quite carefully, that the unions and associations have the responsibility of promoting the profession. I think that is their responsibility, and the better they do that, the better the colleges can regulate. It's the separation of those powers that gives the whole system its engine to work.
That's why we raised a caution around paragraph 10 of subsection 3(1) of the act, because this is very confusing. That separation is brought together and knitted because the college is told that one of its objects is to promote the profession. I think there's a very serious problem in that sense. I guess what we would say is that the better each side does its respective jobs, the better the whole will work.
Mr Skarica: One of the concerns that's been raised by the teachers' federations involves the discipline and investigation process, including the search and seizure provisions in this act. It's my understanding that this act has been modeled after similar provisions in the RHPA. What problems have you had in that discipline investigation area, if any, up to this point?
Ms Jefferson: To clarify, we're not the ones who do the investigating, that is the role of the colleges. There haven't been too many complaints that we've heard about those provisions specifically. Also, one of the advantages of having a group like ours is we do have the responsibility of evaluating the complaints and discipline system, specifically with regard to sexual abuse, but so many of the provisions are common ones, to look at exactly those kinds of issues. On the surface of it they seem to be working reasonably well.
One should note that the Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do, of course, supersede all this legislation, but it would be unfortunate if anyone had to go to the extent of having to go to court to address -- if these things are improperly used. So again, I think the more direction you can give in the act itself as to how you expect the college to behave, how you expect the profession to behave, I think is to everyone's advantage -- the more you can nail those things down, rather than leave them to court cases.
1200
Mr Carroll: We have the OMA and the OTF, they're professional bodies; we have the College of Physicians and Surgeons and now a proposed College of Teachers, regulatory bodies; then we have HPRAC. Who would serve that role in the education field?
Ms Jefferson: There is no equivalent to HPRAC in this bill, so what you have now are the colleges -- you're setting up a college. There'll continue to be professional associations, but there is no avenue for ongoing public policy review, if you will.
We look at the bigger issues like: Is the complaints and discipline system working fairly for both the complainant and the teacher? Are there provisions that sounded like a good idea but have ended up creating more problems that weren't thought of at the time? There is no equivalent to HPRAC.
Mr Carroll: Should there be?
Ms Jefferson: Of course, we're probably all biased, but I think it's useful. We sometimes will come up with a suggestion that differs from anything put forward by any party. Sometimes it's a compromise, sometimes it's a new way of looking at it and I think that arm's length from both government and the college and the professional associations is of use. Any of those groups or organizations, if they felt there was something wrong, could ask the minister -- in this case, the minister responsible for education -- to refer the whole problem and to come up with advice based on the public interest, clearly just based on the public interest. That's the advantage we have.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Thank you very much for the presentation. Something I'd like to go back to and take a closer look at is what you mention in some of your initial remarks regarding the structure of the act. You indicated that regulation of the workplace was here rather than the professionals and you touched a little bit on private schools.
Yesterday, we had a presentation by the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres and they have some concerns about schools located in first nation communities funded by the federal government. I am just wondering if you have any more comments regarding those particular --
Dr White: That's a very complicated question. I don't, and I can't pretend to talk about how those jurisdictions would work. My point and our point, to be really clear, is that if we move towards saying that teachers in this setting won't be regulated and teachers in that setting will, we're not regulating teachers. We're not regulating the profession. We think that is the problem.
If we have a situation where there are health professionals who are on federal payrolls within the jurisdictions of Ontario -- because this is a federation, and they don't fall under the College of Nurses, for example, or the other colleges in Ontario because they're not attached here. There could be exceptions, such as in the first nations case, but our comment was much more towards -- we would think it very dangerous to move to licensing workplaces.
Mr Patten: You mentioned it was important that this college be self-regulated, that principle, and I don't know if you heard the presentation this morning, but the definition of "teachers" is those who are licensed. The bone of contention from the teachers' federations, of course, is that some of these are not classroom teachers, they're not active practitioners as such and therefore they say they are not given the responsibility to be self-regulating because they're in a minority.
If you include the one teacher who comes from, let's say, the private school sector, then there are 15 -- there are 31 members and they say that does not constitute it because the others come from a faculty or from a supervisory position. In your colleges, what is the weighting of the value of being a practitioner in terms of that kind of status?
Dr White: It's a very complex issue and perhaps we might take it apart the other way. There are two separate questions. One is regulating the private school system, teachers within that system -- that should be done -- and any other teacher holding themselves out to be a teacher or carry on those responsibilities. But when it comes to the governing council, then you would pick for those members on the governing council from the membership of the college itself. So whomever you choose to be members of the college, that would be the constituency from which to elect those -- I believe it's 17 members.
I can understand the worry of anybody who looked at it and said, "If you're going to put appointees and others instead of letting us elect from ourselves, we may get to a point, wherever that point may be jurisprudence-wise, where you're not governing your own house. I can understand their point of view in this.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation and for coming to the committee this morning.
The committee stands adjourned until 3:30 next Monday.
The committee adjourned at 1206.